I don't need a pencil and a piece of paper to know who won a fight that isn't particularly close. I have a functioning brain and a working pair of eyes. Are you really suggesting that the only way to know who won a fight is to actually score it? Did you need to score Pavlik-Hopkins? How about Jones-Ruiz?
youve shown yourself to be a complete idiot. Whereas those fights werent close-this one was. SO YES, you would need to score it.
Frankly, Froch-Pascal for the last two hours you've shown yourself to be a total window licking ****** who struggles to understand even the basic fundamentals of a fighters resume. So forgive me if I couldn't give a **** that you think I'm an idiot, thats just your opinion, whereas I have actual proof that you're a complete ****ing tool. :hi:
Jones won that fight for me. Everytime they were in the middle of the ring Tarver was outclassed, it's only when Jones went to the ropes that Tarver shined and looked like he's dominating.
nah man. Compare jones-ruiz and hopkins-pavlik--two clear victories.....to jones-tarver...a close fight where scoring really matters. Theres no need for that though, as you see it clearly. Go and compare another of our favourite fighters to calzaghe why dont you. How about Hamed??....wait you already did that. Just a joke that you think Hamed is any way better than calzaghe.