the what fights did you watch today\scorecard thread.

Watched a Lindell Holmes double-feature today. Not going to say you guys have to see these. Nothing really eventful.

Lindell Holmes v Sugarboy Malinga

Round 1: 10-9 Holmes
Round 2: 10-10 Even
Round 3: 10-9 Holmes
Round 4: 10-9 Malinga
Round 5: 10-9 Holmes
Round 6: 10-9 Holmes
Round 7: 10-9 Holmes
Round 8: 10-9 Holmes
Round 9: 10-9 Holmes
Round 10: 10-10 Even
Round 11: 10-9 Holmes
Round 12: 10-9 Holmes

Total: 119-111 Holmes (actual scores: 116-112, 116-112 and 117-113 all for Holmes)

I just felt Malinga fought the wrong fight fighting an inside fight with a noted banger instead of boxing.

Chris Eubank v Lindell Holmes

Round 1: 10-9 Holmes
Round 2: 10-9 Holmes
Round 3: 10-9 Eubank
Round 4: 10-9 Eubank
Round 5: 10-9 Eubank
Round 6: 10-9 Holmes
Round 7: 10-9 Eubank
Round 8: 10-9 Eubank
Round 9: 10-9 Eubank
Round 10: 10-10 Even
Round 11: 10-9 Eubank
Round 12: 10-9 Eubank

Total: 117-112 Eubank (actual scores: 120-109, 116-114 and 117-112 all for Eubank)

Holmes was creaking by this time at almost 36. He just kept getting slower and slower as the fight wore on. Still, he tagged Eubank a few times just to let him know he was there. Like I said earlier, both these fights are not on a 'must see' list.

 

I thought Duran looked in good physical shape and motivated for this one and there was enough there to suggest he could still be competitive.

I think this was considered his latest comeback fight (at least on a main stage) after the Hearns KO two years earlier at the same venue. But he didn't actually fight again after the Sims fight for nearly a year. When he did though, he strung together 5 wins that got him the shot against Barkley.

 

Roberto Duran v Iran Barkley

This my second time scoring this one and my total is the same as the first time, although how I got there is slightly different.

I think Barkley was leading early in the fight, Duran came back in the middle rounds before Barkley interrupted that momentum by staggering Duran in the 8th and then Duran bounced back to take the next three culminating in the 11th round knockdown that swung the fight his way.

The official scoring was wider than you'd expect. 116-113 Barkley and 116-112 Duran I can see but 118-112 for Duran was too wide.

I watched this with the sound on because I wanted to enjoy the atmosphere and not just focus on scoring. I thought Al Bernstein and Gil Clancy did a good job in the commentary box - they both thought Barkley was ahead until the knockdown but that moment changed the complexion of the fight. They also thought it was the best performance they'd seen from Barkley which I think is right. He showed some strings to his bow that people didn't think he had - a disciplined performance based off a consistent jab and focussed body attack. Which makes Duran's performance all the more impressive.

They were both on it that night and served up a classic in an incredible fight atmosphere. I wish I could have been there - but I was 12 and living in England and wasn't really into boxing properly then. Ho hum.

RBR:
1 10-9 (Duran staggers Barkley at the end of the round to take it)
2 9-10
3 10-10
4 9-10 (great round!)
5 9-10
6 10-9
7 10-9 (fantastic action)
8 9-10 (clear Barkley round)
9 10-9 (Duran edged it)
10 10-9 (Duran clear)
11 10-8 (Duran's comeback within a comeback - puts Barkley down)
12 9-10 (close final round - more great action)

Duran 115-113 Barkley

Duran wins 6 rounds to 5 with 1 even.

 

Joe Gans vs McGovern.

I watched the remastered version by elusive blue.

As much as I'd love to believe its legit, it isn't possible given the literature, the betting patterns, the nature of the fight, the aftermath and the footage itself.

The first knockdown is dodge as hell and the rest were for show imo.

Fun to watch but so is WWE.

 

I like this fight, I'm sure I had the same score but I gave 12 to Duran.

 

Watched a Lindell Holmes fight recently myself as it goes, @scartissue. Seeing as you've given him some lines I may as well chuck mine in here.

Darrin Van Horn W KO 11 Lindell Holmes, IBF Super-Middleweight title, 1991

A good and enjoyable fight, this one. The educated, classy left of Holmes against the heavier, more aggressive right of Van Horn. The only downside was too much holding in close, but some great action and ebb and flow otherwise.

R1: Holmes (could have been a 10-8 as Van Horn's knees were dipped to the point of grazing the canvas, while momentarily grabbing the rope, but the referee decided there was an element of slip to it)
R2: Holmes
R3: Holmes
R4: Van Horn
R5: Van Horn
R6: Van Horn
R7: Holmes
R8: Van Horn
R9: Holmes
R10: Holmes

So going into the eleventh round, I had Holmes up 96-94.

I think there were two determining factors in this fight. First, the fact that Holmes was getting a little long in the tooth, and was against a simply younger, fresher man here who physically had more in reserve. But the other factor, which means we still have to give Van Horn credit, were Darrin's excellent body shots which he was landing throughout.

Holmes had good timing early on, making light of the height and reach disadvantages. His jab was landing nicely, but that faded as the fight wore on and things became scrappier. Van Horn was a bit more wild, and his jab was virtually non-existent, but he was very aggressive with what he did throw and kept trying to switch up the range and tempo, which gave Holmes problems. Van Horn another one of those who could look light on his feet dancing away at range, but didn't have particularly good or effective offensive footwork to close off the ring or get set to let his hands go.

But his body punches, particularly with the right, were really good and crisp throughout the fight. Visibly helped slow a possibly already faded Holmes down, and of course after hurting Holmes early in the 11th he finished him off with a crunching left to the body. Very impressive display of punching downstairs by Van Horn, even if he was behind before getting the knockout. Holmes, after looking ragged and tired in the middle rounds, produced a big effort in rounds 9 and 10 which looked as if it might swing the fight fully in his favour - but I think that big effort took a lot out of him, and he was running on fumes in round 11. Van Horn took advantage.

Not a bad fight at all.

 

Gans vs Herman

I don't care what anyone says, this to me looks every bit as modern as Floyd Mayweather in his prime.

I don't think there's anything Floyd would have done better in this fight compared to what Gans did.

In fact Gans has some amazing uppercuts on the back foot and I'm not sure Floyd ever mastered that shot tbh.

But not only does Gans look every hit as good as Floyd (apart from when he's taking a dive vs Terry) he has two distinct advantages over Floyd

1) he fought any and everyone whether they were prime or not so his level is abundantly clear

2) he had a punch as 100 career KOs will tell you.

I actually really enjoy it when I see a pioneer like this in action. Obviously this isn't the first time I've seen this fight, but it's food to remind myself every now and again.

I know there are some fighters from this era who wing hooks and square up (to be fair there's some fighters today who do the same) but some one like Gans passes the eye test in every way possible.

 

I actually never saw this bout, but recalling my surprise when I heard the result at the time. I thought Holmes would have gone through him. But like you said, he was aging fast. I'll have to check this one out.

 

Benny Leonard vs Lew Tendler

Aside from Lew landing that huge left, Benny was never really troubled here.

I love the way he adapted, Lew was able to time that jab and counter over the top early on when Benny was jabbing on the back foot, but towards the back end of the fight you see Benny bounce from foot to foot and throw in a lead straight, you later see him skip to the side with a single uppercut.

Benny Leonard for me, has everything in the ring. He's nigh on perfect. He has the technique and timing, but also has the athleticism and speed. His power is not a question nor is his stamina.

The only knock on his career is the spate of losses in his first 12 month as a pro, but i guess that's his apprenticeship into the sport.

The first 4 years of his career aren't that impressive, but from 17 onwards he really came into his own.

As for a comparison between him and Gans, I honestly can't call it.

Technique they're very similar, but maybe Leonard has a slight edge in footspeed and can do those unpredictable Pacquiao style attacks as well as the jab and move style.

Usually, by default, I class Whitaker as the best lightweight boxer of all time. I might need to rethink that now tbh.

 

It was close but I gave it to Barkley both times.

 

Luf, I watched this myself today.

I don't see Gans as modern, but that doesn't mean I don't see him as being good. He has a very 'of-the-times' style; his defence is often mistook as a hands-down, reflex based, unskilled thing. That couldn't be further from the truth IMO. Gans used his feet to position himself at angles where they couldn't land, and used parries concomitantly to his jab. A jab which imo, is one of the best of that era. I love the way he turning it into a stiff arm.

He also was a master clincher. He showed it here, how well he could dominate from the outside, moving in and out, jabbing his way in and counter-punching on the front-foot. But that's not even his speciality, as I'm sure you know, he was an all-time great clincher. He has Durán-escque mastery in the clinch IMO.

Given how many of his tricks were passed on through the eras, Gans has to be one of the best ever.

 

When I say modern, what I mean to say is I think he could fight with that style today no problems whatsoever.

He is a master clincher and actually it's that beautiful hybrid that made him the greatest of his day. He could maul and brawl with the best of them and he could just as easily box and move with the bets of them.

But when you see him fire out that jab on the back foot, step to the side throw a 1-2, sook under a hook and fire back with an uppercut, it's beautiful.

I really do see him as a superior fighter to Floyd in terms of the style they employ. Because I see him as in that mould of fighter, but proven at a more consistent level, with brutal power to back it up.

You see guys like LaBarba for example and think they'd have no chance today (although Froch goes a long way towards proven that wrong as his caveman at tlr of fighting was enough to fire him to top of his division) but then you see someone like Gans and I think yeah, he would smash Linares for example.

 

This content is protected

Cool little style clash, and a fun fight to practice scoring.

This content is protected

10 : 9
10 : 9
9 : 10
10 : 9 (39/37)
9 : 10
10 : 9
10 : 9
9 : 10 (77/75)
9 : 10
10 : 9
10 : 9
10 : 9 (

This content is protected

)

Yeah, as I said, some hard rounds to score. Fun fight though, well worth watching. Most of Barkley's are. He just has an agreeable style, don't you think?

I think both of these guys were pretty talented, and both underachieved.

 

You think Barkley underachieved? How so?

 

Well, I think he lost a lot of fights he should've won. His record is obviously deceiving, but I think it could've been much better looking if he'd stayed disciplined more and boxed, rather than get involved in year ups. When he sat back, let people come to him and used a jab and lateral movement, he wasn't bad at it, he just didn't do it much. Don't get me wrong, he's no Michael Nunn. I just think his record could've been a bit better. He also could've beaten a couple guys he never fought too imo. Eubank for example, I think he could've exploited Chris' low output and bad balance.

Better management and a better mindset probably would've took him further imo. He also could've got himself a few close decisions he lost too if he had those imo.