A) Cunningham
B) Tarver
C) Draw
Who Won on your scorecard?
-
punchoutsb
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 5842
- Joined: 16 Sep 2009, 01:05
Re: Who Won on your scorecard?
I had USS up by two, but knew it was razor close. I'm happy with a draw. I don't think Tarver did enough to win.
Re: Who Won on your scorecard?
Tony1244 wrote:A) Cunningham
B) Tarver
C) Draw
The Draw was about as fair as it can get, I really have no problem with it. One could argue that Cunningham had a higher workrate but one could also argue that Tarver had the better punches that had more effect both visually and physically (look at the damage on USS' face).
They should do it again.
-
handsofstone
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 23088
- Joined: 11 Jan 2011, 17:28
Re: Who Won on your scorecard?
115-113 Cunningham
Re: Who Won on your scorecard?
114-114
At the end of the day if I was one of the fighters in there I would rather have been Tarver but boxing is scored round-by-round not on accumulated damage over the distance.
At the end of the day if I was one of the fighters in there I would rather have been Tarver but boxing is scored round-by-round not on accumulated damage over the distance.
Re: Who Won on your scorecard?
Tarver got zero appreciation from the judges for his defense. Cunningham was throwing punches like a windmill all night and he rarely scored anything significant the whole night, especially after the 4th round. Tarver hurt Cunningham badly several times and threw the most effective punches. Tarver got robbed.
Boxing judges are like home plate umpires in baseball. Each umpire has their own strike zone and the calls are subjective. That is what is horrible about boxing. Each judge has their own strike zone and that sucks. Uniformity in scoring needs to be improved because no one knows what wins a round anymore.
Boxing judges are like home plate umpires in baseball. Each umpire has their own strike zone and the calls are subjective. That is what is horrible about boxing. Each judge has their own strike zone and that sucks. Uniformity in scoring needs to be improved because no one knows what wins a round anymore.
-
tiny_acres
- Middleweight
- Posts: 9468
- Joined: 17 Feb 2014, 14:43
Re: Who Won on your scorecard?
I thought it was a draw.I think it was as even as even can get.
I would not have complained if either got the nod.But I think the decision
was very fair.
It is not a fight I want to see again.Though evenly matched a pretty ugly affair.
Their styles did nothing for me.
I would not have complained if either got the nod.But I think the decision
was very fair.
It is not a fight I want to see again.Though evenly matched a pretty ugly affair.
Their styles did nothing for me.
Re: Who Won on your scorecard?
Really?caldo2025 wrote:Tarver got zero appreciation from the judges for his defense. Cunningham was throwing punches like a windmill all night and he rarely scored anything significant the whole night, especially after the 4th round. Tarver hurt Cunningham badly several times and threw the most effective punches. Tarver got robbed.
Boxing judges are like home plate umpires in baseball. Each umpire has their own strike zone and the calls are subjective. That is what is horrible about boxing. Each judge has their own strike zone and that sucks. Uniformity in scoring needs to be improved because no one knows what wins a round anymore.
One judge had it 7 round to 5 for Tarver, one had it 7-5 Cunningham, one had it 6 rounds for both.
On the poll above 21 people have voted 8 scored for Cunningham, 7 scored for Tarver and 6 had it a draw.
That appears in line with how the official judges scored the fight.
Keep in mind the fact none of those judges have a camera constantly moving around to give them the best view of the fight. They are not sitting in chairs beside one another, they are on different sides of the ring and have a different view than the other two judges at all times.
Expecting EVERYBODY to come up the same score is not realistic.
Everybody within a round or two is very realistic and that's what happened here.
Re: Who Won on your scorecard?
I didn't even think that the fight was close. I had Tarver winning 8 rounds. I wish that boxing telecasts would get rid of the Steve Farhoods and the Harold Letterman's unofficial scorecards and just let us watch the fight. The power of suggestion in these fights can really distort things for viewers.Perseus wrote:Really?caldo2025 wrote:Tarver got zero appreciation from the judges for his defense. Cunningham was throwing punches like a windmill all night and he rarely scored anything significant the whole night, especially after the 4th round. Tarver hurt Cunningham badly several times and threw the most effective punches. Tarver got robbed.
Boxing judges are like home plate umpires in baseball. Each umpire has their own strike zone and the calls are subjective. That is what is horrible about boxing. Each judge has their own strike zone and that sucks. Uniformity in scoring needs to be improved because no one knows what wins a round anymore.
One judge had it 7 round to 5 for Tarver, one had it 7-5 Cunningham, one had it 6 rounds for both.
On the poll above 21 people have voted 8 scored for Cunningham, 7 scored for Tarver and 6 had it a draw.
That appears in line with how the official judges scored the fight.
Keep in mind the fact none of those judges have a camera constantly moving around to give them the best view of the fight. They are not sitting in chairs beside one another, they are on different sides of the ring and have a different view than the other two judges at all times.
Expecting EVERYBODY to come up the same score is not realistic.
Everybody within a round or two is very realistic and that's what happened here.