I cant remember the fellas name who was scoring the Stevenson-Sukhotsky card for Canadian TV ,im sure it ws Don Majeski
Did anyone see his score for the Dirrell-Edwards fight
I dont know what his final score was but after 11 rounds he had it 110-87 to Andre,he scored 4 rounds 10-7,4 rounds 10-8 and only 3 rounds 10-9,all this with no KD's yeah sure Dirrell was dominating but not nearly enough to score even 1 round 10-8 without a KD
Did he do the same with the Adonis fight? I watched it on a stream when I got home from drinking heavily. I thought I'd missed a lot of knockdowns as he scored rounds 2,3 and 4 all 10-8 to Adonis.
handsofstone wrote:I cant remember the fellas name who was scoring the Stevenson-Sukhotsky card for Canadian TV ,im sure it ws Don Majeski
Did anyone see his score for the Dirrell-Edwards fight
I dont know what his final score was but after 11 rounds he had it 110-87 to Andre,he scored 4 rounds 10-7,4 rounds 10-8 and only 3 rounds 10-9,all this with no KD's yeah sure Dirrell was dominating but not nearly enough to score even 1 round 10-8 without a KD
Ludicrous
I noticed that too and find it almost as hilarious as referee from Zou Shiming last fight
In the UK our guys were telling us that guy is a big supporter of the WBC which is trying to encourage rounds scored like that. For example if a guy bashes someone around the ring for 5 rounds, but doesn't score a KD that's 10-9 every round. If then his opponent scrapes the last 7 rounds he wins the fight even though he got destroyed in the first 5 rounds. I can see why it could be good, but will only lead to more controversy.
If a guy convincingly wins the first 5 rounds but then looses the next 7 even if they were closer he's still lost the fight simple. Is that not the idea of a 12 rounder ?
handsofstone wrote:I cant remember the fellas name who was scoring the Stevenson-Sukhotsky card for Canadian TV ,im sure it ws Don Majeski
Did anyone see his score for the Dirrell-Edwards fight
I dont know what his final score was but after 11 rounds he had it 110-87 to Andre,he scored 4 rounds 10-7,4 rounds 10-8 and only 3 rounds 10-9,all this with no KD's yeah sure Dirrell was dominating but not nearly enough to score even 1 round 10-8 without a KD
Ludicrous
Really? That's messed up. The ten point must system has been just fine with the winner getting a 10-9 round and KDs counting for a point. If they're gonna fool with the point system, that's not the route to take.
handsofstone wrote:I cant remember the fellas name who was scoring the Stevenson-Sukhotsky card for Canadian TV ,im sure it ws Don Majeski
Did anyone see his score for the Dirrell-Edwards fight
I dont know what his final score was but after 11 rounds he had it 110-87 to Andre,he scored 4 rounds 10-7,4 rounds 10-8 and only 3 rounds 10-9,all this with no KD's yeah sure Dirrell was dominating but not nearly enough to score even 1 round 10-8 without a KD
Ludicrous
Really? That's messed up. The ten point must system has been just fine with the winner getting a 10-9 round and KDs counting for a point. If they're gonna fool with the point system, that's not the route to take.
If you are to score a round 10-8 without a KD then a fighter has to be getting battered from pillar to post
handsofstone wrote:I cant remember the fellas name who was scoring the Stevenson-Sukhotsky card for Canadian TV ,im sure it ws Don Majeski
Did anyone see his score for the Dirrell-Edwards fight
I dont know what his final score was but after 11 rounds he had it 110-87 to Andre,he scored 4 rounds 10-7,4 rounds 10-8 and only 3 rounds 10-9,all this with no KD's yeah sure Dirrell was dominating but not nearly enough to score even 1 round 10-8 without a KD
Ludicrous
FOR THE GOOD OF BOXING THESE DROP KICK'S CAN'T BE LET IN THE DOOR UNLESS THEIR UP THE BACK HAVING A BEER AND JUDGING BY THEMSELF SO NO HARD TRAINING BOXER GETS F.....UP BY THEIR MADNESS.
I sometimes score a fight 10-8 with no knockdown IF, a fighter is badly hurt enough that I think the fight should possibly be stopped. A bad beating plus a KD is arguably 10-7.
But yeah, 10-8 or 10-7 just because someone clearly won a round would be a bit off.
The scoring was absolutely ridiculous, we can't be allowing crap like that, scorecards can be crazy enough as it is. This sort of thing needs stopping NOW.
On a separate note the US and Canadian commentators are absolutely awful. Those of us in the UK are lucky, we moan about Jim Watt and one or two others but I'd rather listen to them than the guys across the atlantic.
If a guy convincingly wins the first 5 rounds but then looses the next 7 even if they were closer he's still lost the fight simple. Is that not the idea of a 12 rounder ?
It does actually make a bit of sense but it's very dangerous and open to corruption. For example if Fighter A wins the first 6 rounds very narrowly without hurting fighter B at all. Then Fighter B wins the 2nd 6 rounds big, hurting Fighter A numerous times without dropping him. This fight technically should be scored a draw but in reality Fighter B won the fight and inflicted a lot more damage.
Ian1973 wrote:On a separate note the US and Canadian commentators are absolutely awful. Those of us in the UK are lucky, we moan about Jim Watt and one or two others but I'd rather listen to them than the guys across the atlantic.
'Yeah, that's right, Corey', 'That's right, Corey' and my personal favourite ' That's right'. They drove me absolutely nuts!
On the scoring system, the trial they ran would destroy the sport.
If you are to score a round 10-8 without a KD then a fighter has to be getting battered from pillar to post