BoxRec

winkveron wrote:How can 114-112 in Hopkins' favour and two even scorecards be a draw? Surely Hopkins edged those cards no matter how slightly and therefore should've been awarded the win? Someone enlighten me please!

It's a draw by majority decision, two cards were level, one card had Hopkins winning. If Hopkins had two cards for him and the remaining one a draw he'd have won by majority decision.

Scored it 115-112 for Hopkins.

Scored it twice (which is at least once more than the fvcking thing warranted, & yes Marjory it was dull ta, thirty punches a round thrown between the pair of them, people are only mesmerised 'cos most BH fights have only ten punches thrown a round therefore this one looked like some kind of epic for the ages by comparison): a point either way each time.

Hopkins not only gets in the head of his opponents, but also people watching (& scoring) the fight. He just doesn't do as much as his cheerleaders scream that he does, old-skool skillz or not.

Very good performance by such an old bloke but Pascal was utterly dreadful & seemed to have no plan other than knock the old dude out in the first five rounds. Once Hopkins started banging the body then Pascal looked like he didn't want to know.

The controversy has arisen from two things, I feel: Septics who are lairy 'cos their one remaining top-tier bloke didn't win (thus depriving them of the requisite "Bigger than sports" widescreen TV moment of the old dude becoming champ again) & because Pascal looked so shite for the majority of the fight. Other than that, it was a close fight, with not a bad decision being rendered at all.

banjo wrote:

winkveron wrote:How can 114-112 in Hopkins' favour and two even scorecards be a draw? Surely Hopkins edged those cards no matter how slightly and therefore should've been awarded the win? Someone enlighten me please!

It's a draw by majority decision, two cards were level, one card had Hopkins winning. If Hopkins had two cards for him and the remaining one a draw he'd have won by majority decision.

Cheers Banjo. That makes sense but I think it's a daft rule. It's like calling a 100m sprint a draw rather than going to a photo finish. A winning margin, no matter how small, should result in a winner and a loser in my opinion. After all, at the highest level of any sport the margins are always tiny.

winkveron wrote:

banjo wrote:

winkveron wrote:How can 114-112 in Hopkins' favour and two even scorecards be a draw? Surely Hopkins edged those cards no matter how slightly and therefore should've been awarded the win? Someone enlighten me please!

It's a draw by majority decision, two cards were level, one card had Hopkins winning. If Hopkins had two cards for him and the remaining one a draw he'd have won by majority decision.

Cheers Banjo. That makes sense but I think it's a daft rule. It's like calling a 100m sprint a draw rather than going to a photo finish. A winning margin, no matter how small, should result in a winner and a loser in my opinion. After all, at the highest level of any sport the margins are always tiny.

Needing the 2 scorecards to win a fight though does give it a bit more validity. If the ref & lino's all had a good view of a dodgy goal and 2 of them thought it crossed the line and the other didn't, you wouldn't go with the guy on his own

Datsue wrote:Scored it twice (which is at least once more than the fvcking thing warranted, & yes Marjory it was dull ta, thirty punches a round thrown between the pair of them, people are only mesmerised 'cos most BH fights have only ten punches thrown a round therefore this one looked like some kind of epic for the ages by comparison): a point either way each time.

Hopkins not only gets in the head of his opponents, but also people watching (& scoring) the fight. He just doesn't do as much as his cheerleaders scream that he does, old-skool skillz or not.

Very good performance by such an old bloke but Pascal was utterly dreadful & seemed to have no plan other than knock the old dude out in the first five rounds. Once Hopkins started banging the body then Pascal looked like he didn't want to know.

The controversy has arisen from two things, I feel: Septics who are lairy 'cos their one remaining top-tier bloke didn't win (thus depriving them of the requisite "Bigger than sports" widescreen TV moment of the old dude becoming champ again) & because Pascal looked so shite for the majority of the fight. Other than that, it was a close fight, with not a bad decision being rendered at all.

The controversy has arisen from more than that..... How can Van Der Weile score that 10th round a draw is a mystery. Its not up there with Euginia Williams but it was still a shocking bit of judging. That round cost Hopkins the victory.

It was a close fight - cause of the KD's.... They have been deemed controvesial in part also and also this whitening up of the score cards - something is not adding up.

But yes, close fight. Hopkins won it for me. I don't have any complaints with a draw really - it would have been really bad though had Pascal won. Cause he clearly didn't BEAT Hopkins (in the old fashioned way of looking at things). He didn't have any answers.

Datsue wrote: . Once Hopkins started banging the body then Pascal looked like he didn't want to know.

.

pretty sure noone has really gone to Pascal's body before the weekend

Anyone remember Morales/Diaz? In the first, I can't remember who, someone dominated the round only to be put down at the end of it. The Yanky commentators where certain it was a 10-8 round to the guy who got the KD, but I give it 10-9. It was a hard round to score but surely you can't win a round 10-8 if you only connect with one MEANINGFUL punch.

I would've scored them rounds 10-9 if BHOP was dominating but got put down at then.

alexpaterson wrote:I scored the first 10-10 I thought Hopkins was just winning up until that point.

You cannot score a round 10-10 afaik after a KD as you have to discount a point from your total afterwards, meaning Hopkns was 11-10 on your card before the knockdown.

2 of the judges scored the first round 10-9 Pascal.

Poncey wrote:

alexpaterson wrote:I scored the first 10-10 I thought Hopkins was just winning up until that point.

You cannot score a round 10-10 afaik after a KD as you have to discount a point from your total afterwards, meaning Hopkns was 11-10 on your card before the knockdown.

2 of the judges scored the first round 10-9 Pascal.

I haven't seen the fight but if what I hear is correct, then the Ponce is correct. If Pascal gets a KD, then no way can the round be 10-10 unless something exceptional happens, like a KD for Hopkins. If a fighter gets a KD in a round, then the least he should get is a 10-9 win. Anything other is rather silly.

That's a 9-9 round you massive gay.

Go sit in the corner and think about what you've done.

stujones wrote:also this whitening up of the score cards - something is not adding up.

This didn't actually happen. It was a rumour started by Richard Schaeffer, which he later retracted.

sg1985 wrote:I'm not exactly sure, but I think if the ref gives a KD it's a KD and should be scored accordingly. I don't think there was anything wrong with that shot though, it was not a rabbit punch.

it was a clear foul punch.

poor call from the ref.

hitman_hatton1 wrote:

sg1985 wrote:I'm not exactly sure, but I think if the ref gives a KD it's a KD and should be scored accordingly. I don't think there was anything wrong with that shot though, it was not a rabbit punch.

it was a clear foul punch.

poor call from the ref.

Watch it again, in slow motion. Bernard comes in, misses, goes for the headbutt, misses that, tries to get his left glove around Pascal's neck, misses that too, & the punch landed on the side of the head. That is not a foul.

do i have to watch it again.

hitman_hatton1 wrote:do i have to watch it again.

Yes.

freddydoesdallas wrote:

winkveron wrote:

banjo wrote: It's a draw by majority decision, two cards were level, one card had Hopkins winning. If Hopkins had two cards for him and the remaining one a draw he'd have won by majority decision.

Cheers Banjo. That makes sense but I think it's a daft rule. It's like calling a 100m sprint a draw rather than going to a photo finish. A winning margin, no matter how small, should result in a winner and a loser in my opinion. After all, at the highest level of any sport the margins are always tiny.

Needing the 2 scorecards to win a fight though does give it a bit more validity. If the ref & lino's all had a good view of a dodgy goal and 2 of them thought it crossed the line and the other didn't, you wouldn't go with the guy on his own

Fair point.

King Geedorah wrote:

Poncey wrote:That's a 9-9 round you massive gay.

Go sit in the corner and think about what you've done.

Ten point must. You can only give the 9-9 when you have a deduction in the round. Even then, the round is scored on the must system and the -1 factored in when you tot the cards up. Pretty sure that the knockdown doesn't go in deductions box as you can have more than one knockdown and have to score accordingly.

Two knockdowns and a dominant round would be a 10-7. There was once a fight where the guy got put over twice and lost a point so that would be 10-7 in the normal columns and a -1 in the third for a 10-6 overall for the round.

I didn't think every fight was ten point must. It depends on the commission? Did I dream that?

Poncey wrote:

King Geedorah wrote:

Poncey wrote:That's a 9-9 round you massive gay.

Go sit in the corner and think about what you've done.

Ten point must. You can only give the 9-9 when you have a deduction in the round. Even then, the round is scored on the must system and the -1 factored in when you tot the cards up. Pretty sure that the knockdown doesn't go in deductions box as you can have more than one knockdown and have to score accordingly.

Two knockdowns and a dominant round would be a 10-7. There was once a fight where the guy got put over twice and lost a point so that would be 10-7 in the normal columns and a -1 in the third for a 10-6 overall for the round.

I didn't think every fight was ten point must. It depends on the commission? Did I dream that?

I think that every sanctioning body now uses the ten point must system.

Datsue wrote:

hitman_hatton1 wrote:do i have to watch it again.

Yes.

the punch was clearly behind the ear and........

Association of Boxing Commissions Regulatory Guidelines

Fouls
A foul is an action by a boxer, identified by the referee, that does not meet the standard of a fair blow or the conduct of a responsible professional fighter. Fouls may include, but are not limited to, the following types of contact or acts:
1. Hitting an opponent below the navel or behind the ear;
2. Hitting an opponent who is knocked down;
3. Holding an opponent with one hand and hitting with the other;
4. Holding or deliberately maintaining a clinch;
5. Wrestling, kicking or roughing;
6. Pushing an opponent about the ring or into the ropes;
7. Butting with the head, shoulder, knee, elbow;
8. Hitting with the open glove, the butt or inside of the hand, or back of the...

thankyou and goodnight.