Who did you have winning, Gonzalez or Rungvisai?
-
Freedom2013
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 3879
- Joined: 26 Nov 2012, 11:35
Who did you have winning, Gonzalez or Rungvisai?
I haven't seen it yet, I had to work tonight.
But I'm wondering if most people agreed with the decision?
But I'm wondering if most people agreed with the decision?
Last edited by Freedom2013 on 19 Mar 2017, 13:24, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Who did you have winning Roman Gonzalez vs. Wisaksil Wangek?
Gonzalez 114-112, with Roman winning 3-6, 8, 9, and 12.
I thought the Thai won the first two with his powerful attack, but he seemed to lose quite a bit of steam on his shots from 3-9, while Roman looked comparitvely fresh despite the cut. In my view Wangek came back into it in 10 and 11 , but then looked dead tired in the 12th and needed to constantly hold.
I thought the Thai won the first two with his powerful attack, but he seemed to lose quite a bit of steam on his shots from 3-9, while Roman looked comparitvely fresh despite the cut. In my view Wangek came back into it in 10 and 11 , but then looked dead tired in the 12th and needed to constantly hold.
Re: Who did you have winning, Gonzalez or Wangek?
The 2 judges that had him winning gave Dogeater FIVE straight rounds - 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
Insanity.
Pure incompetence.
Insanity.
Pure incompetence.
-
Counter-puncher
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 39141
- Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41
Re: Who did you have winning Roman Gonzalez vs. Wisaksil Wangek?
Exactly my score, muckercrusader wrote:Gonzalez 114-112, with Roman winning 3-6, 8, 9, and 12.
I thought the Thai won the first two with his powerful attack, but he seemed to lose quite a bit of steam on his shots from 3-9, while Roman looked comparitvely fresh despite the cut. In my view Wangek came back into it in 10 and 11 , but then looked dead tired in the 12th and needed to constantly hold.
-
jujigatame
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 7466
- Joined: 30 Oct 2004, 21:08
Re: Who did you have winning, Gonzalez or Wangek?
I had Gonzo winning, but it was a damn close fight, I think a draw wouldn't have been ridiculous.
Hopefully they do it again.
Hopefully they do it again.
Re: Who did you have winning, Gonzalez or Wangek?
i had gonzalez winning but it was a close fight . the thai was actually throwing punches while walking forward (unlike golovkin) but gonzalez appeared to be slipping most of them or catching them on the arms or shoulders. was a great fight to watch .
-
Boxing Prospect
- Light Heavyweight
- Posts: 6592
- Joined: 25 Jun 2012, 14:35
Re: Who did you have winning, Gonzalez or Wangek?
114-112 Srisaket
*sighs reading people use his birth name*
*sighs reading people use his birth name*
-
Counter-puncher
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 39141
- Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41
Re: Who did you have winning, Gonzalez or Wangek?
Give it a rest Asia-boyBoxing Prospect wrote:114-112 Srisaket
*sighs reading people use his birth name*
-
Counter-puncher
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 39141
- Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41
-
Counter-puncher
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 39141
- Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41
Re: Who did you have winning, Gonzalez or Wangek?
jujigatame wrote:, I think a draw wouldn't have been ridiculous.
.
-
Lenny Cravats
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 8002
- Joined: 23 Feb 2013, 10:43
Re: Who did you have winning, Gonzalez or Wangek?
I think the 'dog eater' reference is probably more disrespectful.Boxing Prospect wrote:114-112 Srisaket
*sighs reading people use his birth name*
Re: Who did you have winning, Gonzalez or Wangek?
Yeah ever so slightlyLenny Cravats wrote:I think the 'dog eater' reference is probably more disrespectful.Boxing Prospect wrote:114-112 Srisaket
*sighs reading people use his birth name*
Re: Who did you have winning, Gonzalez or Wangek?
I had the Thai lad winning by a couple. I'd need to watch it again and score it properly but I had Gonzalez chasing going in to the championship rounds. He had his best round in the sixth I think and looked spent in the 7th and 8th. There were rounds where he wasn't doing much at all.
What a fight though
What a fight though
-
Ilya Muromets
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 4243
- Joined: 06 Nov 2009, 15:02
Re: Who did you have winning, Gonzalez or Wangek?
Fight of the year. I agree with the judge decision for once.
Re: Who did you have winning, Gonzalez or Wangek?
same 114 112 gonzalez.ill be honest i dont think it was that great of a fight.it was good but thats more down to gonzalez constant flurry of punches and srisakets ability to block them with his face.this was a bad decision from the judges actually
-
SaadOffTheDeck
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 19602
- Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38
Re: Who did you have winning, Gonzalez or Wangek?
We won that one, my $80 was well spent. Didn't score it, just marked out. Sri holds his chin straight up in the air with disdain for punches. Great fight, best I've seen in years.
-
BAD INTENTIONS
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 1885
- Joined: 22 Oct 2005, 17:45
Re: Who did you have winning, Gonzalez or Wangek?
You did watch the main event right?SaadOffTheDeck wrote:We won that one, my $80 was well spent. Didn't score it, just marked out. Sri holds his chin straight up in the air with disdain for punches. Great fight, best I've seen in years.
And Ward/Kovalev ... fought at a skill level above the clouds ...
-
BAD INTENTIONS
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 1885
- Joined: 22 Oct 2005, 17:45
Re: Who did you have winning, Gonzalez or Wangek?
Can you explain this to me?Boxing Prospect wrote:114-112 Srisaket
*sighs reading people use his birth name*
You could even PM the answer so you have to deal with angry American/British ignorant responses.
-
SaadOffTheDeck
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 19602
- Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38
Re: Who did you have winning, Gonzalez or Wangek?
BAD INTENTIONS wrote:You did watch the main event right?SaadOffTheDeck wrote:We won that one, my $80 was well spent. Didn't score it, just marked out. Sri holds his chin straight up in the air with disdain for punches. Great fight, best I've seen in years.
And Ward/Kovalev ... fought at a skill level above the clouds ...
-
BAD INTENTIONS
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 1885
- Joined: 22 Oct 2005, 17:45
Re: Who did you have winning, Gonzalez or Wangek?
I bet you are a Coweater and a Chickeneater and a Pigeater and a Fisheater.diddy wrote:The 2 judges that had him winning gave Dogeater FIVE straight rounds - 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
Insanity.
Pure incompetence.
Really stupid.
Re: Who did you have winning, Gonzalez or Wangek?
Far less action, and much more standing off, I don't think GGG or Jacobs physically put nearly as much in either.BAD INTENTIONS wrote:You did watch the main event right?SaadOffTheDeck wrote:We won that one, my $80 was well spent. Didn't score it, just marked out. Sri holds his chin straight up in the air with disdain for punches. Great fight, best I've seen in years.
And Ward/Kovalev ... fought at a skill level above the clouds ...
Re: Who did you have winning, Gonzalez or Rungvisai?
Srisaket only made 75,000 for the fight... for the effort and pain that he will suffer in the coming week... I wish they could have given him at least 100,000.. after taxes and paying the other members of his team, he will be lucky to keep 30,000 USD... HBO makes me sick to give out a purse like this.... I hope he will make at least 200,00 usd for the rematch
Re: Who did you have winning, Gonzalez or Rungvisai?
I am disgusted, totally disgusted...
I don`t know, maybe US boxing business wants that only The most Boring Ever Floyd Mayweather will stay with his record without any danger from someone else. Gonzalez was simply robbed, fuc.ed by this bastards. This is unbolievable. I can`t imagine how he feels now. Very sad day for boxing. By the way it was great fight but now it doesn`t matter...
Looking at points I had it 115:111 for Gonzalez, but I tried to give almost every round I could to Rungvisai.
I don`t know, maybe US boxing business wants that only The most Boring Ever Floyd Mayweather will stay with his record without any danger from someone else. Gonzalez was simply robbed, fuc.ed by this bastards. This is unbolievable. I can`t imagine how he feels now. Very sad day for boxing. By the way it was great fight but now it doesn`t matter...
Looking at points I had it 115:111 for Gonzalez, but I tried to give almost every round I could to Rungvisai.
-
Boxing Prospect
- Light Heavyweight
- Posts: 6592
- Joined: 25 Jun 2012, 14:35
Re: Who did you have winning, Gonzalez or Wangek?
Boxrec have decided that all active Thai's will be listed by their birthnames, reasons have varied from from things like ringers (hey Georgia!) to advertising, as opposed to their fighting names. As a result if you whack their boxrec name into youtube you struggle to find footage of the Thai in question, instead if you use their fighting name you'll find a fair bit. It causes confusion, seems to make little real sense and actually harms a Thai in terms of becoming more well known in the West.BAD INTENTIONS wrote:Can you explain this to me?Boxing Prospect wrote:114-112 Srisaket
*sighs reading people use his birth name*
You could even PM the answer so you have to deal with angry American/British ignorant responses.
For example "Wisaksil Wangek" gives about 390 results on youtube, use his fighting name and you get about 5,460 results. If you're researching a Thai and use their real name you're really limiting yourself.
Knockout CP Freshmart got attention based on his name alone, but very few will even attempt to say Thammanoon Niyomtrong. And again if you're looking for footage using his fighting name is much more effective.
IMO it's pretty confusing and disrespectful to not use the name the fighter themselves use in their own country. Whilst others would suggest tagging a fighter with their gym name, or sponsor is disrespectful it's the way it's done in Muay Thai, and we shouldn't be ignoring their fighting culture just beause we don't do it...
Re: Who did you have winning, Gonzalez or Wangek?
How many people have a pet cow or a pet chicken?BAD INTENTIONS wrote:I bet you are a Coweater and a Chickeneater and a Pigeater and a Fisheater.diddy wrote:The 2 judges that had him winning gave Dogeater FIVE straight rounds - 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
Insanity.
Pure incompetence.
Really stupid.
Dogs are companions.