**Please explain to me your logic as of why Clottey won last night**

OH **** YOU'RE LISTENING!!!!!!1111one

That means there's a GREAT chance that you'll be convinced, wow! You sure are objective!

 

Through the early and mid-rounds, Clottey overall was just landing better cleaner shots and being more effective.......

....through 8 rounds I had it 5 rounds to 2 and 1 even in favor of Clottey......

.....then down the stretch of the fight, Clottey lacked urgency......he let Cotto dictate the pace and the terms in which the championship rounds would be fought.....
.....and not that Cotto was all that effective in those last rounds......but he landed just enough clean shots for him to edge the last 3 rounds on my card.

115-114 Cotto on my card...the knockdown was the difference....though I felt that if Clottey would have fought with more urgency and spirit, considering that Cotto was blinded for long stretches of the fight, Clottey would have taken the fight quite easily imo.

Clottey lost the fight more than Cotto won it imo!

 

cotto had to box the last few rounds. Thats not running thats called boxing. I beleive the only reason he did it was because of his eye. Clottey didn't do anything the last two rounds. Dont get me wrong Clottey put up a good fight just didnt finish strong and that cost him the fight.:rasta

 

The amounts of punches landed doesn't really matter when you score the fight round by round. I've seen many fights were the winner landed fewer punches than the loser. Cotto won the fight on activity, he threw more punches per round and Clottey decided not to throw many punches in the last couple rounds because he was gassed. I had it 114-113 Cotto.

 

I just rewatched it and I scored it 114-113 for Cotto, and alot of the rounds were close. Last night I was upset because I thought Cotto fought dirty, but when I was able to pause the action at thoes moments I saw that they were not intential fouls, and the headbut was also accidental. Great fight close but not a robbery.

 

Are you really sure about this?

 

Yes he is correct.

 

cotto rounds 1 3 4 6 11 12

clottey rounds 2 5 7 8 9 10

Cotto score a first round nockdown so he won fair and square.

 

The "logic" is that Clottey landed a higher number of punches through the entire fight, that many of those punches seemed to be more effective and more clean than the shots Cotto threw.

But - it's only "logic' when you involve people who don't understand the rules of the 10 point must system. Anyone giving Clottey the fight is doing so because they saw him land the harder shots and take the entirety of the fight into account.

Anyone giving Cotto the fight is doing so because they scored the fight on a round by round basis and didn't give Clottey extra rounds just because he dominated one or two rounds heavily.

 

So why is it called the "10 point must system" where the winner gets 10 points and the loser less than 10? My understanding was that the only way for both fighters to get less than 10 was from a points deduction?

 

Not all fights are on the 10 point system.

 

But this one was......

 

it's still the 10 point must system. fighter A dominates round 1 for 2:55. in the last 5 seconds he gets hit clean and goes down flash knock down. I score the round 10-9 in favor of fighter A and then minus 1 point for the knockdown. 9-9 i'm still using the 10 point must system.

same as if i was winning a round cleary 10-9 then got deducted a point for a lowblow making it 9-9.

 

i had clottey winning it.

after round 8, i had it even because of the knockdown and i thought clottey winning 3 of the last 4.

the commentators as also the crowd was largely pro-cotto. but come on man, 116-111?

 

Getting deducted for a low blow is a totally different issue, then you can get 9-9 rounds but I'm really not sure you can get them with out that. The rules for the 10 point system read something like "the winner of the round shall get 10 points, the loser less than 10". I'm obviously paraphrasing but thats broadly how its worded.