I used to think that American judges liked the boxer in the middle of the ring, that they liked the busier boxer, the aggressor. Yet when Welshman Tommy Farr fought Joe Louis for his heavyweight title at Yankee stadium, Tommy went forward for 15 rounds, the two judges gave the bout to Louis 9-6 and 8-5-2 and the referee scored it 13-1-1 :?to Louis. When another Welshman Colin Jones challenged Milton McCrory for the World welterweight crown in Reno, Jones bossed the fight, taking the centre of the ring, attacking, throwing and landing lots of punches and also throwing the most hard shots too. {Jones was known for his hard punches} yet the judges scored the fight a draw, when McCrory spent most of the fight running away.:shock: There was a rematch in Vegas that followed a similar pattern but at least McCrory had Jones down early in the fight, this time the judges scored a split decision verdict in the Americans favour. Oh well at least Joe Calzaghe got the nod over another defensive hometown boxer in Bernard Hopkins, if Joe had lost i would have advised Welsh boxers never to fight in the states again, as they would have more chance of winning in Germany .
i think it's just that americans hate wales and the welsh in general. all joks aside judges like to see punches thrown and land...if you throw a shallow left hook (which means it is more of an angle jab) then it isnt as impressive. i also feel there is a confidence game involved with judges. if a guy is punching solildly not reacting to punches using movement and an array of punches like delahoya for example. it gives the feeling that he is in charge. if a guy turns away or acts out of the ordinary then it looks like he is in distress and might seem like he isnt winning the round i got this impression in the way juan urango fought against naoufel ben rabah, in that rabah was moving alot but was also running out of corners and clinching but still doing alot of work and was outboxing him. but urango was bull like and was landing solid 3 hit wide punches to rabahs gaurd that looked impressive but you know it wasnt effecting or destablising rabah, also when rabah landed a great combo of a jab, cross, left uppercut urango didnt move or show any distress but just covered up and kept moving forewards. talkign abotu tommy farr was that farr even though was getting the better of louis, by throwing more punches and catching him at odd places of the ring, he still looked ungainly while the more composed louis was moving with a solid jab.
glad everyone liked my little one liner i think americans tend to favour aggresion in the last 30 years i think it was more technique and actual skills before in europe it tends to be more skills and defence is better than aggresion
The winner of the round should be the fighter that gets hurt less in said round. Boxing is a type of fighting. The person dealing out the most pain should be considered winning. Someone once told me that my view on scoring is biased towards punchers. That is not the case. Pernell Whitaker is one of my favorite fighters, and I can say that I only thought he lost 2 fights in his entire career. Those were his last two. I don't always feel like the fighter that lands the most punches is the winner. I thought that Evander Holyfield deserved the victory in his rematch with Riddick Bowe. Riddick Bowe outlanded Holyfield in that fight. Bowe is also a harder puncher. I still felt Evander landed the more effective punches.
