Just rescored the fight: Clottey got robbed no question

Workrate can be considered or fallen into the category of "effective aggression"

 

I wouldn't say robbery, but I scored the fight for Clottey too, and there was a very significant advantage in total punches, power punches and connect % in favor of Clottey.

If you turn down the sound of the very pro-Cotto crowd and the commentators, you'll see an effective Clottey and a really not effectve Cotto at work most of the time. But we score rounds not fights overall, so it was close, 114-113 on my card.

Personally I just don't see Cotto winning 6 rounds in this fight.

 

Workrate isn't necessarily effective aggression. If you throw 100 punches, but barely land anything, that is not very effective at all. But it's still workrate.

Effective aggression is the guy coming forward, throwing and landing the more effective punches. That's Clottey. How aggressive was Cotto on his backfoot the whole night?

 

On the backfoot the whole night?!

BS and you know it. Clottey was the one backing up in the first 3 rounds. The cut had Cotto taking a new approach to the fight. And even then he pushed Clottey forward many times throughout the fight. It wasnt until the 11th when Cotto decided to remain on the backfoot.

Workrate can be effective when you throw as many punches like Williams does. He hardly lands ****, but it's effective because it never allows the other fighter to get off in fear of getting caught with 1 or 2 punches...maybe even more.

And the subjective term in your statement is "effective punches"...that's debateable. Who knows whats effective and what isnt? Clottey was smart enough to shake his head after an exchange to show the judges "ineffective" aggression...but it very well could've been a lie to **** with Miguel's head. His facial expressions were surely different when he was actually GETTING hit.

 

hmm says... I've concluded that SD = robbery for the most part on esb....................... damn why have judges in the first place if ppl are always gonna disagree with their ruling? Might as well do away with judges and let the fighters fight until one drops.

 

it's no robbery but a draw is much better and a rematch must be set up

 

hahaha another thread about a robbery, all the press has it in favor for cotto... boxing has to get rid all the baby fans... thinking about it maybe its fans that is hurting boxing at times when people are crying about robbery esp in a type of fight like this one...

 

It was close fight but it wasn’t robbery. I had Cotto winning 115-113.

Rematch would be nice, but Cotto fighting against Paquaio or PBF is more interesting choice at the moment.

 

round 4 could be seen as a close yet arguable round to score for cotto. along with the crowds energy i felt that he did indeed steel it late.

anyway, i scored it 114-113 cotto.

 

Danny-rand you keep repeating that Clottey won 7 clear rounds as your reasoning that Clottey was robbed. But in your original post you only give Clottey 6 clear rounds and a close round. In fact there are 4 close rounds in total in the fight which means these rounds can be scored subjectively for either fighter. If this is the case you have no basis to state this was a clear robbery when there are a number of rounds where it could go either way.

 

i agree completely no way in hell can you give cotto 6 rounds in this fight every single round he eeked out bar the 6th. Round 4 which lampley said he dominated i think a case can be made for clottey and you can make a very good argument clottey swept rounds 7-11 on clean punching. Cotto was not effective off the back foot. There is a difference between lateral movement and running. Cotto does not move laterally whilst punching he throws a combination (most of which werent landing btw) then runs to another part of the ring. Thats not lateral movement and boxing thats avoidance.

P.S if fighter A throws a 6 punch combination and none land because fighter B blocks or evades them, fighter B should get credit. Defense is a criterion for scoring missed punches are not.