Pavlik vs. Taylor - Who won?

I'm no fan of the 10 point must, but that said, there is enough criteria for a judge to award rounds. In a non title fight, where the challanger doesn't have to take the belt, you don't have a fight with two counter punchers. Therefore, you have to give credit to the guy making the fight by coming forward and initiating. He has to be rewarded for that risk or nobody comes to the next fight because there wasn't a first fight! Taylor's counter punch defense meant more in the first fight because it was up to KP to take the title from him. With no belts on the line, Kelly gets credit for making the fight.

 

BS. Fights are supposed to be judged on their own merits and anyone who believes that the challenger has to rip the title from the champion is an idiot. Also points should not be scored for aggression, they should be scored for clean shots otherwise fighters would just pump out jabs into their opponent's guard all night. It seems that a lot of people have awarded rounds to Pavlik for pushing his punches into Jermain's gloves and elbows.

You and Dave Moretti need to learn the difference between what is a scoring shot and what isn't.

I'm not disputing Pavlik getting the nod but he certainly didn't do enough to get 117 - 111. It was a close fight and in front of different judges the result could have been very different.

 

No where do I use the word "aggression". My first point is simple. You put two counter punchers in the ring and there is NO FIGHT. I didn't say the chalenger should have to rip the title from the champ, but that does seem to be some unwritten rule. Privilege has its perks.

My second point is, the guy on the attack needs some incentive to attack. The scoring rules allow for that. (or so the non-official sites I can find on the net claim)

On the feed I saw, I had it a draw with a slight edge to Taylor. I simply could not see it well enough to make a decision based on merit.

 

atsch

 

I had it 116-112 in favor of Pavlik.