Who deserved to win Catterall-Taylor II?

I had it a draw, but narrow to either man would have been fine too. I have no problem with Catterall getting the decision, but for two of the scorecards to only give Taylor three rounds is out of line.

 

116-113 to Jack.

This option wasn't listed.

 

I actually went to the fight and plan to rewatch it this week because I think you can get a completely different view of a fight from the TV.

Now I was up in the gods of the FD arena so didn’t have the greatest view, when they fight close up, it’s hard to see who’s winning those battles.

On the night, myself and a few around me felt Taylor did enough. I could see Catterall landed some great counters on the back foot and then occasionally rallying with a flurry of punches that troubled Taylor, but from afar, Taylor’s constant come-forward approach and punches in bunches looked effective. Please do excuse me though, I was about 20 pints deep.

I don’t feel sorry for Taylor one bit tho after the way he acted after the decision in the first fight. He made his bed, now he has to lie in it.

Im confident though that the 117-111 scorecards were a joke.

 

It doesn't say it's the main criteria, it's one of the criteria.

 

Im scottish, Catterall won the first fight for me, in this one I seen it close. Close enough to agree any decision is plausible but haven't watched it again to score it properly. The score cards were joke in fight 2 just as they were in fight 1.

 

The guiding principle in deciding which Boxer has had the better of each round is the quantity and quality of scoring punches, i.e. correctly delivered blows (with the knuckle part of the closed glove of either hand) which land on the target area (any part of the front or sides of the head or body above the belt). - this is exactly what it says.

 

Taylor had Cattrell rattled in the 7th but failed to follow up in the 8th. Punch stats showed Jack out jabbing Josh by a wide margin, though Taylor landed more power punches, 120-88. Taylor pressed the action and made the fight though Cattrel landed the more eye catching blows.

 

Im not disputing that, I'm disputing that it says that's the main criteria and should be priority over any other scoring criteria as has been claimed. First of it was claimed that fights are scored on effective punches, then it was changed to clean and effective punching is the priority when it comes to scoring which it doesn't state either.

 

This is the problem with fans. They don’t even know the sport they are a fan off

 

I think nearly every fan believes that they know how to score a fight. Boxing in general is too ambiguous when it comes to scoring. Judges tend to be all over the place with scoring and there's constantly decisions that are controversial. Personally I don't know how anyone can watch that fight and be conclusive that one man clearly won.
I would much rather a draw be more common in boxing and rematch be ordered within 6 months.
Judges should be from neutral countries as well.

 

I'll tell you what was a disgrace, Joe McNally. The result of the first fight. But you were more than happy to take that one with a smile.

 

Pretty sure Joe McNally wasn't involved with Taylor in the first fight.

 

It was closer than the cards obviously suggested. But still don't think anyone could have fairly given it any way other than a win to Catterall.

I had 115-113 Catterall and that was even after edging the two rounds that I almost had as 10-10's both to Taylor

 

Spending my whole life only involved in boxing as a sport,around the amateur and pro game, having worked with the Bbbc etc etc my understanding and what was traditionally quoted as the 4 criteria to score on are;

Defence
Effective/controlled aggression
Ring generalship
Quality punches