Your round by round scoring for Calzaghe - Hopkins...

Wrong, because it is only your personal rule that says you shouldn't score even rounds; you are allowed to by the rules.

Unless you score even rounds, fighter A whom you've given all the seven even rounds beat fighter B, whom you've given all the five very clearly won rounds, instead of the other way around. It's stupid and unfair and arbitrary.

 

You asked for round by round scoring for the fight.

Why not just accept the scores? They are subjective and oppinionated no matter where you go. Quit bitching, your getting what you asked for.

 

I've still not seen an American scorecard with a 10-10 round , someone post one up so i can shut up.

I don't care what some german judge scored, german boxing is corrupt for all i know Sauerland told him to score it 10-10

 

So the fact that more than one person scores an even round turns everyone into amateurs? I shouldn't even need to show you how flawed that is.

 

I've watched this fight a few times since watching it live and i originally had it for Hopkins 114-113 but after watching it a few times, i scored it for Calzaghe every time.

You can make a case for Hopkins sweeping the first four rounds, and that's even a stretch. Easily you can give him 3 of the first 4. Most would say Calzaghe won round 3. It wasn't that Calzaghe was great from rounds 5-12, it's just that Hopkins did almost nothing himself. At least Calzaghe tried to make a fight. You can never look good against a guy as careful as Hopkins.

 

Where are all these scorecards?

Proper judges hate the 10-10, just ask Julie Lederman.

 

Exactly.

There should never be "carryover" in scoring a boxing match. For instance, "I scored the close Round 5 for Fighter A, so now I'll score the close Round 12 for Fighter B. That will even out the fact that both rounds were close". You don't know that there are going to be two close rounds, so anticipating that you will carryover and make it even does not work. Either way, if you feel a round is even, make it 10-10.

If a person tends to have 10-10 rounds in all of the fights they score, they should try to be more selective in what they're watching for (clean, effective punching/aggression). That said, some fights just have close rounds and there is no getting around it.

 

Your initial point has already been refuted, so now you're trying to base it on American judging, which wasn't what you were about to begin with.

Do your own research.

 

Maybe that's the problem.

I think you could make a good case for 2-3 rounds being solid 10-10 rounds in this one.

 

American boxing is the only boxing that matters imo, we europeans are basically amatuers when it comes to scoring fights. :hey

 

You really think BHOP should win a fight for hugging well? After round 3 JC took over and BHOP did land 2 or 3 cleaner shots in certain rounds but was lazy and negative.

 

Your point had nothing to do with American boxing, you were just criticizing someone's scorecard.

Now you're trying to ease your way out of that fact by adding the stipulation "American".

Then if someone presents you an "American Scorecard" with a 10-10 round, I'm sure you'll have meant a "Vegas Scorecard".

Then if someone presents you a "Vegas Scorecard" with a 10-10 round....

You're wrong.

 

10-10 scoring allows the more decisive rounds to decide the fight. I see nothing wrong with that. I never understood why some people have the mindset that one fighter has to "win" a round while another has to "lose" a round.

 

No rounds were scored 10-10 in the Hopkins-Calzaghe fight also so i'm partially right and you don't get a much closer fight than that.