This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected
This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected
What did Glazkov to win this fight? He was very uneffectiv and landed almost nothing on Scott! Glazkov found no way to really get into Scott or land something big on Scott. Scott on the otherhand had his jab landing many times and also some power shots. Glazkov was the aggresor in this fight and you have to give him credit for that but he was just not effectiv with it. And in order to give points for "aggresion" it has to be effectiv... Glazkov only landed 27% of his punches! It was closer than many say it was (because I give Glazkov credit because he always started the action). But boxing is about landing punches while not getting hit and Scott was just the better and faster boxer this night. Landing almost 50 punches more than Glazkov It says all when Glazkov only gets a draw on his stage! They would give him the win but it was just not enough no win this fight so they gave him a draw. He can be very lucky about that! If Scott only had some power in his hands he would be the biggest threat to the Klitschkos!
"Aggression" is not the criteria for scoring a fight, "effective aggression" is. Glazkov was busy and threw plenty of nice looking punches but he didn't land anywhere near enough shots to win the bulk of the rounds. Scott made him miss with ease a lot of the time and left Glazkov looking lost. Personally, I'd have it 7-2-1 in favour of Scott. Easily the better fighter.
Well pretty much everything i have to say about this fight is in my initial post. What did Glazkov do? He consistantly landed more power shots than Scott in almost every round. I don't really care what the punch stats say as iv watched it twice very carefully for myself. As for all these supposed jabs Malik landed go ahead and tell me a single round where he landed more than 10 jabs to Glazkov's head, seriously watch it and tell me a round. From the 4th on he didnt throw or land his jab with any greater frequency than Glazkov and the vast majority of landed punches for both guys came at mid range during exchanges. Its amazing how some horrible commentary can completely distort peoples perception of what happened in a fight. A draw is a completely valid score but having it 2 points for either guy is fair. Anyone claming it was a robbery or schooling is incomprehensible to me. Its one of the most even fights i have seen in terms of action and skills and was beautiful to watch.
I've seen two Ortiz fights recently (vs Mendoza and Butler). He's definitely an interesting prospect. Have you seen any of his other fights? I can't seem to find any, so I'd love some insight.
All I know is yet again, I was robbed of a healthy win at the bookies because of bad judging. It's one thing to have a disgraceful vcash total, but now all these shockers are adding up to what would've been a good few rupees in my pocket.
I had it 96-94 Scott, it was much closer than the broadcasting crew saw it. Every time one of Scotts jabs grazed Glazkovs head they went crazy while never pointing out Glazkovs work to the body and him cutting off the ring effectively in the 2nd half of the fight.