Vanes should have won the fight with Lara

See, to me it seems like all the people that argue with the idea that Lara should have an unblemished record (with the possible exception of the Molina draw), if they were REALLY being honest, would say exactly this about his controversial decisions. :good

People let their hatred of a particular style cloud their judgment to a crazy degree. Same folk most likely had Donaire beating Rigondeaux. :-(

 

Must be something wrong with the feed to Australia Lara clearly won here.:huh Trout fight was closer and more controversial(though Charlo probably banked enough early rounds to get the W).

 

One more reason you could not be a fair judge.

 

Gun to your head, would you give the even round to Lara or Marty?

 

You must be crazy!!

Isn't this sport about standing still, not using any advantages you have in footwork and speed so the other guy can do what he wants because he's a "real" fighter?

Jokes aside, you're spot on. Aggression means nothing at all when you aren't landing!

 

So the 114-113 range either way works for you?

...and should I bother watching this? Was it really as bad as people are saying or is that just the usual hatred of Lara's style? Would you call it significantly worse than Lara vs. Martirosyan I, or Canelo?

 

You are probably the only in this forum who had the fight even how you could be a neutral judge with your prejudice.

 

I have seen literally scores (nay, hundreds) of posts start with "so-and-so was more active, so he obviously won the rounds/fight..." - uh, no. Being 'active' means literally jack shit. In no way shape or form does being active count toward any scoring criteria. To fall under the "effective aggression" umbrella, the aggression by definition has to be - hello!!! :hellohi - effective. That means either high accuracy or you damn well better shake your opponent to his core (like, borderline knockdowns) with every shot you land.

 

I actually find it almost shocking the amount of these actual boxers that don't understand this concept!

Vanes thought he did enough to win? I almost spat my drink out when I heard that!
How can someone reach that level of the sport and not understand the correct ways boxing is scored?

If u make them comments In the heat of the moment after a frustrating fight ok I'll give u a pass, but sticking to that same conclusion once the dust has settled then you're a fool.

 

I did watch Trout vs. Charlo, actually! I caught the replay on Showtime last night, very late (worked 2pm-1am and then caught an Über to drop off some ibuprofen and sports drink at my ex-gf's house after her fever spiked to 104° even though it was literally 48 hours earlier that she dumped me. :-( - then walked 2 miles home, took a ruthlessly brief nap, and got up at 7am to head into work again until 6:30pm tonight) but tapped out before the main event. (I had already peeked at the result spoilers on BoxRec and just wasn't up for twelve rounds of Erislandy & Vanes failing to produce any major drama or drop each other )

I was pretty impressed by the cojones Austin showed in hanging in the pocket with Jermall. I also felt the Showtime crew were a bit overly rah-rah for Charlo. There would be very two-sided exchanges followed by a short awkward pause and then someone on their commentary team uttering "well...Charlo's power was probably the difference-maker there...he is the bigger, younger man..." even though his straight rights didn't seem to seriously affect Trout any more than did the latter's straight lefts bother him. :conf

I was too exhausted to bother scoring it, but remember not having a problem with it being a three-way close nod to JC. There wasn't a single round that I saw that left a lingering aftertaste of either guy having really bossed it.