Josh James William Taylor vs. Jack Catterall & Robeisy Ramirez vs. Eric Donovan RBR.

This is complete nonsense.I scored the fight 115-110 to Catterall this watching with the sound muted as i always do when watching live.As for your comments that the sky commentary was biased they were just saying it as it was when in fact it would be in their better interests to have Taylor winning

 

Still haven't watched the fight aside from some highlights.

It must have been a REALLY bad decision if people are still talking about it.

 

I watched it live from the floor seats. Taylor won by a point for me. Catterall had over 400 punches not land, he spent most of the fight holding and the majority of his high activity was ineffective.

Watched it once I got home - the Sky commentary was ridiculously biased towards Catterall. I've since watched on ESPN and have it to Taylor 113-112 or a draw.

 

He left Warren last year. Sky wanted Catterall to win as he's pretty much a free agent and they could sign him up. 'Boxxer's first male world champion' etc.

In the last few years on Sky there's been Katie Taylor v Delfine Persoon, Zelfa Barrett v Kiko Martinez, Campbell Hatton v Martinez, Lewis Ritson v Miguel Vazquez - all 'robberies' by Sky fighters and Sky have barely said a peep. Hatton lost 5/6 rounds and they just moved on. When K. Taylor fought Persoon in New York Nelson was straight on camera saying 'every fighter needs a bit of luck' yet you've got Adam Smith and Ben Shalom saying they're appealing to the board etc over this. Pull the other one.

 

Frankly it doesn`t matter whether you think Sky wanted to win or not. The fact is the HUGE majority of professional boxers feel Catterall won.Of coarse you will name a few who didn`t but they are in a very small minority.I watched the fight as a neutral with no preference for either fighter where as you are obviously a huge fan of Josh and therefore viewed this fight differently.Just face it your man was gifted a decision,end of story

 

Your constant appeal to the masses is absolutely meaningless and is not really an argument. Most people don't understand the concept of clean punching (aka not punching with inside glove, not punching elbows, hips, arms and gloves). And most people are quite frankly, thick as ****e. They watch the fight once without keeping an eye on attention to detail, make a judgement, then blag on about how they're right without listening to rational things that say otherwise.

I watched it once and had it 6 rounds a piece but many of those rounds were close because of the nature of the fight. Taylor absolutely has a case for winning the fight, you're acting like this is not the case

 

I am a huge fan of Josh but if I thought he'd lost I'd say so mate. Lomachenko is my favourite boxer and I think Teofimo is an absolute nob but I can say I thought Lopez beat Loma.

 

At least we are in agreement on the Lopes v Loma fight

 

This is absolutely spot on.

'I watched it once on tele listening to Adam Smith and Sky so I can safely Catterall won.'

 

I've seen your posts about Canelo, we don't need to continue this conversation.

 

Who's Adam Smith?

 

The point remains that Josh is the Sky boxer, not Catterall.
A Josh victory is in their best interests as that Top Rank deal is keeping them in the game. A Josh victory is in their best interests as he's a bigger venue filler than Catterall.

They had zero reason to be biased towards the foreigner. Despite all that they still couldn't give the fight to Taylor. Because they saw what everybody else saw, which was a very comfortable win for Jack

 

The only case he has is the case of robbery. End of!!

 

What you mean where you failed to provide a logical and meaningful rebuttal to my posts because you got embarrassed with your pants down?

Good one coward. Your opinion on anything boxing pretty much holds zero weight after that

 

@aaaaa

Here we go again