yiddo14 wrote:I thought Sturm could have done more though. Macklin left it all in the ring. Despite what Macklin said at the end, the only fighter that looked hurt at any stage was the Brummie.
I don't mean to be disrespectful to Strum I respect all fighters. But I do think if he had a bit more heart he might have come through and stopped Macklin in the later rounds. I believe he had the physical ability to do so but lacks that extra 10% all great champions have to drawn on from time to time.
Edit: forgot to mention full credit to Macklin I was really impressed with his performance
It was a cracking fight. Credit to both fighters, I knew Sturm was class but Macklin suprised me. Thought he was more european class than world.
Altho I had Macklin by 1 round I really can't argue with a split decision defeat in the champions back yard. Never easy to win a points decision away from home. You have to be on top majorly and Macklin wasn't.
Ketchel wrote:I had Macklin 3 up at the end. At least he can return home knowing that he landed more punches on Sturm than future HOF'er De La Hoya.
Except, Macklin cant because De La Hoya landed 188 punches on Sturm whereas Macklin had landed 139 by the end of the eleventh. Macklin simply didnt land 50 or more punches in that final round
Richie Woodall has always scored for the aggressor, it doesn't matter if you're landing or not, as long as you are coming forward. He was the same when Rees fought Kotelnik.
I think Macklin can feel hard done by, coming away from a fight after putting so much into it, with nothing, is hard to swallow. But I think Sturm blocked and slipped a lot of punches and when it came to pure quality he was the boss.
However, 116-112 was way too wide, a draw would have been fairer.
That was a great fight though, real quality in the exchanges and not just mindless blood and guts. What top-class boxing is all about.
Not for me, I thought Strum won by a round or 2. After Macklin stopled going to the body all the best punches were landed by the german, his better quality work won him the fight
sturms quality showed late on but macklin done more then enough imo in the first 8 rounds to win the fight, i think the first judge got it right, it was a draw at worst, to me its a fighters dream to be world champion and just because he was in germany we all accept it was ok to loose on points, he was robbed of a win in my eyes, but he will be back without a shadow of a doubt ! well done macklin, you proved me wrong, id of fancied barker to beat macklin 1 year ago and now im not sure !
jessi wrote:sturms quality showed late on but macklin done more then enough imo in the first 8 rounds to win the fight, i think the first judge got it right, it was a draw at worst, to me its a fighters dream to be world champion and just because he was in germany we all accept it was ok to loose on points, he was robbed of a win in my eyes, but he will be back without a shadow of a doubt ! well done macklin, you proved me wrong, id of fancied barker to beat macklin 1 year ago and now im not sure !
Yea i was well impressed with macklin also.
I was at the echo for his fight against the spaniard and can remember thinking to myself "barker would box rings around this fella" but after last nights performance i'm not so sure.
it was relatively close, but such is boxing, the home fighter gets the majority of close decisions, its the difference between a travelodge and a raddisson hotel for the officials next time!!
i wiosh macklin would move his bloody head more, plus he keep going in and out in straight lines, very very basic, and that is what cost him the fight.
I scored it MM by 2 or 3 - however, a good friend of mine was there and he went for Sturm's clean, clear and 100 percent on target shots and had it to Sturm by 6.
If 2 either way is the general consensus then winning at home is to be expected. Wrong, but right.
everybody looks for something different when they're scoring - some might rate clean, fully landed punches above a higher rate of punches landed if half of them were ineffective or not at full strength, some judges may favour how well a boxer defends himself over someone charging in and swinging wild digs, etc etc....
on that basis it can't be called a robbery, if all 3 are looking at different things when scoring. just the way it is, and one of the things that stands this sport above all others
