These 80s fighters vs these 50s fighters

Hagler
Moore
Holmes
Tyson
Walcott
Qawi
Holyfield
Patterson
Robinson

80’s 5-4

 

So we have two 50/50s and 7 split decisions meaning both guys won according to the judges...? Careful you don't get splinters in your ar5e.

When you pick a split decision, are you basically saying draw? For me, thinking split decision might be taking into factors like fighter A dominating but fighter B enjoying a favourable relationship with the local commission or each fighter having very different styles and the judges having similarly differing tastes/ideas of how a fighter should fight?

I don't know. I suppose I'm saying SD is like saying a draw. And it's something I've noticed you do a lot. Sorry if that sounds critical. To be fair it is meant as a criticism because I think you make really good points and show a lot of knowledge and it would be good to see you stick your neck out more and make a firm choice. I don't know why you don't because you often show that you could back it up with knowledge and analysis. Again, apologies for the pompous tone. I have meant it as a compliment but I've had too crap a day to be nice to anyone without at least chucking a couple of barbs their way, too.

 

When I say SD I merely mean that I think Guy A has a stylistic advantage over Guy B, but that the fight is close, and that Guy A wins on points, rather than convincingly.

 

LaMotta v Hagler=Hagler
Moore v Spinks=Spinks
Marciano v Holmes=Holmes
Tyson v Liston=Liston
Walcott v Witherspoon=Witherspoon
Harold Johnson v Qawi=Qawi
Charles v Holyfield=Holyfield
Dokes v Patterson=Patterson
Robinson v Leonard=Robinson

6-4 for the eighties. Kind of surprised to be honest. I really like a lot of the 50's guys but these particular matchups are tough for them.

 

Say that then. Close win on points for fighter A.

When you say SD, you're ranking the consistency of the judging or the inability of three men or women to achieve a consensus. I'd rather know who you think would win.

 

LaMotta v Hagler-Hagler pounds a very game LaMotta. UD 12, mostly one-sided.
Marciano v Holmes-In a terrific fight, Marciano rocks the hell out of Larry and floors him hard in the 7th. Holmes buckles down and starts really twisting the jab, smothering Marciano's rushes and at one point making his eyes roll up in his head with the uppercut. Rocky is staggering bad in the championship rounds but stays up and even staggers Larry himself in the last round. UD Holmes...a reasonably wide decision.
Tyson v Liston- Mike is overwhelmed by Liston's complete lack of fear and jab. Though Sonny has got ugly ass bumps on his face from Mike's amazing two-fisted assault he makes Mike fall down in the 9th round twice and the ref stops it.

 

Moore, Patterson and Robinson would start as favourites with me but the card's a bit loaded in favour of the 80's guys. Looks a bit like a Frank Warren show !

 

I do like Spinks a little more than Archie. I think his speed and range is the difference although I think Moore is very competitive. Qawi vs Johnson is a pickem fight for me but I give a slight edge to Qawi. While I like Tyson's natural speed and power, I like prime Liston more. I think once a prime Liston gets through the early rounds, he backs Tyson up and beats him down methodically.

 

Ah, will do then. Really what I mean by SD is not that that's what the judges would put, but that in reality, the fight should result in an SD.

 

Hagler
Moore
Holmes
Liston (Liston is so underrated)
Walcott (As is Walcott)
Qawi (I'm not too sure about this one. I'm more familiar with Dwight than Harold)
Charles
Patterson
Robinson

 

LaMotta v Hagler: Close, lean towards Hagler UD
Moore v Spinks: Spinks UD
Marciano v Holmes: Holmes TKO
Tyson v Liston: Tyson stoppage
Walcott v Witherspoon: Witherspoon stoppage
Harold Johnson v Qawi: Can´t tell
Charles v Holyfield: Holyfield decision
Dokes v Patterson: Dokes KO
Robinson v Leonard: Robinson decision

 

Could just be a quick way of saying close decision.