Jean Pascal v Bernard Hopkins, thoughts.

I've always opposed drawn rounds, i don't do them, but the only person to ever present a good case to me for their existence is Sweet Scientist.

Anyway, i had Hopkins winning by 2 points

 

1. 10-8
2. 10-9
3. 10-8
4. 9-10
5. 9-10
6. 9-10
7. 9-10
8. 9-10
9. 9-10
0. 9-10
1. 9-10
2. 10-10

112-115 Hopkins

I can see the 10th and 12th for Pascal though which would make it a 113-113 fight. Close fight but it was clear that Hopkins is the better fighter. I´d love to see a rematch.

 

I thought Hopkins got the better of the first round but Pascal scored a clean knockdown which swung it. Because it was a flash knockdown and not a dominant round by Pascal I only awarded him the round by a 10-9 score.

 

This is how I had it as well :good

 

Fair enough. :good

 

Anyone score both 1 & 3 10-9 rounds? I haven't scored the whole fight yet but I believe the 1st round was pretty even and rightfully should've been a 10-8 round. Hopkins won the 3rd imo but got dropped by a flash kd so I felt that could've been a 10-9 round for Pascal. Pretty interesting when you think about it.

 

I only believe in them because of the empirical evidence of their existence, but i would like them to be ousted

 

There's no logical reason why a round can't be considered a draw. On the occasion that I've actually properly scored a fight (10 point must system and such), I recall giving plenty of them, although I'll always try to edge the round to one fighter. If they don't deserve it, however, I'll call it a draw.

But then I rarely score fights properly, anyway. I judge fights a lot more like Pride used to, rather than the UFC (for the MMA fans).:good

 

I believe that to say drawn rounds should not exist is completely wrong in every way imaginable, and contradictory to the very essence of all that boxing is and all that boxing should be. In short, my brain cannot even compute such a thoroughly bizarre belief. Dumbstruck. When boxing becomes a sport where judges arbitrarily decide on a winner based on no evidence whatsoever simply because they are refused the option to express their genuine opinion that a round was too evenly contested to declare one party a victor - that will be the day I retire as a fan of this sweetest of sciences.

 

Oh, and Hopkins beat Pascal clearly.

 

Totally agree:yep

It was'nt unknown even in ancient rome in the arena that evenly fought gladitorial contests had been halted by the editor & been adjudged a draw & both gladiators being awarded victors palm leaves & what is boxing if it ai'nt the true pure gladitorial combat of our times:smoke

 

If both guys throw 30 punches, land 5 each, and neither man has any conceivable advantage, and the judges are forced to randomly make one guy the winner of the round, boxing has ceased to be a sport. :deal

 

I figure this would all be obvious, and the logical perspective. I guess not.

 

Hopkins can't possibly have deserved the decision.

In what other sport could a 46 year old former champion come back and beat the best of the modern generation.

Sports evolve you know.