BoxRec

I also judged De La Hoya a winner against Mosley (2003), and beaten against Sturm.

To his credit, he did at least concede he shouldnt have been given the Sturm decision.

Donald Curry vs Marlon Starling I

Rd 1. 10-9 MS
Rd 2. 10-10 Even
Rd 3. 10-9 MS
Rd 4. 10-9 DC
Rd 5. 10-9 MS
Rd 6. 10-9 MS
Rd 7. 10-9 MS
Rd 8. 10-9 MS
Rd 9. 10-9 DC
Rd 10. 10-9 DC
Rd 11.10-9 MS
Rd 12.10-9 DC

116-113 for Marlon Starling

Not a complete robbery, but none the less a bad decision. Starling consistently backed Curry up and clearly outworked him. Damn was Moochie fun to watch.

Pac-Bradley with the sound off:

1 B
2 B
3 P
4 P
5 P
6 E
7 P
8 P
9 P
10 B
11 B
12 E

116-114 for Pac

This is coming from someone hoping for a Pac win and fully expecting a Bradley robbery after the hype. Im confident this was a solid, narrow win for Pac. Maybe a draw if you are generous to Bradley. But certainly not the great robbery everyone is making it out to be. Bradley fought a heck of a fight and made Pac miss a ton. I also dont buy for an instant the compubox stats. Bradley was much busier than Pac who did nothing but pose for long stretches. Both guys had excellent defense and made the other miss quite a lot. A lot of rounds were very close and decided by a punch or a flurry here and there. Manny looked like he either couldnt pull the trigger anymore or simply couldnt fight for three minutes of every round any more. He definately isnt the buzzsaw he used to be. I cant reiterate enough how off the punch stats seemed. In one round where Pac had done almost nothing and Bradley was throwing jab after jab as range finders (few landing) punchstats had Pac throwing about four times as many punches as Bradley who they had throwing only eight punches to that point in the round, ludicrous. Another factor is that even with the sound off you could tell HBO was biased. After round ten, which I thought Bradley clearly won and maybe had his best round, HBO for some reason showed HLs of Pacs big round 4. They never showed any HLs of Bradley's success, everything they showed was of Pac landing. This is all coming from a Pac fan. In defense of Pac: The guy was very inactive and seemed to either aging or having a pretty off night and still managed to beat a very high quality fighter on my card, albeit closely. If this fight had happened a couple of years ago it would have been great prep for Mayweather. But as it is I think the shelf life on that fight has passed. Both guys are clearly fading and while they will likely make a bundle fighting each other for the suckers who would pay for it it will be meaningless. Similar to Tyson-Lewis. Way to cheat the fans guys.

One final note. I dont really get why some were saying this was an entertaining fight. I guess in terms of a chess match it was ok. But with Pacs inactivity, Bradley's inability to crack an egg with his punches, and the defense of both guys nullifying what offense there was, made for a kind of a tepid fight IMO.

Seamus wrote:Donald Curry vs Marlon Starling I

Rd 1. 10-9 MS
Rd 2. 10-10 Even
Rd 3. 10-9 MS
Rd 4. 10-9 DC
Rd 5. 10-9 MS
Rd 6. 10-9 MS
Rd 7. 10-9 MS
Rd 8. 10-9 MS
Rd 9. 10-9 DC
Rd 10. 10-9 DC
Rd 11.10-9 MS
Rd 12.10-9 DC

116-113 for Marlon Starling

Not a complete robbery, but none the less a bad decision. Starling consistently backed Curry up and clearly outworked him. Damn was Moochie fun to watch.

I remember this being very close. Need to see if it is on Youtube and watch it sometime. It's funny, a lot of people remember how good Curry was at one time. Starling was at about the same level and is almost forgotton.

klompton wrote:Pac-Bradley with the sound off:

1 B
2 B
3 P
4 P
5 P
6 E
7 P
8 P
9 P
10 B
11 B
12 E

116-114 for Pac

This is coming from someone hoping for a Pac win and fully expecting a Bradley robbery after the hype. Im confident this was a solid, narrow win for Pac. Maybe a draw if you are generous to Bradley. But certainly not the great robbery everyone is making it out to be. Bradley fought a heck of a fight and made Pac miss a ton. I also dont buy for an instant the compubox stats. Bradley was much busier than Pac who did nothing but pose for long stretches. Both guys had excellent defense and made the other miss quite a lot. A lot of rounds were very close and decided by a punch or a flurry here and there. Manny looked like he either couldnt pull the trigger anymore or simply couldnt fight for three minutes of every round any more. He definately isnt the buzzsaw he used to be. I cant reiterate enough how off the punch stats seemed. In one round where Pac had done almost nothing and Bradley was throwing jab after jab as range finders (few landing) punchstats had Pac throwing about four times as many punches as Bradley who they had throwing only eight punches to that point in the round, ludicrous. Another factor is that even with the sound off you could tell HBO was biased. After round ten, which I thought Bradley clearly won and maybe had his best round, HBO for some reason showed HLs of Pacs big round 4. They never showed any HLs of Bradley's success, everything they showed was of Pac landing. This is all coming from a Pac fan. In defense of Pac: The guy was very inactive and seemed to either aging or having a pretty off night and still managed to beat a very high quality fighter on my card, albeit closely. If this fight had happened a couple of years ago it would have been great prep for Mayweather. But as it is I think the shelf life on that fight has passed. Both guys are clearly fading and while they will likely make a bundle fighting each other for the suckers who would pay for it it will be meaningless. Similar to Tyson-Lewis. Way to cheat the fans guys.

One final note. I dont really get why some were saying this was an entertaining fight. I guess in terms of a chess match it was ok. But with Pacs inactivity, Bradley's inability to crack an egg with his punches, and the defense of both guys nullifying what offense there was, made for a kind of a tepid fight IMO.

....and your eyes closed? D

I suppose you had Pac winning every round... Or maybe, as has been typical with you, you are either arguing for the sake of argument or have no idea what the sport of boxing is and just post here between marathon masturbation sessions.

klompton wrote:I suppose you had Pac winning every round... Or maybe, as has been typical with you, you are either arguing for the sake of argument or have no idea what the sport of boxing is and just post here between marathon masturbation sessions.

Giancarlo wrote:

klompton wrote:I suppose you had Pac winning every round... Or maybe, as has been typical with you, you are either arguing for the sake of argument or have no idea what the sport of boxing is and just post here between marathon masturbation sessions.

klompton wrote:I suppose you had Pac winning every round... Or maybe, as has been typical with you, you are either arguing for the sake of argument or have no idea what the sport of boxing is and just post here between marathon masturbation sessions.

Maybe its fair to say my words can be harsh (although more of a cheeky dig in this instance), but let no one say my words are inaccurate --- I could put it more diplomatically, I suppose, but if you think Pacquiao barely won, the fact remains (however you'd like it phrased) you dont really know what you're doing with that pencil and pad.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

klompton wrote:I suppose you had Pac winning every round... Or maybe, as has been typical with you, you are either arguing for the sake of argument or have no idea what the sport of boxing is and just post here between marathon masturbation sessions.

Maybe its fair to say my words can be harsh (although more of a cheeky dig in this instance), but let no one say my words are inaccurate --- I could put it more diplomatically, I suppose, but if you think Pacquiao barely won, the fact remains (however you'd like it phrased) you dont really know what you're doing with that pencil and pad.

Let's not get away from the point; which is that you have been accurately described as a total wanker.

Giancarlo...

How did you score (or perceive) this fight?

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Giancarlo...

How did you score (or perceive) this fight?

In my opinion, Klompy won when we all saw pure lucid terror in your eyes the moment he started to delve into your heavy wanking habit.

Boy, theres just something about my style that eats away at your soul, isnt there, Collie?

This reminds me of the old M*A*S*H, where Hawkeye and Trapper have driven poor, hapless Frank into such a state of paranoia, all normal conversation is comically impossible.

Trapper: "Hi, Frank."
Frank: "I dont have to take that from you!"

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Boy, theres just something about my style that eats away at your soul, isnt there, Collie?

This reminds me of the old M*A*S*H, where Hawkeye and Trapper have driven poor, hapless Frank into such a state of paranoia, all normal conversation is comically impossible.

Trapper: "Hi, Frank."
Frank: "I dont have to take that from you!"

Eats away at my soul?

Baiting you is just a bit of fun to me Irene.

If I wasn't amused by your posts, I would just put you on ignore.

PS those photos of you that you posted in the other section really cracked me up. The big arms and the tiny balding head! Classic pinhead features. Do post more. Please.

The "sole" of this thread....appears to be being eaten away.

Giancarlo wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Boy, theres just something about my style that eats away at your soul, isnt there, Collie?

This reminds me of the old M*A*S*H, where Hawkeye and Trapper have driven poor, hapless Frank into such a state of paranoia, all normal conversation is comically impossible.

Trapper: "Hi, Frank."
Frank: "I dont have to take that from you!"

Eats away at my soul?

Baiting you is just a bit of fun to me Irene.

If I wasn't amused by your posts, I would just put you on ignore.

PS those photos of you that you posted in the other section really cracked me up. The big arms and the tiny balding head! Classic pinhead features. Do post more. Please.

Where does the WBA fit into all of this? D

Michael Nunn vs Marlon Starling

R1. 10-9 MS
R2. 10-9 MN
R3. 10-9 MN
R4. 10-9 MS
R5. 10-9 MN
R6. 10-9 MN
R7. 10-9 MN
R8. 10-9 MN
R9. 10-10 Even
R10. 10-9 MS
R11 10-10 Even
R12. 10-9 MS

116-114 for Michael Nunn

Excellent fight from two of my favorites of the time. Starling really proved his toughness when he moved up to Middleweight and took Michael Nunn, who looked outstanding at the time, too a close decision.

Eusebio Pedroza vs Bernard Taylor

R1 10-9 BT
R2 10-9 BT
R3 10-9 BT
R4 10-9 EP
R5 10-9 BT
R6 10-10 Even
R7 10-9 BT
R8 10-9 BT
R9 10-9 BT
R10 10-9 BT
R11 10-9 BT
R12 10-9 EP
R13 10-9 EP
R 14 10-9 EP
R15 10-10 Even

146-141 for Bernard Taylor

This was probably a fight that the average boxing fan would have scored for Pedroza on the basis that they believe you can't win rounds backing away. A more accurate adage however is that, you can't win rounds when you don't land punches.

For the first 11 rounds Taylor just keeps moving and refuses to mix it up with Pedroza. He's not landing many punches, but he's stealing round after round by just landing a little more. Pedroza comes on in the last 4 and narrows the score a bit with sheer wild agression, but in the end, Taylor, frustrating tactics in all appears to have been robbed.

Salvador Sanchez vs Patrick Ford

R1 10-9 PF
R2 10-9 PF
R3 10-9 SS
R4 10-10 Even
R5 10-9 PF
R6 10-9 SS
R7 10-10 Even
R8 10-9 SS
R9 10-9 SS
R10 10-9 SS
R11 10-9 SS
R12 10-9 SS
R13 10-9 SS
R14 10-9 SS
R15 10-9 SS

Salvador Sanchez 147-140

I simply did not see the alleged upset in this bout. Patrick Ford boxed beautifully through the first 7 rds, but after that Sanchez was clearly in control, and kept landing the big punch, usually a right hand over Ford's low held left, and kept winning the exchanges.

Seamus wrote: I simply did not see the alleged upset in this bout. Patrick Ford boxed beautifully through the first 7 rds, but after that Sanchez was clearly in control, and kept landing the big punch, usually a right hand over Ford's low held left, and kept winning the exchanges.

hello mate i haven't seen this in a while but i think i had it a little closer

re the 'controversy', i think the facts that (1) a novice even ran Sanchez a little bit close, and (2) he landed some very, very big punches that night, may have tended to make some folks think it was closer in the ring than it was on the cards, if you know what i mean, but it has always seemed to me that at that point in his career Sanchez had grown a little complacent in his defence and his chin, and fighters who should have been landing barely a glove on him landed with more frequency than many believed they should.

last fight i made the effort to score was Barrera - Morales 3, 115-113 Barrera.

You forgot 3) Howard Cosell went orgasmic over Ford.

Ah, of course.

Next up, 3 Rocky Lockridge fights, which illustrate, I think, that if not for some horrendous fight scoring, he may well have ended up in the IBHOF.

Rocky Lockridge vs Wilfredo Gomez

R1 10-9 RL
R2 10-10 Even
R3 10-9 RL
R4 10-9 RL
R5 10-10 Even
R6 10-9 RL
R7 10-9 WG
R8 10-9 RL
R9 10-9 RL
R10 10-9 RL
R11 10-9 WG
R12 10-9 WG
R13 10-9 WG
R14 10-10 Even
R15 10-9 RL

Rocky Lockridge 146-142

Wilfredo Gomez was practically out on his feet after the 10th and was well behind on my scorecard, but then amazingly got up on his toes and outboxed Lockridge for 3 rounds, but Rocky finished strongly over the final 2 rounds. A very bad hometown decision for Wilfredo Gomez.

Eusebio Pedroza vs Rocky Lockridge I

R1 10-9 RL
R2 10-9 RL
R3 10-9 RL
R4 10-10 Even
R5 10-9 RL
R6 10-9 RL
R7 10-9 RL
R8 10-9 RL
R9 10-9 EP
R10 10-9 EP
R11 10-9 EP
R12 10-10 Even
R13 10-9 RL
R14 10-9 EP
R15 10-9 RL

Rocky Lockridge 146-141

An even worse decision than the Gomez fight. Lockridge builds a big lead, Pedroza doesn't rally till the 9th, but once again Lockridge gives a good account of himself over the final 3 rounds. Incidentally, I've never been a fan of Eusebio Pedroza. His boxing skills, durability, and stamina cannot be denied, but I think he's been one of the dirtiest champions of my lifetime, with low blows and frequent holding his specialties.

Julio Cesar Chavez vs Rocky Lockridge

R1 10-9 RL
R2 10-9 JCC
R3 10-10 Even
R4 10-9 RL
R5 10-9 RL
R6 10-9 JCC
R7 10-10 Even
R8 10-9 RL
R9 10-9 JCC
R10 10-9 JCC
R11 10-9 JCC
R12 10-9 RL

115-115 Draw

This was a difficult fight to score. When I first watched it live, I had it 116-114 for Lockridge. Chavez did land the better punches in this bout, but Lockridge was far busier, and frequently drove Julio back. For some reason, Chavez never displayed his usual aggression, which leads me to suspect, that contrary to what the fight commentators were saying, Rocky's punches to Julio's arms and body were slowing him down a bit. I can understand someone scoring this fight for Chavez by a pt, but I think the one judge who had it a draw was the most accurate.

So there you have it, Rocky Lockridge going 0-3 against 3 Hall of Famers, in fights he easily should have been 2-0-1 or even 3-0 in. In my opinion, Rocky is today very underrated.

The first Tony Lopez fight could have gone his way as well. I scored it for Lopez by point, but it could have gone the other way.

Seamus wrote:Next up, 3 Rocky Lockridge fights, which illustrate, I think, that if not for some horrendous fight scoring, he may well have ended up in the IBHOF.

Rocky Lockridge vs Wilfredo Gomez

R1 10-9 RL
R2 10-10 Even
R3 10-9 RL
R4 10-9 RL
R5 10-10 Even
R6 10-9 RL
R7 10-9 WG
R8 10-9 RL
R9 10-9 RL
R10 10-9 RL
R11 10-9 WG
R12 10-9 WG
R13 10-9 WG
R14 10-10 Even
R15 10-9 RL

Rocky Lockridge 146-142

Wilfredo Gomez was practically out on his feet after the 10th and was well behind on my scorecard, but then amazingly got up on his toes and outboxed Lockridge for 3 rounds, but Rocky finished strongly over the final 2 rounds. A very bad hometown decision for Wilfredo Gomez.

Eusebio Pedroza vs Rocky Lockridge I

R1 10-9 RL
R2 10-9 RL
R3 10-9 RL
R4 10-10 Even
R5 10-9 RL
R6 10-9 RL
R7 10-9 RL
R8 10-9 RL
R9 10-9 EP
R10 10-9 EP
R11 10-9 EP
R12 10-10 Even
R13 10-9 RL
R14 10-9 EP
R15 10-9 RL

Rocky Lockridge 146-141

An even worse decision than the Gomez fight. Lockridge builds a big lead, Pedroza doesn't rally till the 9th, but once again Lockridge gives a good account of himself over the final 3 rounds. Incidentally, I've never been a fan of Eusebio Pedroza. His boxing skills, durability, and stamina cannot be denied, but I think he's been one of the dirtiest champions of my lifetime, with low blows and frequent holding his specialties.

Julio Cesar Chavez vs Rocky Lockridge

R1 10-9 RL
R2 10-9 JCC
R3 10-10 Even
R4 10-9 RL
R5 10-9 RL
R6 10-9 JCC
R7 10-10 Even
R8 10-9 RL
R9 10-9 JCC
R10 10-9 JCC
R11 10-9 JCC
R12 10-9 RL

115-115 Draw

This was a difficult fight to score. When I first watched it live, I had it 116-114 for Lockridge. Chavez did land the better punches in this bout, but Lockridge was far busier, and frequently drove Julio back. For some reason, Chavez never displayed his usual aggression, which leads me to suspect, that contrary to what the fight commentators were saying, Rocky's punches to Julio's arms and body were slowing him down a bit. I can understand someone scoring this fight for Chavez by a pt, but I think the one judge who had it a draw was the most accurate.

So there you have it, Rocky Lockridge going 0-3 against 3 Hall of Famers, in fights he easily should have been 2-0-1 or even 3-0 in. In my opinion, Rocky is today very underrated.

good post