Bad Decisions in Boxing

[drunkenpiper36]

How long did Spinks last against Mike Tyson?

and why instead of fighting Tony Tucker opted for inactive Gerry Cooney

Spinks fought Cooney because he was being offered 4 million dollars to fight HIM rather than 250 thousand to fight Tucker.... Not a hard decision when you think about it..

[tiny_acres]

How long did Spinks last against Mike Tyson?

and why instead of fighting Tony Tucker opted for inactive Gerry Cooney

Spinks fought Cooney because he was being offered 4 million dollars to fight HIM rather than 250 thousand to fight Tucker.... Not a hard decision when you think about it..

It always amazes me that people question why fighters take the money fight instead of the legacy fights.
It's a business make as much you can. Your career doesn't last long.

[APerno]

Another way to look at the situation has to do with the effectiveness of punches. We today place a strong (maybe too strong) emphasis on counting punches landed without evaluating if they are truly effective or not.

I haven't watched this Hamsho fight but considering what I know of the fighter it is not unreasonable to assume that he might have taken two blows to land one, but to the judges siting ringside (where things look quite different than they do on film) they may of concluded that Hamsho was the more effective fighter, if not the better boxer.

It is unlikely that Hamsho would ever come out on the right end of a "punch stat" analysis, but it doesn't necessarily mean he lost the fight.

It may be a matter of judging preference, based on that vague term 'effective aggression' (which seems everyone has their own definition of), or then again maybe somebody did in fact get jobbed, because god knows that happens too.

But to repeat myself, from ringside the effectiveness (impact) of a punch reads quite different than it does on TV.

[scartissue]

Another way to look at the situation has to do with the effectiveness of punches. We today place a strong (maybe too strong) emphasis on counting punches landed without evaluating if they are truly effective or not.

I haven't watched this Hamsho fight but considering what I know of the fighter it is not unreasonable to assume that he might have taken two blows to land one, but to the judges siting ringside (where things look quite different than they do on film) they may of concluded that Hamsho was the more effective fighter, if not the better boxer.

It is unlikely that Hamsho would ever come out on the right end of a "punch stat" analysis, but it doesn't necessarily mean he lost the fight.

It may be a matter of judging preference, based on that vague term 'effective aggression' (which seems everyone has their own definition of), or then again maybe somebody did in fact get jobbed, because god knows that happens too.

But to repeat myself, from ringside the effectiveness (impact) of a punch reads quite different than it does on TV.

Dude, you really need to watch this fight. It may also interst everyone here that Hamsho had already signed to fight Hagler for the title prior to this bout. Something that was not public knowledge at the time. Anyways, you be the judge.

[APerno]

Another way to look at the situation has to do with the effectiveness of punches. We today place a strong (maybe too strong) emphasis on counting punches landed without evaluating if they are truly effective or not.

I haven't watched this Hamsho fight but considering what I know of the fighter it is not unreasonable to assume that he might have taken two blows to land one, but to the judges siting ringside (where things look quite different than they do on film) they may of concluded that Hamsho was the more effective fighter, if not the better boxer.

It is unlikely that Hamsho would ever come out on the right end of a "punch stat" analysis, but it doesn't necessarily mean he lost the fight.

It may be a matter of judging preference, based on that vague term 'effective aggression' (which seems everyone has their own definition of), or then again maybe somebody did in fact get jobbed, because god knows that happens too.

But to repeat myself, from ringside the effectiveness (impact) of a punch reads quite different than it does on TV.

Dude, you really need to watch this fight. It may also interst everyone here that Hamsho had already signed to fight Hagler for the title prior to this bout. Something that was not public knowledge at the time. Anyways, you be the judge.

Fair enough I will. I was just talking in the abstract about how the game has changed in the way it's scored. - That the Hagler fight was already signed is one of those uh-ohs! -- TV doesn't need fair judging interfering with a planned broadcast, (I say sarcastically.) but you do realize the Hagler fight is 8 months away and Hamsho fights Minter in between? (Which he also won by SD; I wonder how that scoring looks)

They fought in AC which means they were both local boys: Curtis out of Phily and Hamsho from Bayonne, N.J. (at the time).

The second fight has real close scoring as well, but there isn't the strange disparity as in the first fight. 5-4 vs. 3-7 is suspicious. I shall watch.

[drunkenpiper36]

and why instead of fighting Tony Tucker opted for inactive Gerry Cooney

Spinks fought Cooney because he was being offered 4 million dollars to fight HIM rather than 250 thousand to fight Tucker.... Not a hard decision when you think about it..

It always amazes me that people question why fighters take the money fight instead of the legacy fights.
It's a business make as much you can. Your career doesn't last long.

Tucker was a paper contender in Don King’s Stable, who was destined to be a lamb for the slaughter for Tyson. He wanted complete control of the heavyweight division and Bob Lee - President of the IBF at the time was in bed with him. Tony was never a big draw. His vacant title fight with Buster Douglas was a joke. Nobody considered those guys champions nor even elite contenders at the time. Spinks was the linear claimant and Cooney was a big crowd draw ( despite being removed from the picture. )

[APerno]

Another way to look at the situation has to do with the effectiveness of punches. We today place a strong (maybe too strong) emphasis on counting punches landed without evaluating if they are truly effective or not.

I haven't watched this Hamsho fight but considering what I know of the fighter it is not unreasonable to assume that he might have taken two blows to land one, but to the judges siting ringside (where things look quite different than they do on film) they may of concluded that Hamsho was the more effective fighter, if not the better boxer.

It is unlikely that Hamsho would ever come out on the right end of a "punch stat" analysis, but it doesn't necessarily mean he lost the fight.

It may be a matter of judging preference, based on that vague term 'effective aggression' (which seems everyone has their own definition of), or then again maybe somebody did in fact get jobbed, because god knows that happens too.

But to repeat myself, from ringside the effectiveness (impact) of a punch reads quite different than it does on TV.

Dude, you really need to watch this fight. It may also interst everyone here that Hamsho had already signed to fight Hagler for the title prior to this bout. Something that was not public knowledge at the time. Anyways, you be the judge.

Parker Vs. Hamsho (I)

I am doing a running score promising myself I won't go back and reassess or edit my posts; I'll live with what I write.

1. (Parker round) The best you can say for Hamsho here is 10-10 even; can't see any justification to give Hamsho the round.

2. (Hamsho round) Don't see any room for dispute here; Parker tried to save the round in the last minute by getting on his toes, but was ineffective just bouncing around.

The announcer says the winner would get a shot at Hagler; I wonder why Hamsho would fight Minter in between???

3. (Hamsho round) Hamsho bullied his way through the round; shades of Hamsho-Benitez; can't see any justifcation to give Parker this round.

4. (Even round) I was reading you-all posts regarding close rounds going either way; I tend to believe in 'even' rounds more than most do, but this round I truly believe is properly called even.

5. (Parker round) Hamsho tried to bully again but nice counter punching by Parker; Hamsho ineffective.

Announcer mentions a shot at Hagler again.

6. (Parker round) Hamsho fought tired; close round but enough good punches early to give the round to Parker; Hamsho evened the round in the last minute but too little too late. (This seems to be one of those rounds where a judge might give it to Hamsho because of the last minute but I wouldn't.)

7. (Parker round) Parker wins the round on two combinations in the first 30 seconds after that both fighters are sloppy and ineffective; the announcer claimed Parker was landing late in the round but I couldn't find it. I would be hard pressed to accept a judge giving this round to Hamsho.

8. (Even round) One clean effective punch by Parker again early on but not enough to give him the round; this round was a stinker.

9. (Even round) This is where my bias towards even rounds comes in; I saw nothing from either fighter; I'm thinking maybe I want my money back.

OK, here we go, last round!

10. (Even round) If you want Parker to win the fight then you give him this round; Parker lands a few (very few) very ineffective punches; Hamsho looked like a Greco-Roman wrestler who I think landed no punches. But Parker didn't show enough to say he won anything; maybe a Parker round but that's only if you are one of those people that insists there be a winner in every round; not me. A STINKER!

Before I count up my rounds let me say this, at the end, this fight turned into a stinker. I wasn't impressed with either man. I want my money back.

Parker 4 rounds; Hamsho 2 rounds; Even 4

OK so there lies the rub; to find a winner I have to go back and reassess the four even rounds and that is a bogus thing to do; to my mind neither man really deserved the decision; this is why I am a supporter of no decision fights because that is what I felt I saw a ND. Neither guy deserved a shot at Hagler.

But anyway (just like that Japanese judge from Duran-Leonard (I) who had 10 rounds even) I saw it Parker 4 and Hamsho 2 and 4 even. Parker by UD (me. myself, and I)

One of the even rounds might go to Parker and one might go to Hamsho making it Parker 5, Hamsho 3, and 2 even but that's the best I can make it. What a lousy fight you made me watch.

I'm not going to get my money back, am I?

P.S. Now I know why Hamsho had to fight Minter in between, because he stunk the place out tonight.

[scartissue]

Another way to look at the situation has to do with the effectiveness of punches. We today place a strong (maybe too strong) emphasis on counting punches landed without evaluating if they are truly effective or not.

I haven't watched this Hamsho fight but considering what I know of the fighter it is not unreasonable to assume that he might have taken two blows to land one, but to the judges siting ringside (where things look quite different than they do on film) they may of concluded that Hamsho was the more effective fighter, if not the better boxer.

It is unlikely that Hamsho would ever come out on the right end of a "punch stat" analysis, but it doesn't necessarily mean he lost the fight.

It may be a matter of judging preference, based on that vague term 'effective aggression' (which seems everyone has their own definition of), or then again maybe somebody did in fact get jobbed, because god knows that happens too.

But to repeat myself, from ringside the effectiveness (impact) of a punch reads quite different than it does on TV.

Dude, you really need to watch this fight. It may also interst everyone here that Hamsho had already signed to fight Hagler for the title prior to this bout. Something that was not public knowledge at the time. Anyways, you be the judge.

Parker Vs. Hamsho (I)

I am doing a running score promising myself I won't go back and reassess or edit my posts; I'll live with what I write.

1. (Parker round) The best you can say for Hamsho here is 10-10 even; can't see any justification to give Hamsho the round.

2. (Hamsho round) Don't see any room for dispute here; Parker tried to save the round in the last minute by getting on his toes, but was ineffective just bouncing around.

The announcer says the winner would get a shot at Hagler; I wonder why Hamsho would fight Minter in between???

3. (Hamsho round) Hamsho bullied his way through the round; shades of Hamsho-Benitez; can't see any justifcation to give Parker this round.

4. (Even round) I was reading you-all posts regarding close rounds going either way; I tend to believe in 'even' rounds more than most do, but this round I truly believe is properly called even.

5. (Parker round) Hamsho tried to bully again but nice counter punching by Parker; Hamsho ineffective.

Announcer mentions a shot at Hagler again.

6. (Parker round) Hamsho fought tired; close round but enough good punches early to give the round to Parker; Hamsho evened the round in the last minute but too little too late. (This seems to be one of those rounds where a judge might give it to Hamsho because of the last minute but I wouldn't.)

7. (Parker round) Parker wins the round on two combinations in the first 30 seconds after that both fighters are sloppy and ineffective; the announcer claimed Parker was landing late in the round but I couldn't find it. I would be hard pressed to accept a judge giving this round to Hamsho.

8. (Even round) One clean effective punch by Parker again early on but not enough to give him the round; this round was a stinker.

9. (Even round) This is where my bias towards even rounds comes in; I saw nothing from either fighter; I'm thinking maybe I want my money back.

OK, here we go, last round!

10. (Even round) If you want Parker to win the fight then you give him this round; Parker lands a few (very few) very ineffective punches; Hamsho looked like a Greco-Roman wrestler who I think landed no punches. But Parker didn't show enough to say he won anything; maybe a Parker round but that's only if you are one of those people that insists there be a winner in every round; not me. A STINKER!

Before I count up my rounds let me say this, at the end, this fight turned into a stinker. I wasn't impressed with either man. I want my money back.

Parker 4 rounds; Hamsho 2 rounds; Even 4

OK so there lies the rub; to find a winner I have to go back and reassess the four even rounds and that is a bogus thing to do; to my mind neither man really deserved the decision; this is why I am a supporter of no decision fights because that is what I felt I saw a ND. Neither guy deserved a shot at Hagler.

But anyway (just like that Japanese judge from Duran-Leonard (I) who had 10 rounds even) I saw it Parker 4 and Hamsho 2 and 4 even. Parker by UD (me. myself, and I)

One of the even rounds might go to Parker and one might go to Hamsho making it Parker 5, Hamsho 3, and 2 even but that's the best I can make it. What a lousy fight you made me watch.

I'm not going to get my money back, am I?

P.S. Now I know why Hamsho had to fight Minter in between, because he stunk the place out tonight.

Perno, here was my score on the bout and what I wrote after viewing. Incidentally, there was another poster who also scored it like you with a 4-2-4 score, but he had rounds 4,5,8 and 9 even. We all agreed on only rounds 2 and 3 for Hamsho. Me and the other guy did enjoy the fight, however, despite the mauling. This kind of a fight is not everyone's cup of tea, I'll admit. Anyways, here was my take on the fight.

A difficult one because of a lot of mauling. Vinny Rainone was **** in this one. 10 rounds of warning Hamsho for butting with no points taken. i'll admit their styles were take no prisoners and the southpaw/orthodox combo was always going to be tough, but there were many times the butting appeared blatant. Regardless, good tough fight and here is my score:

Round 1: Parker
Round 2:Hamsho
Round 3: Hamsho
Round 4: Even
Round 5: Parker
Round 6: Parker
Round 7: Parker
Round 8: Parker
Round 9: Even
Round 10: Parker

Total: 6-2-2 Parker

Hamsho did well when bulling Parker to the ropes and negating his punching, but I thought Parker was just a bit busier and threw the cleaner shots.

[APerno]

Dude, you really need to watch this fight. It may also interst everyone here that Hamsho had already signed to fight Hagler for the title prior to this bout. Something that was not public knowledge at the time. Anyways, you be the judge.

Parker Vs. Hamsho (I)

I am doing a running score promising myself I won't go back and reassess or edit my posts; I'll live with what I write.

1. (Parker round) The best you can say for Hamsho here is 10-10 even; can't see any justification to give Hamsho the round.

2. (Hamsho round) Don't see any room for dispute here; Parker tried to save the round in the last minute by getting on his toes, but was ineffective just bouncing around.

The announcer says the winner would get a shot at Hagler; I wonder why Hamsho would fight Minter in between???

3. (Hamsho round) Hamsho bullied his way through the round; shades of Hamsho-Benitez; can't see any justifcation to give Parker this round.

4. (Even round) I was reading you-all posts regarding close rounds going either way; I tend to believe in 'even' rounds more than most do, but this round I truly believe is properly called even.

5. (Parker round) Hamsho tried to bully again but nice counter punching by Parker; Hamsho ineffective.

Announcer mentions a shot at Hagler again.

6. (Parker round) Hamsho fought tired; close round but enough good punches early to give the round to Parker; Hamsho evened the round in the last minute but too little too late. (This seems to be one of those rounds where a judge might give it to Hamsho because of the last minute but I wouldn't.)

7. (Parker round) Parker wins the round on two combinations in the first 30 seconds after that both fighters are sloppy and ineffective; the announcer claimed Parker was landing late in the round but I couldn't find it. I would be hard pressed to accept a judge giving this round to Hamsho.

8. (Even round) One clean effective punch by Parker again early on but not enough to give him the round; this round was a stinker.

9. (Even round) This is where my bias towards even rounds comes in; I saw nothing from either fighter; I'm thinking maybe I want my money back.

OK, here we go, last round!

10. (Even round) If you want Parker to win the fight then you give him this round; Parker lands a few (very few) very ineffective punches; Hamsho looked like a Greco-Roman wrestler who I think landed no punches. But Parker didn't show enough to say he won anything; maybe a Parker round but that's only if you are one of those people that insists there be a winner in every round; not me. A STINKER!

Before I count up my rounds let me say this, at the end, this fight turned into a stinker. I wasn't impressed with either man. I want my money back.

Parker 4 rounds; Hamsho 2 rounds; Even 4

OK so there lies the rub; to find a winner I have to go back and reassess the four even rounds and that is a bogus thing to do; to my mind neither man really deserved the decision; this is why I am a supporter of no decision fights because that is what I felt I saw a ND. Neither guy deserved a shot at Hagler.

But anyway (just like that Japanese judge from Duran-Leonard (I) who had 10 rounds even) I saw it Parker 4 and Hamsho 2 and 4 even. Parker by UD (me. myself, and I)

One of the even rounds might go to Parker and one might go to Hamsho making it Parker 5, Hamsho 3, and 2 even but that's the best I can make it. What a lousy fight you made me watch.

I'm not going to get my money back, am I?

P.S. Now I know why Hamsho had to fight Minter in between, because he stunk the place out tonight.

Perno, here was my score on the bout and what I wrote after viewing. Incidentally, there was another poster who also scored it like you with a 4-2-4 score, but he had rounds 4,5,8 and 9 even. We all agreed on only rounds 2 and 3 for Hamsho. Me and the other guy did enjoy the fight, however, despite the mauling. This kind of a fight is not everyone's cup of tea, I'll admit. Anyways, here was my take on the fight.

A difficult one because of a lot of mauling. Vinny Rainone was **** in this one. 10 rounds of warning Hamsho for butting with no points taken. i'll admit their styles were take no prisoners and the southpaw/orthodox combo was always going to be tough, but there were many times the butting appeared blatant. Regardless, good tough fight and here is my score:

Round 1: Parker
Round 2:Hamsho
Round 3: Hamsho
Round 4: Even
Round 5: Parker
Round 6: Parker
Round 7: Parker
Round 8: Parker
Round 9: Even
Round 10: Parker

Total: 6-2-2 Parker

Hamsho did well when bulling Parker to the ropes and negating his punching, but I thought Parker was just a bit busier and threw the cleaner shots.

First off you're right it looks like Parker got jobbed.

You and I had the same score except for the 8th and 10th rounds. - Interesting that all three of us saw the 4th and 9th even.

I think your decision to give Parker the 8th and 10th rounds relates back to my original post regarding my compliant about punch stats. I can see why you would give Parker those rounds based on number of punches landed, he a few and Hamsho had fewer, but to me none of the punches, landed by either fighter, could be considered an effective blow and I just don't want to reward a fighter a round when he can't land an 'effective' blow. That remark you made Parker was just a bit busier is a good example of my complaint, to me that's not enough to win a a round and therefore a fight, but I realize many don't want to score round after round even, so they look for a reason to give the round one way or the other, I think we should not do that.

But to repeat back to the very original argument, I agree Parker robbed.

Good talking with you.

[Ambling Alp II]

But if you scored 4-2-4, then Parker really was not "robbed." He only won four rounds. It's only a robbery if you can make no case for Hamsho. You can. Just give Hamsho the four even rounds and he wins 6-4. Or 3 of the 4, and one even and it's 5-4-1 for Hamsho.

I think this is an example of the difference between a robbery and a decision that you don't agree with.

[scartissue]

Has anyone checked this one out? The bout between John Conteh and Jesse Burnett. Referee Harry Gibb was the sole arbiter and he scored the bout a 98 1/2 - 98 1/2 draw. I believe British scoring was 10-9 1/2 for a winning round. I will assume there are extra points for a knockdown, otherwise why employ a 10 must system in the first place. So my score on this bout was 98-96 1/2 for Burnett. 5-4-1 in rounds but with 2 knockdowns I would call it a bad decision. Have I an understanding on British scoring or can anyone tell me if I have erred?

Round 1: Burnett (scored a knockdown)
Round 2: Burnett
Round 3: Conteh
Round 4: Even
Round 5: Conteh
Round 6: Conteh
Round 7: Burnett
Round 8: Burnett (scored a knockdown)
Round 9: Conteh
Round 10: Burnett

[APerno]

But if you scored 4-2-4, then Parker really was not "robbed." He only won four rounds. It's only a robbery if you can make no case for Hamsho. You can. Just give Hamsho the four even rounds and he wins 6-4. Or 3 of the 4, and one even and it's 5-4-1 for Hamsho.

This is a textbook example of the difference between a robbery and a decision that you don't agree with.

I see your point but with me it is an issue about how, many judges today, believe they have to choose a round winner no matter how close the round looks. Under that dynamic these types of judges should have given most (if not all) of the close rounds to Parker. Simply (IMO) you can't go out and find three close rounds to give to Hamsho, they're just not there. That's why even though I scored it 4-2-4 I think normally most professional judges would have normally (should have) come in with 6-2-2 or 7-2-1 UD for Parker.

Or in others words, I can't find five rounds to give to Hamsho.

But it was such a sloppy fight that if one had a Hamsho bias going in (which I assume is what is being considering here) then you might be able to talk yourself into finding those extra three rounds (which they obviously did) but (IMO) it would take a bias going in to get you there.

Take away even rounds and force me to score every round, I would end up 8-2 or 7-3 Parker.

But as I always say, it was in (my) reality just another ND bout that we forced a decision on, neither man won, neither man lost.

IMO Part of the reason we have 'bad decisions' is because we force a decision onto fights that really didn't have one. This is in my opinion one of them. If I was the king of boxing this would be recorded as a ND fight.

But ignoring my love of even rounds, either Parker got jobbed or Hamsho got a gift, one of those two things happened.

[scartissue]

Bernardo Pinango v Frankie Duarte

Round 1: 10-9 Pinango
Round 2: 9-9 Even (I scored for Pinango but he lost a point for a low blow)
Round 3: 10-9 Duarte
Round 4: 10-8 Duarte (Pinango loses another point for a low blow)
Round 5: 10-10 Even
Round 6: 10-9 Pinango
Round 7: 10-9 Pinango
Round 8: 10-9 Duarte (shortened round which I scored even but Pinango loses yet another point for a low blow)
Round 9: 10-9 Pinango
Round 10: 10-9 Duarte
Round 11: 10-9 Pinango
Round 12: 10-8 Duarte (Duarte scores a knockdown)
Round 13: 10-10 Even
Round 14: 10-9 Duarte
Round 15: 10-10 Even

Total: 144-141 Duarte

Okay, close fight or bad decision? The WBA brought in their own latin judges and I felt ripped Frankie off. I cannot make a case with the points deducted plus the knockdown on how one could have given this to Pinango. I think what really sticks with me is how two of them had it comfortably for Pinango. I'd love to hear anyone else's take on this. I had several even/swing rounds so maybe I'm off, but with the judges going so comfortably with Pinango the decision just reeked for me.

[APerno]

Bernardo Pinango v Frankie Duarte

Round 1: 10-9 Pinango
Round 2: 9-9 Even (I scored for Pinango but he lost a point for a low blow)
Round 3: 10-9 Duarte
Round 4: 10-8 Duarte (Pinango loses another point for a low blow)
Round 5: 10-10 Even
Round 6: 10-9 Pinango
Round 7: 10-9 Pinango
Round 8: 10-9 Duarte (shortened round which I scored even but Pinango loses yet another point for a low blow)
Round 9: 10-9 Pinango
Round 10: 10-9 Duarte
Round 11: 10-9 Pinango
Round 12: 10-8 Duarte (Duarte scores a knockdown)
Round 13: 10-10 Even
Round 14: 10-9 Duarte
Round 15: 10-10 Even

Total: 144-141 Duarte

Okay, close fight or bad decision? The WBA brought in their own latin judges and I felt ripped Frankie off. I cannot make a case with the points deducted plus the knockdown on how one could have given this to Pinango. I think what really sticks with me is how two of them had it comfortably for Pinango. I'd love to hear anyone else's take on this. I had several even/swing rounds so maybe I'm off, but with the judges going so comfortably with Pinango the decision just reeked for me.

OK I'll bite but it will be later on in the weekend, today I am dealing with a leaky roof and insurance adjusters (waiting on the guy now). - Not that I am a good judge but I will be able to go into this one with absolutely no bias, I couldn't pick either of these guys out of a police line-up if my life depended on it.

[scartissue]

Bernardo Pinango v Frankie Duarte

Round 1: 10-9 Pinango
Round 2: 9-9 Even (I scored for Pinango but he lost a point for a low blow)
Round 3: 10-9 Duarte
Round 4: 10-8 Duarte (Pinango loses another point for a low blow)
Round 5: 10-10 Even
Round 6: 10-9 Pinango
Round 7: 10-9 Pinango
Round 8: 10-9 Duarte (shortened round which I scored even but Pinango loses yet another point for a low blow)
Round 9: 10-9 Pinango
Round 10: 10-9 Duarte
Round 11: 10-9 Pinango
Round 12: 10-8 Duarte (Duarte scores a knockdown)
Round 13: 10-10 Even
Round 14: 10-9 Duarte
Round 15: 10-10 Even

Total: 144-141 Duarte

Okay, close fight or bad decision? The WBA brought in their own latin judges and I felt ripped Frankie off. I cannot make a case with the points deducted plus the knockdown on how one could have given this to Pinango. I think what really sticks with me is how two of them had it comfortably for Pinango. I'd love to hear anyone else's take on this. I had several even/swing rounds so maybe I'm off, but with the judges going so comfortably with Pinango the decision just reeked for me.

OK I'll bite but it will be later on in the weekend, today I am dealing with a leaky roof and insurance adjusters (waiting on the guy now). - Not that I am a good judge but I will be able to go into this one with absolutely no bias, I couldn't pick either of these guys out of a police line-up if my life depended on it.

Cool, good luck with the roof.

[dagilechia]

Masternak Muller in South Africa. Muller down twice in a 10-rounder, won 2 maybe 3 rounds at best. Mastenak should have won 98-90 or 97-91 but Muller was awarded the SD (95-93, 93-95, 95-93) 2 judges scored only 1 round to Masternak except of the rounds he knocked down Muller.

[Casablanca]

Gil referenced me to one, Tyson Cave vs. Oscar Escandon from December of 2014, which has to be seen to be believed.