Who actuall beleives watching the fights closely that spinks won in the Holmes fights

IMO, Spinks did win the first one, but clearly lost the second fight.

 

I miss the days when McGrain would go full savage.

 

LOL who the **** makes up scorecards.

 

Was termite an early Lamotta profile?

It would make a lot of sense.

 

It has been so long since I scored them...I seem to recall from memory that I had the first fight as a draw and Holmes by a pt? In the 2nd affair. But close enough that it is not a robbery either way...

 

I scored both fights for Holmes.However, the first fight could have easily been scored for a Spinks.The second fight was one of the worst robberies ever.There was just no way Spinks won that.Larry eliminated all possible doubts by closing the show

 

What a bunch of trash

 

Holmes is my favorite fighter and even I had Spinks ahead by a point in the first fight. Larry just didn't do enough to defend his title imo. He was completely baffled by Michael's style.

Second fight I scored for Holmes 4 points ahead.

 

This topic was comedic gold. Not only did he present a 12 round card for a 15 round fight, but he doubled back and contradicted himself over and over on why he left out three rounds. Would have been so much easier if he just said "yeah, I'll rewatch it and score the whole thing", but that's not the sort of things that those sorts do.

 

I do it all the time. You didn't think I actually watched boxing did you?






Even if what I just said was true, it would still be less mad than not scoring 3 rounds in the middle of a 15 rounder because they were too close even when you've score one round even and then arguing that an 8-7 scorecard is not close because boxing isn't about scoring rounds. Amazing, just amazing.

 

I know I shouldn't judge intelligence on spelling ability alone but anyone who posts a thread title in which he wants people to believe what he is saying is true should probably first make sure they've spelt the word 'believe' correctly. And 'actually' as well.

Attention to detail was obviously not this guy's strong point - you know, like missing out the detail of 3 rounds in a 15 round fight.

 

I mean this is one of the best posts ever in terms of comedy gold.

Holmes 8 rounds
Spinks 3 rounds
1 round even.

In a 15 round fight.

Followed up by

"I didn't score some mid rounds as they were close the ones I did well I got at least 8 for Holmes you also forgot the other part of my post whys that? :roll:"

Claiming 3 rounds were too hard to score, even though he already posted an even round.

You honestly couldn't make this up.

 

You'd think if he is inspired enough to be on a boxing forum, he'd enjoy the challenge of hashing out exactly what made those three rounds so close in his mind, and come to some kind of satisfactory conclusion by watching the rounds and thinking things through. Instead he just comes off as lazy at best(just never watched the fight, I'm guessing), and mentally unhinged at worst.

 

Spinks won the first one and Holmes should have gotten the nod in the second one.