the what fights did you watch today\scorecard thread.

Wilfredo Gomez v Raul Silva

Nice short one in which Gomez had a tune up prior to his megafight with Sanchez.

Gomez went on the attack from round 1, showing zero respect for his opponent’s abilities, which was fine as Silva was overmatched, scoring a KD in round 2 and then finishing him the next round.

Of course, he took the same approach against Sanchez and that didn’t go so well…

 

Wilfred Benitez W15 Carlos Palomino(WBC Welterweight Title)
1: Benitez 10-9
2: draw 20-19
3: Benitez 30-28
4: draw 40-38
5: Palomino 49-48
6: draw 59-58
7: Palomino 68-68
8: draw 78-78
9: draw 88-88
10: Benitez 98-97
11: Palomino 107-107
12: draw 117-117
13: Palomino 126-127
14: Benitez 136-136
15: Benitez 146-145
Opinion:very close fight,I liked how Benitez handled it in the last 2 rounds,yet I also appreciate the tenacity of Palomino himself,as this fight could've really gone either way as Palomino just kept coming back and back.

 

My card:

Carlos Palomino v Wilfred Benitez (welterweight title)

Round 1: 10-10 Even
Round 2: 10-10 Even
Round 3: 10-9 Benitez
Round 4: 10-9 Palomino
Round 5: 10-9 Palomino
Round 6: 10-9 Benitez
Round 7: 10-9 Benitez
Round 8: 10-9 Benitez
Round 9: 10-9 Benitez
Round 10: 10-9 Palomino
Round 11: 10-9 Benitez
Round 12: 10-10 Even
Round 13: 10-9 Palomino
Round 14: 10-9 Benitez
Round 15: 10-9 Benitez

Total 146-142 Benitez

 

Been on a Johnny Tapia kick lately. Started watching his fight with Arthur Johnson today and was enjoying it until it went from the 5th round to the 7th. Totally hate that and aborted it. But I did alight on...

Johnny Tapia v Famosito Gomez

A terrific little contest with both getting their licks in. I only gave Gomez a share of the 2nd before it was stopped between rounds 6 and 7 on multiple cuts suffered by Gomez. But every round was close with the 6th round about the best when Gomez knew he was in danger of the doctor stopping the contest. I had it 60-55 after 6 completed rounds.

 

Fight was quite competitive, although Palomino's good big shots and inside work did the work for me.

 

2002-12-20 Masamori Tokuyama SD12 Gerry Penalosa II (WBC Super Flyweight Title)
Round 1: 9:10
Round 2: 9:10*
Round 3: 8:10* (Tokuyama loses a point for headbutt)
Round 4: 9:10
Round 5: 9:10*
Round 6: 9:10
Round 7: 9:10*
Round 8: 9:10*
Round 9: 9:10*
Round 10: 10:9
Round 1: 9:10*
Round 1: 10:9*
Final Score: 109:118 Penalosa (Official Scores: 113:114 Penalosa, 114:113 Tokuyama, 116:111 Tokuyama)

Very different fight than very clean first one between the two some 15 months earlier.

Penalosa came out much faster and was much more consistant with his aggression throughout. He was not as methodical as usually. The gameplan was clearly to swarm Penalosa, not give him room or time to think. Despite his aggression, Penalosa was very solid defensively - with good guard and great hands positioning while opening up, what made it very difficult for Tokuyama to counter effectively.
The champion was very negative throughout. There was a lot to like defensively. Despite fighting with his hands low, He was able to move his head, turn his opponent, clinch - and did not allow Penalosa to do much damage. Problem for him was, He was not able to land much himself. Most of his punches were landing on the gloves, elbows or shoulders of the challanger.
What made most damage were the head-butts, which left Penalosa with couple nasty cuts around his eye and on his cheek.

Penalosa was made to miss a lot, there were not many rounds where He separated himself by a clear margin - but I felt He was landing more and landing cleaner in almost every round... and was clearly the better man.
I don't like the scoring at all, but the nature of scoring system makes it a bit difficult to call it robbery. It was not quite as clear round by round - as the In Joo Cho rematch.
What I can definitely say is that in my eyes, Penalosa proved himself to be clearly the better man in the two fight rivalry between the two, despite fighting in his opponent's ring.

It was sad to look at Gerry's disappointment as He sat in the ring, looking at the floor - after the decision was announced. He probably should've been reining champion from 1997 all the way to 2002 and despite 4 losses in title fights in that time span, noone really got better of him in the ring at Super Flyweight.
If You switch the result more to what They should be... would He not be a Hall of Fame candidate?

 

How comes you have so many even rounds ? I noticed in every RBR you have alot of even rounds. The Barkley vs Hearns 2 write up you did had like 8 even rounds which I found bizarre.

 

I tried to score my fights with using the "most landed punches,most clear punches" rules, sometimes a fighter can outland and outwork the other,but the other had the better punches,landing cleaner in the head,for those cases I score it a draw, Barkley-Hearns II were kind of like that, that's why I once asked to give y'all opinions on scoring fights,these type of fights confuses me...

 

Fair enough thanks for the reply I just wanted to know your thought process.

 

I don’t know that I have a well-formed philosophy about it that I favor A over B so much as I take each fight on its own merits.

I gave Roberto Duran a lot of credit vs Hagler, for instance, because of his crisp boxing, accuracy and clean combos, although I had Marvin grinding him down in the end to pull out a close verdict on my card.

I knew a successful football coach who had one of those sayings framed on his wall right behind his desk, so you’d see it if you were sitting across from him. It said: Don’t confuse activity with accomplishment. I think that sums up how I look at fights to a degree, but a lot of it to me is who imposes his will and dictates the terms of combat — a mover who reduces a round to, say, three or four exchanges over three minutes can be highly effective in my eyes, whereas someone else favors the aggressor. To me it’s not effective aggression if he can’t cut off the ring and force the guy into a fight instead of a boxing match … it’s a puppy dog following someone around, wagging his tail.

 

Hnmm,so trapping your opponent,cornering him and breaking him down still counts...

 

Of course. There are four points to scoring which judges are supposed to use.

One of those is effective aggression.

That doesn’t mean ‘took forward steps,’ it mens did so effectively. Which to me means if the other guy is moving, cutting him off and forcing the terms of combat.

Easy examples:

Roberto Duran was effectively aggressive in Leonard I. He wasn’t very effective even though he was the aggressor in Leonard II. (Let’s not even get into Duran vs Hearns, haha.)

 

But imo,looking at Leonard vs Duràn II's analysis Duràn did trap Leonard int eh middle rounds,forcing him to go toe-to-toe again,until his gas tank was gone and he quits.

 

It wasn’t a shutout, agreed, but Duran was more ineffective in his aggression than effective.

 

I see your point, considering Duràn can still be spun to the ropes and Leonard can still angle out,I just saw it that Duràn hits Leonard's hips and forces him into the fight.