Like I said, 3 or 4 rounds of that action change a scorecard. Fenech Nelson was one guy punching, one guy catching. Bought judges dont factor into "judging criteria" used.
What the **** are you on about? * Ive CLEARLY explained how I think judges watching the same round, using the same criteria can have a different scorecard (Obscured view) * I've explained that 3 or 4 rounds of this action, could lead to drastically different scoring between judges cards. * I've explained that the fenech v Nelson fight was mostly one guy pitching (Fenech), one guy catching (Nelson) , it's clear who I thought won just from that alone. * I insinuated that I thought the judges were bribed. Anything else you want written out in bullet point for you you frustrating ****?
So you are saying that despite judges having different views of a fight, it doesnt excuse wrongful scoring. In other words its not an excuse, its a cop out. You agree with me :good feel free to write more essays that contradict yourself though, nothing funnier than reading a ****** make a compelling case for judges scoring and in the very next post label the fight a robbery and the judges biased. you can pull your thumb out of your ass now dummy.
Dummy? Essays are not written in bullet point you thick ****. Dont agree with you, and never made any call on right and wrong, just explained how scoring can differ. You asked for a fight where the majority was fought in a corner, you were answered, and then you asked my opinion on that particular fights scoring , again, you were answered. Im not wasting any more time a dopey **** who gets his questions answered in nice plain english, then doesnt understand what he's asked. Quite frankly, you are boring.:nutcase
Your post #46.... " Like i said, 3 or 4 rounds of that action can change a score card " The one fight you pick as having corrupt judges is the fight where you explain how they scored the fight the way they did. The lights arent even on at your house.
No I didnt. Learn to read sparky. Again , for the dip**** that is PJ 1) I explained how scorecards can vary. 2) I used that fight example as a fight where it was fought in corners, not where you can test out my explanation - when judges are corrupt, there is no criteria applied . Any combo of the 2 judges that saw a round of Fenech v Nelson should have given almost all to Fenech, this clearly did not happen. Want me to draw a picture for you?
Im should have written it a bit clearer. When i said "usually win the round", If you get knocked down then obviously outlanding your opponent for the rest of the round wont win it for you.
WHY?? If a bloke is leading 10/9 before knockdown it becomes 9/9...converted to 10/10 under 10-must system. If downed boxer from that point on continues to outscore, he surely has to win the round 10/9 Always fail to understand why a bloke leading by 1 point during a round seems to automatically lose 3 points if knocked down.....when knockdown = minus 1 point ???
Funniest response I ever heard to this question. Trainer, in earnest, trying to give his kid the best chance of winning, to seedy old expug judge (Joke of course) "What is the first thing you look for as a judge" "Well the very first thing I look for is wot's stuck under me seat"
I must say I fail to understand why referees instruct judges to deduct a point for infringement, when they no longer use one scorecard for the whole fight? I guess, some rules/habits die hard
Does a point deducted from te winner of a ten nine round result in a 9-9 round in the ten must system?
9-9 = 10-10 Care to know, where blokes scored 2 points deduction for one infringement due to recorder's incompetence ?? I was privy to score tallysheets....which was the only way Vic Control would provide me with its official results