It was an entertaining fight, and many rounds were close and could have gone either way.
But sheesh, I really do not like quality journalism such as this, as thrown together by Paul Upham here:
http://www.secondsout.com/world-boxing- ... tch-please
And I quote:
Anyone who had Mundine or Geale winning this fight very easily by a number of rounds is incorrect.
It was a very close match and the best evidence I can give to support that view is from the three official judges’ scorecards.
Of the twelve rounds scored by the judges, only in four rounds did they score the same way;
Rd. 1: Geale 10-9
Rd. 8: Mundine 10-9
Rd. 9: Geale 10-9
Rd. 10: Geale 10-9
After scoring the fight 114-113 for Mundine at ringside on Wednesday evening, on Thursday I watched the fight again, sitting by myself in an editing suite at the Fox Sports News studios in Sydney. This time around, I scored the fight for Geale 114-113, 7 rounds to 5, which represents one round different to my original score.
Now, if the official judges on the night could only agree on rounds, then depending on your preference or judging style, this fight can be argued for any number of scores, from lopsided Mundine or Geale, and anything in between.
Many rounds were similar, in that Geale was more active with Mundine opting to box as usual, throwing less but often landing the cleaner blows.
If your judging preference is the boxer, or the busier fight or anything else, you may have seen many of the rounds the same way, the one way. Another fan may see the same rounds for the opposing fighter.
I think the fact that the official judges could only agree on four rounds, proves that this fight could have been scored in any number of ways, but to totally rule out a comfortable Mundine or Geale win shows, to me, a journalist opting to sit on the fence in a local fight which divided most in the industry.
There is no way to objectively judge the weight of power shots to the mass of shots from a busier fighter. It is a purely subjective art, this scoring caper.
I had Mundine winning by 2. But it could easily have been 4, just as easily as it could have been a Geale victory. By round 8, I knew this was going to be "one of those nights" which generally leads to the old quality v quantity debates.
