BoxRec

Ambling Alp wrote:I wouldn't call it criminal that it was draw. Leonard was not robbed. True, it is a fact that Leonard landed more punches than Hearns, and Leonard did hurt Hearns more often than vice versa. However, it was a close fight and a draw was fair enough.

dempseyfire wrote:

BarryWashington wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:The first one that comes to mind is Mayweather/Oscar. I had it 9-3 and can't see anything closer than 8-4. He was pretty much playing with him the second half of the fight. Not that it was unexpected.

I agree, I scored it 116-112 in favor of Floyd Mayweather Jr. I'm always left scratching my head when people claim this was either: A) a close fight or (even worse) B: a robbery.

I had Oscar winning, as did a sizable minority and I think ringside was split 50/50. I have no issue with people scoring it to FLoyd To claim that it wasn't close or that close scorecards are out of wack is ridiculous.

dempseyfire wrote:

ryanst1982 wrote:First holyfield Lewis fight was outrageous IMO
Lewis won that for me by 4 rounds at least. But thats not what this thread is about so I digress

Mayweather De La Hoya was never close for my money. Certainly not a split. Mayweather by a distances for me. Also Klitschko v Haye. For 2 judges to score it anything less than 9 rounds for Klitschko. (One gave it 117-109, and
Another scored it 116-110) Im a Haye fan (i know, it was a disgraceful showing) and even I had Haye only taking 2 rounds. And in Germany. Bizaare

COmplete disagree with all of those!! LOL

I thought Holyfield-Lewis I was a fairly close fight but clear W for Lewis, so the 115-113 card was not out of wack . .I really don't see how anyone could score more than 8 rounds tops for Lennox.

My thoughts are already known for Oscar-Floyd

Klitschko-Haye . .I didn't see the thorough domination others saw. I gave Haye 3 rounds (3,4, and 12) with 2 even (1 and 7). There were very few rounds "won" in that fight, more like guys giving away rounds via inactivity and utter ineffectiveness.


I think a big one here would be Hearns-Benitez. Tommy pretty much dominated the fight, and he only got a split decision win out of it.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:I wouldn't call it criminal that it was draw. Leonard was not robbed. True, it is a fact that Leonard landed more punches than Hearns, and Leonard did hurt Hearns more often than vice versa. However, it was a close fight and a draw was fair enough.

I'm surprised you didn't have it 10-2 Leonard.

Ambling Alp wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:I wouldn't call it criminal that it was draw. Leonard was not robbed. True, it is a fact that Leonard landed more punches than Hearns, and Leonard did hurt Hearns more often than vice versa. However, it was a close fight and a draw was fair enough.

I'm surprised you didn't have it 10-2 Leonard.

No, had it 6-6 in rounds with each winning two 10-8 rounds which made it 112-112. I do this thing where I actually score the fight round by round. I also do this thing where I try to not be biased. Sometimes my guy doesn't deserve the decision!! Sometimes he does. Occasionally it should be a draw. In the Leonard-Hearns fight, one guy (Leonard) landed more punches and hurt his opponent several times. Almost always that fighter (in this case Leonard) will deserve the win. However, judging it round for round it was a close fight and a draw seemed fair.

Ezzard wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

BarryWashington wrote: I agree, I scored it 116-112 in favor of Floyd Mayweather Jr. I'm always left scratching my head when people claim this was either: A) a close fight or (even worse) B: a robbery.

I had Oscar winning, as did a sizable minority and I think ringside was split 50/50. I have no issue with people scoring it to FLoyd To claim that it wasn't close or that close scorecards are out of wack is ridiculous.

Guys like Mayweather and Whittaker tend to win rounds clearly but when they lose rounds they are often close. You also always get the feeling with Mayweather that he’s fighting within himself.

Watching the fight as a whole it seems Floyd won. Marking round by round it was closer. The BBC reporter had it a draw.

Ambling Alp wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

dempseyfire wrote: I had Oscar winning, as did a sizable minority and I think ringside was split 50/50. I have no issue with people scoring it to FLoyd To claim that it wasn't close or that close scorecards are out of wack is ridiculous.

Guys like Mayweather and Whittaker tend to win rounds clearly but when they lose rounds they are often close. You also always get the feeling with Mayweather that he’s fighting within himself.

Watching the fight as a whole it seems Floyd won. Marking round by round it was closer. The BBC reporter had it a draw.

Occasionally there are fights where one guy wins several round easily (but not enough to be 10-8) and the other guy as many rounds close. Since the judges are supposed to judge each round individually, the scoring is going to be close. People that don't score the rounds are often outraged because their overall impression of the fight is that one guy won clearly.
Few fights are really a robbery. If you give one guy every close round and he still should not have won, (and gets the decision)then it's a robbery.

Ambling Alp wrote:Oh, please.