Some press are good at scoring bouts, others have an agenda.
Some judges are not strong willed enough (or competent enough). It was a close bout - Buckland did well to hang in there and keep firing back; I thought Rees won by a couple of rounds but it weren't the biggest robbery ever.
funtime wrote:aaaaaah, the press, never ones to have an agenda them.
I think the press are normally pretty fair when scoring fights. Do you disagree?
funtime wrote:Gav did himself no favours. How many times did Buckland get wheeled back to the corner by his trainer?
That didn't affect most people's scorecards, the judges shouldn't have been so weak minded to be influenced by it either.
I disagree this fight was a robbery. I thought rees won, but i can understand why he wouldnt get the verdict.
weak minded? Its easy to understand how a judges opinion could be influenced by one corner having to carry there man back, and would very feasibly make you believe that the other boxer was doing by far the more damage in there.
palooka wrote:Some press are good at scoring bouts, others have an agenda.
Some judges are not strong willed enough (or competent enough). It was a close bout - Buckland did well to hang in there and keep firing back; I thought Rees won by a couple of rounds but it weren't the biggest robbery ever.
palooka wrote:Some press are good at scoring bouts, others have an agenda.
Some judges are not strong willed enough (or competent enough). It was a close bout - Buckland did well to hang in there and keep firing back; I thought Rees won by a couple of rounds but it weren't the biggest robbery ever.
funtime wrote:I disagree this fight was a robbery. I thought rees won, but i can understand why he wouldnt get the verdict.
Almost no one has Buckland winning though. It was close, but clear.
funtime wrote:weak minded? Its easy to understand how a judges opinion could be influenced by one corner having to carry there man back, and would very feasibly make you believe that the other boxer was doing by far the more damage in there.
So the judges are influenced by that, but pretty much no one else? It's not a valid reason for scoring rounds to the wrong fighter.
funtime wrote:I disagree this fight was a robbery. I thought rees won, but i can understand why he wouldnt get the verdict.
Almost no one has Buckland winning though. It was close, but clear.
funtime wrote:weak minded? Its easy to understand how a judges opinion could be influenced by one corner having to carry there man back, and would very feasibly make you believe that the other boxer was doing by far the more damage in there.
So the judges are influenced by that, but pretty much no one else? It's not a valid reason for scoring rounds to the wrong fighter.
It is if you feel a fighter is being consistently hurt through rounds (as evidenced by his state at the end of rounds) .
If this fight is being branded a robbery, then the sport is so far into is pessimistic spiral its unreal.
I can understand a high tempo bout like that between 2 solid aggressive boxers without knock out power being difficult to separate and to judge.
If every reasonably closely fought fight that goes 'the wrong way' is called a robbery then what should the real robberies and the really corrupt decisions be called?
palooka wrote:I can understand a high tempo bout like that between 2 solid aggressive boxers without knock out power being difficult to separate and to judge.
But it wasn't that hard to judge, the vast majority had Rees winning.
palooka wrote:If every reasonably closely fought fight that goes 'the wrong way' is called a robbery then what should the real robberies and the really corrupt decisions be called?
It was a really bad decision though.
I'm just repeating myself, so I should probably not bother going on about this anymore.
