HBO: Billy Joe Saunders vs. David Lemieux & Gary O'Sullivan vs. Antoine Douglas RBR.

Phil Edwards , the British judge has been scoring title fights since you were prepubescent, several hundred of them. If he shouldn't be judging, someone might probably have noticed by now.

And regarding Mayweather- Canel, your score is very much a minority take, then and now.
So unless you feel yourself to be the GOD of scoring and judging, you got that wrong.

In your defence, if you understood the meaning of th word ARGUABLY, and were to use it correctly in a sentence, you might say (correctly) "Mayweather arguably shutout Canelo"

But if you didn't grasp the meaning of the word ARGUABLY, you might, as you have , incorrectly state:

"Lemieux didn't "arguably win a couple of rounds".

 

didn't see that fight, nor will i ever. knowing the history of brit judging, i doubt the foreigner got robbed. boxing has been known to be corrupt longer than i have been alive. same with other judgement based sports. figure skating, gymnastics, etc.

 

I understand what it means. I don't see a reasonable argument for giving Lemieux a round.

 

Then you CLEARLY DON'T UNDERSTAND what the word means.

 

Overly defensive? WTH
Lemieux didn't win a round against Saunders. And this isn't a case of using the world "arguably". He DIDN"T win a round no matter what the judges posted. 117-111 and 118-110 were disgraceful scores and you know it so stop the GG dick riding.

 

No, you don't understand what the word means. You shouldn't even be arguing with IB. Youre taking up another's mans worthless outlook. Lemieux didn't win a ****en round, and he didn't arguably win a round either.

 

"As can be supported or proven by sound logical deduction, evidence, and precedent"

You said yourself that you (conveniently!!) were not in a position to be able to rewind in order to count & compare the connections of both men. I, like a gentleman , offered you the recourse of doing so in order that you might reconsider your original stated opinion that Lemieux seemed to have won the 12th.

At your earliest convenience, go ahead and perform said tally. Time stamp punches landed. If you come up with a higher # for Lemieux than Saunders, do let me know and I'll have a look, and then your argument will be "supported or proven by sound logical deduction, evidence, and precedent".

Of course boxing (outside the old amateur system) isn't just about counting punches, you might argue. But of course. So then show me a really EFFECTIVE punch by Lemieux in the 12th. Show me where he landed really flush or hurt Saunders. Again, time stamp it and I'll have a look at your "evidence".

Barring that, explain to me how Lemieux was the ring general in the 12th. We can put up a poll once the video is uploaded, with the video timestamped to begin at the start of the 12th, and we'll see how many people think Lemieux was the ring general in that round.


Otherwise, if he landed less, didn't land effectively, and wasn't the ring general, then...what IS your "argument" for him? Under the scoring criteria of boxing?

 

Do you believe that Lemieux won 2 rounds, or are you just siding with the point? You don't believe Lemieux won a round which is what's hilarious about your weak argument.

 

What rounds were they?

 

I couldnt get to watch it, will watch the replay tomorrow, but I know deep in my heart Golovkin beats Saunders, enough with this Gypsy slickness BS

 

The way people are describing Billy Joe Saunders in this match, gives me the impression that Golovkin might have his hands full against the Middleweight Gypsy prince.

 

Guys are arguing over who beat who easier. Both whipped Lemieux's ass. That's why I never go the "easier, sooner, or more impressive" route in boxing.

I learned my lesson early watching boxing when Foreman beat Norton and Frazier in 2 rounds and both Norton and Frazier gave Ali hell...and Ali beat all 3 and tko'd Foreman.