How much stock do you put into "official" results versus who you think won the fight?

I tend to give both guys credit, but usually side with the official results.

For example, Pacman-JMM II, I though JMM won but Pacman did so I place Pacman ahead of him in my p4p list but JMM is only 1 place behind.

 

I have my own opinions on whom won certain fights. I go by those.

With old fights that weren't filmed, sometimes you just have to go by popular belief.

 

I am somewhere in between. Even though I scored both Pac/JMM fights for JMM, a person has to realize that you can't hold it against Pac! All he did was show up and fight.....so, long story short, I give credit to BOTH guys for a great fight. The sad part is that ann amazing fighter like JMM will probably fade into obvlivion, simply because he got robbed a handful of times. So I give JMM more props than most. Thats just one example, if that clears up my way of thinking

 

I don't believe the result of a match is binary -- either L or W. There's a story within that ring each time there is a match, and that's what interests me.

Say Calzaghe versus Hopkins -- I expected Calzaghe to dominate through superior workrate and hurt Hopkins a tad. It didn't pan out that way -- Hopkins made Calzaghe look bad, but faded fast after the middle rounds.

Say Pavlik versus Taylor -- Pavlik was on unsteady legs after the knockdown in round 2, held on and won by TKO in the middle rounds.

Say Marquez vs Pac -- it was a close, competitive fight between two fighters with very dissimilar styles.

I won't discredit a single one of these fighters by putting half in the 'L' category and the other half in the 'W' category and say 'hey, these in this column are all equal.'

Doesn't work that way for me. I take it one interesting boxing match at a time, and draw my own conclusions. But I don't put much stock in records -- more of a 'who have you fought, when have you fought them, how did you do' kinda thing. The actual performance counts and helps shape the full picture of a fighter.

 

Unlike many posters on here who feel they're infallable, I realize that the sport is subjective and that close rounds that I score for one fighter could've easily gone to the other fighter. I'm also smart enough to realize that the professional judges sitting ringside are seeing a different fight than I am. They don't have announcers and punchstats that skew their opinion and they don't have the benefit of instant replay.

As a result, when I score a fight like Pac-JMM 2, I can give Pac credit for the victory even though I scored the fight for JMM. There wasn't 7 rounds that JMM definately won. Because of this, I factor in that personal bias could've contributed to my scoring. Perhaps I value certain parts of the sport more so than one or more of the judges. People need to realize that they can be wrong, that their opinion isn't the end all that be all. The only time I really get pissed at a decision is if I feel the losing fighter clearly won at least 7 rounds. Even then, I'm willing to concede that I scored in error if ringside observers and/or the announcers disagree with me.

For example, I felt that Mosley lost to Hoya the second fight. However, all 3 judges as well as many ringside observers scored the fight for Mosley. So clearly, they were seeing something that I didn't see by watching the fight at home. Althought I didn't agree with the decision, I still have no problem giving Mosley credit for that win.

 

No matter what . . . no matter how obvious "a robbery is" . . . the official results is the one that counts. Love it or hate it but we all just have to accept that.

Who I think won . . . is my personnal opinion and nobody can take that away from me . . . unfortunately it doesn't count.

 

Good post

 

I go with my own opinion if I watched the fight carefully. I wouldn't suggest that for you, because Pacquaio beat Marquez although Johnson did beat Dawson. I am just kidding man. If that is the way you feel so be it, we are all entitled. Another question is, do you also count knock downs that the ref does not? And do you discount points he takes away if you feel they are unwarranted? Do you throw out results of bias refs? I do all those things because I bet a lot and I have to be honest with myself about what each vicory really means, what it proved.

for example, Hatton vs Tszyu, in my mind, established Hatton as an extremely tough fighter, but I wouldn't call it victorious performance due to the reffing. I feel the same way about Hatton / Lazcano, I feel the ref took Lazcano's chance away and ruined the fight. Yet, I feel that Hatton won a close but clear points victory over Callazo, even though he may have lost in an emotinoal sense, because he was on his way out if it had gone much further.

I respect anybody's opinion that actually watches the fights and uses reason to determine their opinion.

The refs and the judges are so poor so often I don't put much stock in them. Although you certainly should try to find out as much about them as possible if you are going to bet.

 

My thoughts exactly

 

well put it this way, SANTA CRUZ is a lightweight world champion to me. casamayor got his ass whooped

 

One thing that drives me absolutely nuts, is that people make their top ten lists based on the official results even when you have a clear robbery. For example, Casamoyer clearly lost a wide decision to Cruz, yet The Ring and others don't hardly care.

You would think that that would be the one place where they could correct the BS, but they don't, instead, they strengthen the lies, the cement them by basing their rankings on them.