stujones wrote:
Goz, we'll have to agree to disagree again - I supposse you also think Morales won the 2nd encounter - NO WAY (IMO). The first encounter was closer in my eyes, I actually scored it Barrera by 1 (including the dodgy KD in the 12th - scoring it 10-8). But Barrera won the 2nd one clean.
But , yes Morales is an all time great aswell and since has faught the better guys.
Yup you got it, I thought Morales dominated the rematch and clearly won. I was devastated when they announced the scores. It's funny it shows how judges do come up with wildy different scores doesn't it?
I totally respect your opinion and you feel MAB won it clearly, I feel Morales got shafted!
And yes I scored the firs fight to Erik by a single point, obviously something about his style that lifts my frock as Marco's does yours!
Goz wrote:
Yup you got it, I thought Morales dominated the rematch and clearly won. I was devastated when they announced the scores. It's funny it shows how judges do come up with wildy different scores doesn't it?
I totally respect your opinion and you feel MAB won it clearly, I feel Morales got shafted!
And yes I scored the firs fight to Erik by a single point, obviously something about his style that lifts my frock as Marco's does yours!
Yeah it is odd. When a big fight is close (or when my card disagree's with the Sky card) I usually have these butterflies when the decision is announced. Amazingly for fights generally considered robberies (Castillo vs Mayweather 1, Barrera vs Morales II) I didn't have this feeling and I was confident the judges would pick the correct winner - which they did in my eyes. I did have it with Barrera vs Morales 1, Lewis vs Holyfield II and Tapia vs Medina - and in each case the judges got it wrong in my opinion).
I've always thought the early version of Naz would've cold-cocked a very suprised Barrera.
The younger Barrera was very different from the wiser, more patient version who eventualy took on Hamed. He wouldn't have had that respect for Naz' power, and would've steamed in as soon as he hurt him, walking right onto one of Naz' hail marys.
By the time they met, Barrera had studied him for years and knew exactly how to beat him. That wouldn't have been the case if they'd met 4 years before.
Goz wrote:
In fact Steward's involvement with Hamed was more publicity than anything anyway, Hamed deteriorated over the 2 years they were 'together' and basically he was just employing Suarez as a conditioning coach and devising his own 'strategy' which wasn't really a strategy at all. This was why Barerra was Stewards last fight with Hamed.
Well there you go that's my point made for me, sounds like a perfect training camp doesn't it? he must have been in the best shape of his career. Watch him fight Augie Sanchez and then put the Barerra tape on, there is a noticable reduction in speed as well as reflexes. I don't even like Naz Hamster I think he's the worlds' most obnoxious twat other than Robbie Williams, so don't take me for some blind fan. But there are too many people whio say hee was "exposed" and such and they're talking shit. Hamed didn't take a beating, he got outpointed in a rather boring fight.
No, I'm not confusing anything. You're probably right though, he's wasting time knawing to keep his teeh from growing indefinately so we probably are wasting time talking about him.
Yup you got it, I thought Morales dominated the rematch and clearly won. I was devastated when they announced the scores. It's funny it shows how judges do come up with wildy different scores doesn't it?