Burns v Gonzalez plus undercard

jonnyyorkshu
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 449
Joined: 04 Feb 2012, 11:12

Re: Burns v Gonzalez plus undercard

Post by jonnyyorkshu »

5-5-1
sgtcecil
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 979
Joined: 20 Jan 2009, 14:38

Re: Burns v Gonzalez plus undercard

Post by sgtcecil »

106-105 simpson.

Big round by either could swing it
chucktaylor
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 535
Joined: 18 Apr 2010, 18:02

Re: Burns v Gonzalez plus undercard

Post by chucktaylor »

I have it 115-113 Choi. Great fight
jonnyyorkshu
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 449
Joined: 04 Feb 2012, 11:12

Re: Burns v Gonzalez plus undercard

Post by jonnyyorkshu »

Choi's last 6-5-1
hats off to 2 very hard men.Good scrap,Dont ever listen to Watt!!!
Coco
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 28311
Joined: 08 May 2007, 05:42

Re: Burns v Gonzalez plus undercard

Post by Coco »

Good fight, Choi dug really deep and did enough in the last half minute to take the round.
Ultimately though he was not able to keep fighting for 3 minutes a round every round which was the difference 6-5-1 Simpson
milpool
Cruiserweight
Posts: 5402
Joined: 18 May 2011, 13:38

Re: Burns v Gonzalez plus undercard

Post by milpool »

116-112, 117-112, 116-113...winner John Simpson.
Coco
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 28311
Joined: 08 May 2007, 05:42

Re: Burns v Gonzalez plus undercard

Post by Coco »

Fight stats have Choi wide though
btahthezone
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 74
Joined: 26 Apr 2012, 20:12

Re: Burns v Gonzalez plus undercard

Post by btahthezone »

The scorecard was a bit wide but was a cracking fight and very close I had choi by one round.
jonnyyorkshu
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 449
Joined: 04 Feb 2012, 11:12

Re: Burns v Gonzalez plus undercard

Post by jonnyyorkshu »

poor form with the belt that!
macaca
Super Middleweight
Posts: 1296
Joined: 25 Sep 2012, 07:49

Re: Burns v Gonzalez plus undercard

Post by macaca »

Fair result, wild scorecards apart from 116-113 though :-?

Ring announcer should be shot ..................... how unprofessional, the new, ligh........ super ....... from errrrrrr ..... errr Scotland
smoothmoves
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 287
Joined: 05 Jun 2010, 14:48

Re: Burns v Gonzalez plus undercard

Post by smoothmoves »

5 rounds is ludicrous.
sgtcecil
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 979
Joined: 20 Jan 2009, 14:38

Re: Burns v Gonzalez plus undercard

Post by sgtcecil »

116-114 simpson
jonnyyorkshu
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 449
Joined: 04 Feb 2012, 11:12

Re: Burns v Gonzalez plus undercard

Post by jonnyyorkshu »

bad scoring
Last edited by jonnyyorkshu on 11 May 2013, 17:03, edited 1 time in total.
el_grande_mauro_mina
Lightweight
Posts: 11215
Joined: 24 Dec 2017, 11:54

Re: Burns v Gonzalez plus undercard

Post by el_grande_mauro_mina »

Great fight, I had Choi winning it but don't begrudge Simpson this one - he has had a fair
few he won go against him - a definite match between 'irresistible force vs immovable object'
jonnyyorkshu
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 449
Joined: 04 Feb 2012, 11:12

Re: Burns v Gonzalez plus undercard

Post by jonnyyorkshu »

Fat Git wrote:Great fight, I had Choi winning it but don't begrudge Simpson this one - he has had a fair
few he won go against him - a definite match between 'irresistible force vs immovable object'
X2
sgtcecil
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 979
Joined: 20 Jan 2009, 14:38

Re: Burns v Gonzalez plus undercard

Post by sgtcecil »

macaca wrote:Fair result, wild scorecards apart from 116-113 though :-?

Ring announcer should be shot ..................... how unprofessional, the new, ligh........ super ....... from errrrrrr ..... errr Scotland
Been saying for years that he is pish
macaca
Super Middleweight
Posts: 1296
Joined: 25 Sep 2012, 07:49

Re: Burns v Gonzalez plus undercard

Post by macaca »

sgtcecil wrote:
macaca wrote:Fair result, wild scorecards apart from 116-113 though :-?

Ring announcer should be shot ..................... how unprofessional, the new, ligh........ super ....... from errrrrrr ..... errr Scotland
Been saying for years that he is pish
You don't have a lot to say, the results of a fight announcement doesn't deviate nor does the facts and figures of the fighters or the sanctioning body ............ christ .......... love to see his fee per event, who was it, that guy that used to be on the bill tv show?
ShadrachSimmo
Cruiserweight
Posts: 4733
Joined: 20 Oct 2010, 05:42

Re: Burns v Gonzalez plus undercard

Post by ShadrachSimmo »

macaca wrote:Fair result, wild scorecards apart from 116-113 though :-?

Ring announcer should be shot ..................... how unprofessional, the new, ligh........ super ....... from errrrrrr ..... errr Scotland
Defo. He must have had his ricky burns announcement cards in his hands there.

The MC should be a boxing fan who knows his stuff a mistake like that proves he's just a bit of a Ron burgundy.

Well done Simmo I thought he just done enough :TU:
Coco
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 28311
Joined: 08 May 2007, 05:42

Re: Burns v Gonzalez plus undercard

Post by Coco »

While I think the right guy won, the scoring was verging on scandalous, ESP in light of the punch stats.
macaca
Super Middleweight
Posts: 1296
Joined: 25 Sep 2012, 07:49

Re: Burns v Gonzalez plus undercard

Post by macaca »

ShadrachSimmo wrote:
macaca wrote:Fair result, wild scorecards apart from 116-113 though :-?

Ring announcer should be shot ..................... how unprofessional, the new, ligh........ super ....... from errrrrrr ..... errr Scotland
Defo. He must have had his ricky burns announcement cards in his hands there.

The MC should be a boxing fan who knows his stuff a mistake like that proves he's just a bit of a Ron burgundy.

Well done Simmo I thought he just done enough :TU:
There are people on here that would do a perfect job, mistake free and for free ........... not bnovelist
sgtcecil
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 979
Joined: 20 Jan 2009, 14:38

Re: Burns v Gonzalez plus undercard

Post by sgtcecil »

macaca wrote:
sgtcecil wrote:
macaca wrote:Fair result, wild scorecards apart from 116-113 though :-?

Ring announcer should be shot ..................... how unprofessional, the new, ligh........ super ....... from errrrrrr ..... errr Scotland
Been saying for years that he is pish
You don't have a lot to say, the results of a fight announcement doesn't deviate nor does the facts and figures of the fighters or the sanctioning body ............ christ .......... love to see his fee per event, who was it, that guy that used to be on the bill tv show?
I reckon almost everyone on this forum could do better
desperados
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Re: Burns v Gonzalez plus undercard

Post by desperados »

had Choi winning that one, those cards were hometown alright.
Finch
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1129
Joined: 01 Mar 2008, 08:14

Re: Burns v Gonzalez plus undercard

Post by Finch »

Dave Caldwell seems to be in bed with everyone! Ha
mfc_se15
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 888
Joined: 03 Mar 2012, 08:34

Re: Burns v Gonzalez plus undercard

Post by mfc_se15 »

I thought Choi had it by one.

Blimey the Puerto Rican anthem wasn't up to much haha!

Come on Ricky!
sgtcecil
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 979
Joined: 20 Jan 2009, 14:38

Re: Burns v Gonzalez plus undercard

Post by sgtcecil »

desperados wrote:had Choi winning that one, those cards were hometown alright.
The cards were poor. I had simpson by 2. but never 4 and 5 rounds in it!
Post Reply