Jermell De'Avante Charlo vs. Brian Carlos Castaño II & Jaron Ennis vs. Custio Clayton RBR.

Pro boxers and ex boxers are rarely in agreement about the scoring of a match. As far as the DAZN commentary, or commentary in general don't get me started. In terms of how fans viewed Rounds 1-4 in Canelo Bivol, the fans are very split on who won these rounds, which is what I demonstrated with the reddit stuff. More people gave Charlo rounds against Castaño last night because he had a high work rate. That's my point, generally the fans side with the fighter who has the higher work rate. Many fans are not willing to give Canelo rounds because they don't value his work, primarily because he dosen't maintain a high work rate. The same thing happened in Charlo Castaño 1, Jermell did not have a high work rate and the vast majority called the result a robbery because Jermell did not have the work rate we saw in the 2nd match. Work rate and fan scoring generally go hand and hand. But work rate is not one of the judging criteria in professional prize fighting. That's the disconnect.

 

I'm something of a Canelo fight scoring outlier myself, as hardly anybody else views the Mayweather loss as being a total clean sweep and I'm part of a (large) minority that had Lara beating him in their snoozer on net effectiveness despite his negativity, and had Kovalev up several rounds as of the stoppage - but most people can nod along with my cards acknowledging they can see how I got there. I don't exist in a bizarro pocket universe like shadow where nobody can tell for absolute certain whether he's trolling. If there was extreme anti-Canelo bias on my end the way there blatantly is pro-Canelo bias on his, my stance wouldn't be that GGG defeated him close but clear twice. Neither was particularly wide or comfortable for GGG, and I've never said as much while others have. I also was a big Junior fanboy, and have never argued that he didn't mop up with Cotto.

 

I'm not in a bizarro pocket universe my man. How am I trolling by pointing out that the majority had Charlo ahead? I had the match scored a very reasonable 87-85 Charlo scoring it live, giving Castaño several very close rounds and scoring the 8th even. I could have given 1 or 2 of those to Charlo and had it more wide, but I didn't. I got many likes and compliments about how I scored it.

It's really pathetic that you're trying to act like my scoring is out of the ordinary here. Your scoring is out of the ordinary here, you're in the small minority with you having Castaño ahead and saying it was his fight to lose. You and a couple others saw a much different fight than the rest of us did. We saw Charlo well on his way to a clear UD and the stoppage was a result of that, but had Castaño survived and lasted 12 you and some others would be calling this a robbery.

 

Its hard to root for or against a boxer in a fight and judge it at the same time. There are people who are spot on when judging undercards and stuff but when it involves a hated or loved boxer their scores are off the rails.

 

To be honest no I don't. Charlo clearly won the last 3 rounds.. I scored it 6-3

 

Again, punch stats OBVIOUSLY mean a lot if we talk about scoring a fight on round by round base.

OBIOUSLY they mean **** if we talk about an outcome of a fight like we had last night.

Castano clearly felt the power and was rocked, hurt and buzzed a couple of times before he got finished.

Nevertheless he won a lot of rounds last night before he got stopped.

 

You are 100% in a bizarro pocket universe


I like that term

 

Ok so in a nutshell, you know better

 

In pro boxing effective damaging punches score more than the type of shots Castano was landing that were caught on the gloves or partially landing. I hate when people pick and choose when to use compubox, because they don't like Charlo suddenly compubox is the end all be all.

 

Like you were saying in the previous post, that late in the fight; that punch was more than enough to hurt. His guard was up. He attempted to block. But that amount of force ; that late in the fight we see his guard not strong enough to deflect .

 

In terms of scoring, FWIW (never much), I had it 85-84 Charlo (First two, plus 5, 7, and 9).

There were a lot of close rounds, so I wouldn't hate a scorecard that favored Castano by a point; but I also wouldn't hate a card that was a point wider in favor of Charlo, either.

 

I don't know what you're trying to do here. Do you want to justify that 8-1 Charlo card? I know how boxing fights are scored and i had Charlo ahead before the stoppage but barely. 5-4. 8-1 is a terrible and corrupt scorecard and the judge should be banned for life.

 

I had no dog in the fight, but I was pulling very slightly for Castano

I scored it 6-2 Charlo with one round even.

Both guys were classy at the post-fight interview.

 

I thought he was up by an 86–85 to 87–84 margin.

But I never bought that the first fight was a robbery — rather, by my estimation, a draw was exactly the right verdict *, though Nelson Vazquez' scorecard prevents me from saying that the judging was wholly fair.

The problem for Castaño was, he fought out of his skin that night, and it was hard to imagine him getting too much more out of himself, whereas Charlo looked to have room for improvement and knew what he was dealing with coming into a rematch, having appeared a little surprised by Castaño's tenacity and industry in the earlier encounter. Then factor in the power advantage — Charlo was more rattled/taken aback than hurt by Castaño's best blows last July, whereas Castaño was genuinely buckled by Jermell. Throw the likelihood of scoring chicanery on top of that (there was always going to be at least one judge in the bag for Jermell) and it was always going to require some kind of monumental showing for Castaño to emerge with the W last night.

Jermell fought hard and well, though, and deserved his victory.



* Before anyone takes issue with that position, here are some notes I made the morning after the fight but never ended up posting (I can't remember if I was banned at the time or just couldn't be bothered to participate);