Shouted for Matt like he's a brother, but scored the fight 115-113.
Gave Macklin 1, 2, 4, 5, 9 or something along those lines...
Sturm's shots were more effective, and while he doesn't get points for covering, he did negate a lot of Macklin's best shots. Macklin was hit with the cleanest shots in the second half of the fight (though he took them well) and Sturm was better when he managed to put space between them.
For me, I think I perhaps subconsciously scored the fighter with the German factor in mind. It certainly meant that when the scores were announced that I was pessimistic.
Sturm vs Macklin: Your scorecard
-
the konformist
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 41
- Joined: 18 May 2004, 11:41
Re: Sturm vs Macklin: Your scorecard
I thought those punch stats on the night were wrong. Compubox have just released theres, and they make interesting reading.
Macklin landed more in every round except the 11th
Macklin threw twice as many as Sturm and landed 127 more punches although Sturm's accuracy was better.
Sorry guys you dont outland an opponent by 127 and lose the fight, it was a very poor decision in my book and I wonder if (me included) thought it was in any way close
simply because we expected the wrong doing that took place and therefore gave Sturm rounds which he utterly did not deserve.
Scored it to Macklin by two rounds on the night but freely admit I was marking him down and Sturm up simply because I expected things to take place.
Watched it again and had Macklin by four rounds.
It was piss poor - how the hell do you achieve the above figures and lose the fight.
Before you all say its not the quantity its the quality, I don't believe there was barely a punch that Macklin threw that did not have some sort of purchase on it.
Crap decision, its gone on to long and yet no one can or is willing to try to do anything about it.
Macklin landed more in every round except the 11th
Macklin threw twice as many as Sturm and landed 127 more punches although Sturm's accuracy was better.
Sorry guys you dont outland an opponent by 127 and lose the fight, it was a very poor decision in my book and I wonder if (me included) thought it was in any way close
simply because we expected the wrong doing that took place and therefore gave Sturm rounds which he utterly did not deserve.
Scored it to Macklin by two rounds on the night but freely admit I was marking him down and Sturm up simply because I expected things to take place.
Watched it again and had Macklin by four rounds.
It was piss poor - how the hell do you achieve the above figures and lose the fight.
Before you all say its not the quantity its the quality, I don't believe there was barely a punch that Macklin threw that did not have some sort of purchase on it.
Crap decision, its gone on to long and yet no one can or is willing to try to do anything about it.
-
Londonirish
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 3064
- Joined: 20 Nov 2008, 13:02
Re: Sturm vs Macklin: Your scorecard
116-113 Macklin

GLOBALBOX Spot on...........
GLOBALBOX Spot on...........
Re: Sturm vs Macklin: Your scorecard
Agree totally, I feel like I was watching a different fight based on what a lot of people on here have put. I had Macklin by 2-3 clear rounds. Just didn't see Sturm doing enough, flashy in patches but just didn't do enough in the first 9 rounds.GLOBALBOX wrote:I thought those punch stats on the night were wrong. Compubox have just released theres, and they make interesting reading.
Macklin landed more in every round except the 11th
Macklin threw twice as many as Sturm and landed 127 more punches although Sturm's accuracy was better.
Sorry guys you dont outland an opponent by 127 and lose the fight, it was a very poor decision in my book and I wonder if (me included) thought it was in any way close
simply because we expected the wrong doing that took place and therefore gave Sturm rounds which he utterly did not deserve.
Scored it to Macklin by two rounds on the night but freely admit I was marking him down and Sturm up simply because I expected things to take place.
Watched it again and had Macklin by four rounds.
It was piss poor - how the hell do you achieve the above figures and lose the fight.
Before you all say its not the quantity its the quality, I don't believe there was barely a punch that Macklin threw that did not have some sort of purchase on it.
Crap decision, its gone on to long and yet no one can or is willing to try to do anything about it.
-
alexpaterson
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 4310
- Joined: 22 Feb 2009, 11:22
Re: Sturm vs Macklin: Your scorecard
Just finished watching it and first of all well done to Matt Macklin, he proved he belongs in world class and fought a brilliant fight against a top fighter! I had it 115-113 Sturm, I felt he landed the cleaner blows but there was 3 or 4 rounds that I found really hard to split them so anything between 115-113 either way I could see. I liked the fast start by Macklin not letting Sturm get a rhythm going and landing some lovely combinations, I felt Macklin's tactics were perfect with the constant, effective aggression not letting Sturm get set and take time on his punches. It was a cracking match and I'd love to see it again
Re: Sturm vs Macklin: Your scorecard
I thought those punch stats on the night were wrong. Compubox have just released theres, and they make interesting reading. Macklin landed more in every round except the 11th.
Macklin threw twice as many as Sturm and landed 127 more punches although Sturm's accuracy was better.
*********************************************
Apologies to them if I'm wrong, but I don't think Compubox were in Cologne. At least, I don't remember seeing them.
Macklin threw twice as many as Sturm and landed 127 more punches although Sturm's accuracy was better.
*********************************************
Apologies to them if I'm wrong, but I don't think Compubox were in Cologne. At least, I don't remember seeing them.