BoxRec

freddydoesdallas wrote:Fights are scored differently in the ams and that's something i think people are forgetting. You can be all over a fighter but if you're only landing on gloves and the other guy throws 5 jabs that land cleanly, chances are you'll be 5-0 down.

Standing counts only confirm the punch, they don't add anything extra. Ogogo would have gone through 18-17 if the red hadn't given him the count for taking a punch on the gloves.

Ogogo and Joshua were in tough, tight contests. I had Joshua down by 1 and Ogogo up by one. Neither were robberies, the judges are basing it on clean punches and have different views.

If any of you are going then take your cynical hats off and enjoy the occasion. It is a great day which will hopefully have a cracking atmosphere like yesterday, especially if a GB or Irish fighter is involved.

No one is missing the point. Your acting like people don't know how they do things in the amateurs. Joshua and Ogogo both lost quite clearly regardless of the scoring criteria.

ArtOfWar wrote:

freddydoesdallas wrote:Fights are scored differently in the ams and that's something i think people are forgetting. You can be all over a fighter but if you're only landing on gloves and the other guy throws 5 jabs that land cleanly, chances are you'll be 5-0 down.

Standing counts only confirm the punch, they don't add anything extra. Ogogo would have gone through 18-17 if the red hadn't given him the count for taking a punch on the gloves.

Ogogo and Joshua were in tough, tight contests. I had Joshua down by 1 and Ogogo up by one. Neither were robberies, the judges are basing it on clean punches and have different views.

If any of you are going then take your cynical hats off and enjoy the occasion. It is a great day which will hopefully have a cracking atmosphere like yesterday, especially if a GB or Irish fighter is involved.

No one is missing the point. Your acting like people don't know how they do things in the amateurs. Joshua and Ogogo both lost quite clearly regardless of the scoring criteria.

I think that line sums it up. You're missing the point, pressure doesn't count as a punch. The clean punch scores, pounding away at the gloves doesn't count. That is the scoring criteria.

freddydoesdallas wrote:

ArtOfWar wrote:

freddydoesdallas wrote:Fights are scored differently in the ams and that's something i think people are forgetting. You can be all over a fighter but if you're only landing on gloves and the other guy throws 5 jabs that land cleanly, chances are you'll be 5-0 down.

Standing counts only confirm the punch, they don't add anything extra. Ogogo would have gone through 18-17 if the red hadn't given him the count for taking a punch on the gloves.

Ogogo and Joshua were in tough, tight contests. I had Joshua down by 1 and Ogogo up by one. Neither were robberies, the judges are basing it on clean punches and have different views.

If any of you are going then take your cynical hats off and enjoy the occasion. It is a great day which will hopefully have a cracking atmosphere like yesterday, especially if a GB or Irish fighter is involved.

No one is missing the point. Your acting like people don't know how they do things in the amateurs. Joshua and Ogogo both lost quite clearly regardless of the scoring criteria.

I think that line sums it up. You're missing the point, pressure doesn't count as a punch. The clean punch scores, pounding away at the gloves doesn't count. That is the scoring criteria.

I completely agree. I think that Ogogo was an extremely close contest based on the amateur points scoring system. When the bell went I had no idea who had won and I personally dont think either boxer could have complained whoever won.

I was there and thought the atmosphere was brilliant and will definitely influence some decisions but that is sport - whether it is football, boxing etc.

I did think that Joshua had been beaten but we are in danger of letting one decision cloud the rest of GB performances IMO.

Some of these decisions have been disgraceful ,although 3 minute rounds have been better to watch imo .

freddydoesdallas wrote:

ArtOfWar wrote:

freddydoesdallas wrote:Fights are scored differently in the ams and that's something i think people are forgetting. You can be all over a fighter but if you're only landing on gloves and the other guy throws 5 jabs that land cleanly, chances are you'll be 5-0 down.

Standing counts only confirm the punch, they don't add anything extra. Ogogo would have gone through 18-17 if the red hadn't given him the count for taking a punch on the gloves.

Ogogo and Joshua were in tough, tight contests. I had Joshua down by 1 and Ogogo up by one. Neither were robberies, the judges are basing it on clean punches and have different views.

If any of you are going then take your cynical hats off and enjoy the occasion. It is a great day which will hopefully have a cracking atmosphere like yesterday, especially if a GB or Irish fighter is involved.

No one is missing the point. Your acting like people don't know how they do things in the amateurs. Joshua and Ogogo both lost quite clearly regardless of the scoring criteria.

I think that line sums it up. You're missing the point, pressure doesn't count as a punch. The clean punch scores, pounding away at the gloves doesn't count. That is the scoring criteria.

I'm not missing the point you are. When I say regardless of scoring criteria, I mean the two Brits opponants landed more clean blows and did better overall work. That's what regrdless of the scoring criteria means. It means you can look at it anyway you want, they didn't win.

ArtOfWar wrote:I'm not missing the point you are. When I say regardless of scoring criteria, I mean the two Brits opponants landed more clean blows and did better overall work. That's what regrdless of the scoring criteria means. It means you can look at it anyway you want, they didn't win.

The way I looked at it, Ogogo's was very close whilst Joshua was beaten. I'm not sure that Ogogo's opponent landed more clean blows but I'm pretty sure the Cuban chap did.

These verdicts are not making new fans of the sport.

When you see a guy clearly hanging on in survival mode for a round and a half - and the other guy dominating him and scoring pretty heavy punches ... to then see the guy who looked clearly beaten get the win because as some here have pointed out `thats how they score it in the amateur game` ... its not good for attracting a new audience to the game is it.

tonyevs wrote:These verdicts are not making new fans of the sport.

When you see a guy clearly hanging on in survival mode for a round and a half - and the other guy dominating him and scoring pretty heavy punches ... to then see the guy who looked clearly beaten get the win because as some here have pointed out `thats how they score it in the amateur game` ... its not good for attracting a new audience to the game is it.

I agree, it puts me off as well.

What I can't stand is when a fight result is classed as a robbery by people who watched it, but then people watch it afterwards try to justify ways it could have been right in the first place, when quite clearly it is not. Not commenting on any particular fight here, but it does happen a lot, in the Ams, it's maybe the judges looked at this or seen that, in the pros it's maybe the benefit of the doubt went to the home fighter or the champion, maybe the crowd influenced the judges, at the end of the day, scoring shots are scoring shots, punches are punches, aggression is aggression, pressure is pressure, if a GB fighter was giving aggression, pressure and throwing punches, the crowd would go mad and they would win believe me, fighters from other countries may not get the result, it's not just a british thing, it's a world thing, bent as can be.

safeerah wrote:What I can't stand is when a fight result is classed as a robbery by people who watched it, but then people watch it afterwards try to justify ways it could have been right in the first place, when quite clearly it is not. Not commenting on any particular fight here, but it does happen a lot, in the Ams, it's maybe the judges looked at this or seen that, in the pros it's maybe the benefit of the doubt went to the home fighter or the champion, maybe the crowd influenced the judges, at the end of the day, scoring shots are scoring shots, punches are punches, aggression is aggression, pressure is pressure, if a GB fighter was giving aggression, pressure and throwing punches, the crowd would go mad and they would win believe me, fighters from other countries may not get the result, it's not just a british thing, it's a world thing, bent as can be.

I agree.

Surely it should be easier to score an amateur bout than a pro fight as there should be less interpretation.

What I mean is, if a boxer lands a scoring blow in an amateur bout then it should be scored - unlike the pro's where it is much more subjective and one big shot can outweigh a number of less powerful punches.

I have read comments on a number of forums where people are justifying results by saying things like "we were robbed in whatever country" but 2 wrongs don't make a right.

I have been chearing on the British competitors at all sports and hope that all the boxers do well, however I take no pleasure in seeing a boxer win when the result is dubious to say the least. The competitors at these games (all sports) have dedicated their lives for many years to get where they are and the least they should be able to expect is a fair crack of the whip.

Vikas v Spence may well be the worst one so far.

bripez wrote:

safeerah wrote:What I can't stand is when a fight result is classed as a robbery by people who watched it, but then people watch it afterwards try to justify ways it could have been right in the first place, when quite clearly it is not. Not commenting on any particular fight here, but it does happen a lot, in the Ams, it's maybe the judges looked at this or seen that, in the pros it's maybe the benefit of the doubt went to the home fighter or the champion, maybe the crowd influenced the judges, at the end of the day, scoring shots are scoring shots, punches are punches, aggression is aggression, pressure is pressure, if a GB fighter was giving aggression, pressure and throwing punches, the crowd would go mad and they would win believe me, fighters from other countries may not get the result, it's not just a british thing, it's a world thing, bent as can be.

I agree.

Surely it should be easier to score an amateur bout than a pro fight as there should be less interpretation.

What I mean is, if a boxer lands a scoring blow in an amateur bout then it should be scored - unlike the pro's where it is much more subjective and one big shot can outweigh a number of less powerful punches.

I have read comments on a number of forums where people are justifying results by saying things like "we were robbed in whatever country" but 2 wrongs don't make a right.

I have been chearing on the British competitors at all sports and hope that all the boxers do well, however I take no pleasure in seeing a boxer win when the result is dubious to say the least. The competitors at these games (all sports) have dedicated their lives for many years to get where they are and the least they should be able to expect is a fair crack of the whip.

It's all about money, if you win a gold medal at the olympics, it is worth so much money, judges decisions influence lives.

iamasadlittleboy wrote:Vikas v Spence may well be the worst one so far.

The Indian fighter was lucky not to get pulled up so many times for holding and spitting his gum shield out when tired and the American dominated the last two rounds, in the last round he hit him with everything but the kitchen sink, yet lost the round by the one point to the Indian, terrible result, the young American was in tears and with it went the last American hope, this is without doubt the worst Olympics for bad results, who said these things only happen in the lesser countries ?

I think you are forgetting the Seoul Olympics

Errol spence is back in after an appeal

P4P#1 wrote:Errol spence is back in after an appeal

Yep.

http://ringtv.craveonline.com/blog/1741 ... us-protest

What a shambles.

ArtOfWar wrote:

P4P#1 wrote:Errol spence is back in after an appeal

Yep.

http://ringtv.craveonline.com/blog/1741 ... us-protest

What a shambles.

Surely they must do something about this now otherwise everyone will be appealing, they have to get all the judges and referees together to discuss this terrible situation and warn them all of the penalties for mistakes ( if you can call it that ). You know what, while they are at it maybe they should scrap the scoring system it is rubbish and is too open to corruption, why not just get every judge to just pick the winner of each round, like the pros, instead of this complicated non-transparent system.

Surely they must do something about this now otherwise everyone will be appealing, they have to get all the judges and referees together to discuss this terrible situation and warn them all of the penalties for mistakes ( if you can call it that ). You know what, while they are at it maybe they should scrap the scoring system it is rubbish and is too open to corruption, why not just get every judge to just pick the winner of each round, like the pros, instead of this complicated non-transparent system.

If the appeals panel are going to overtutn judges decisions then why bother with the judges at all? Why not just let the people sitting on the appeals panel decide the result of bouts?

I would say that both Joshua and Ogogo have been lucky to get decisions in 2 close bouts but I can't honestly say that either one of the bouts was so one sided that the result could be without any doubt given to their respective opponents.

The problem I think lies within the very complicated scoring process used and the certain amount of interpretation that a judge has to use.

coachster wrote:

Surely they must do something about this now otherwise everyone will be appealing, they have to get all the judges and referees together to discuss this terrible situation and warn them all of the penalties for mistakes ( if you can call it that ). You know what, while they are at it maybe they should scrap the scoring system it is rubbish and is too open to corruption, why not just get every judge to just pick the winner of each round, like the pros, instead of this complicated non-transparent system.

If the appeals panel are going to overtutn judges decisions then why bother with the judges at all? Why not just let the people sitting on the appeals panel decide the result of bouts?

I would say that both Joshua and Ogogo have been lucky to get decisions in 2 close bouts but I can't honestly say that either one of the bouts was so one sided that the result could be without any doubt given to their respective opponents.

The problem I think lies within the very complicated scoring process used and the certain amount of interpretation that a judge has to use.

Joshua only won 2 out of 15 in his bout out of 5 judges x 3 rounds = 15, out of the 15 his opponent won 13 yet still lost, crazy, with Ogogo the count back was won by a margin one point to his opponent yet it still went back to the judges to make a final decision on who they liked, after that it was given to Ogogo, but it has not been shown who picked Ogogo or what the final score of the Judges choice was. It does not matter how close a fight is, little things make big differences. It's like a football match that is very close and evenly matched, then in the last minute the referee gives penalty for nothing, the losing side would go mad, close or no close.

Safeerah 7 out of the 15 judges went for Ogogo round for round. And the countback scores were 52 -52. Try the link below for the scores.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympi ... -vote.html

I am in agreement that the scoring mechanism is far too complicated and too dependant on individual opinion but I don't know of any way that a bout could be scored which doesn't rely on an opinion.

coachster wrote:Safeerah 7 out of the 15 judges went for Ogogo round for round. And the countback scores were 52 -52. Try the link below for the scores.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympi ... -vote.html

I am in agreement that the scoring mechanism is far too complicated and too dependant on individual opinion but I don't know of any way that a bout could be scored which doesn't rely on an opinion.

The score on the web site read 53-52, this has not been explained, nor do we know how many voted for Ogogo at the end after the count back, they promised transparency for this competition but they are not showing it, like every other british person, we want our fighters winning without grey areas and based on correct decisions, your right every boxing match is judged on opinion, but so many bad decisions in just a few days ? Something surely is wrong. Ogogo reminds me of Degale, who had some bad decisions go his way, but ended up striking gold, when not fancied at the start.

Brit Ryan wrote:I think you are forgetting the Seoul Olympics

Lets not forget some pro-US scoring 4 years earlier, including 1 where a Korean was screwed...

Someone explain how Stalker won that? Any one explain how he even won round 2?

iamasadlittleboy wrote:Someone explain how Stalker won that? Any one explain how he even won round 2?

I just caught the last round ( I was watching the GB football )and he seemed in real trouble, until he got himself back together and held on, but if he should have lost the second, then I don't know what else to say.