BoxRec

adamheight wrote:Why do I have to post my scorecard hounddawg? U cop out. I'm asking you.
You're the one making allegations. Naive ones at that.

Yet we have boxers and people in the game who lean towards my way of thinking, and Adam i watch how you score fights, when it suits my English friend! When it suits

No sore bum here, i just agree with the statement, best of luck with the mythical Benn/ Eubank era. Thats going to cruel the middleweight division, as all 3 middles from England are barely top 10, and that Belt will never get unified, like Geale did.

And no you post yours, your a judge right!

Nutcase.

Hounddawg wrote:

thunderfromdownunder wrote:

Hounddawg wrote:Convict, your taking the piss mate right I agree Soliman should have got the fight, but i also belive that Daniel was doing what his team thought was best....whilst all that poo was going with Sturm/ Soliman.

I still want to know who honestly believes that the challenger took the Belt?

challenger taking the belt us the stupidest argument. If someone wins more rounds then they win the effing fight. Enough with the bias poo.

I watched Thursdays telecast, strangely thier was a fight that was closely contested, and to my astonishment, the commentry team, Andy Raymond, and the little big Man, used the famous statement " He just didn't do enough to take the title from the champ".

It's not an argument, it's peoples general perspective! And if you think otherwise, i'll just role past yours in the future.

Wow, if TV commentators said it, it must be true....

Quite simply, this is the biggest fallacy in the sport and is not supported by any judge I know. You can have any feeling on the subject that you want, but if it's not a supported view by the judges, you can't be criticising their scores. Also to have a go at Adam's integrity is ludicrous, he is one of the best and fairest judges around

The only truth to the claim the challenger has to do more is that, if a draw occurs, the champion keeps the belt. Hence, the champion has a lower burden to retain the title than the challenger has to win it.

This should not, however, impact the scoring of individual rounds. It would be unjust if the champion were judged relatively favorably because of what he did in previous fights, and not because he got the better of his opponent in the current match based on appropriate scoring criteria that is applied fairly to each competitor. To say the champion should get close rounds or something similar is to say the judges should be biased and not impartial; that approach is highly dubious and has no place in boxing in my view.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^above two comments are spot on

One of the statements claims you're one of the best and fairest judges around. Glad you can verify that Ads In all seriousness though, why the hard time for Adam H? he's a fair judge, he has a keen interest in the sport and he saw that fight how he saw it. I also saw it for Barker, I'm no judge, but I've been involved in the fight game for more than twenty years. Adam comes on here to share his oppinion, he doesn't have to post up his scoring of a fight or be accountable for himself in such an insulting maner. He is a good bloke, he is a fight official and fan and he enjoys a beer, what has he done wrong?

As for taking the title from the champion, this is a true statement that is being misconstrued here, the challenger has to beat the champion to take the title i.e win the fight, a draw means the champion remains the champion. Barker won the fight, he beat the champion, so he took the title.

dberry wrote:One of the statements claims you're one of the best and fairest judges around. Glad you can verify that Ads In all seriousness though, why the hard time for Adam H? he's a fair judge, he has a keen interest in the sport and he saw that fight how he saw it. I also saw it for Barker, I'm no judge, but I've been involved in the fight game for more than twenty years. Adam comes on here to share his oppinion, he doesn't have to post up his scoring of a fight or be accountable for himself in such an insulting maner. He is a good bloke, he is a fight official and fan and he enjoys a beer, what has he done wrong?

As for taking the title from the champion, this is a true statement that is being misconstrued here, the challenger has to beat the champion to take the title i.e win the fight, a draw means the champion remains the champion. Barker won the fight, he beat the champion, so he took the title.

haha, cheers dale

hounddawg just seems to enjoy coming on here and arguing/being a tool in general. he just always loves disagreeing with every single person on this forum, especially me.

if u argue back he will become, racist, age-ist, abusive and downright out of order. he goes to a lot of fights in queensland but has never once come up to me to air any grievance he has

This.....and yet you chat to me on facebook when it suits. Mate I dont argue with everyone. If you think im a racist agist ect. Well mate now im more than happy to tap you on the shoulder. Didnt I give you my number last year to give me a call and even try and get yours to speed the process up. Mate you can keep the racist comments coming but one day your going to wonder why.....and have a think there after. One more time for a bloke with daggers and who outsude of different view of things thought nothing more than a common bloke. My sister is maori you fat pudendum.my friends and family are multi cultural. And be careful what you wish for mate.

there is NO argument amongst good judges of boxing that geale was beaten.

Hounddawg wrote:This.....and yet you chat to me on facebook when it suits. Mate I dont argue with everyone. If you think im a racist agist ect. Well mate now im more than happy to tap you on the shoulder. Didnt I give you my number last year to give me a call and even try and get yours to speed the process up. Mate you can keep the racist comments coming but one day your going to wonder why.....and have a think there after. One more time for a bloke with daggers and who outsude of different view of things thought nothing more than a common bloke. My sister is maori you fat pudendum.my friends and family are multi cultural. And be careful what you wish for mate.

explain the above three underlined parts

I read Barker is fighting Sturm in December. Did Gealey have a rematch clause ? Is there anything to suggest he will get the winner ?

amwsnw wrote:I read Barker is fighting Sturm in December. Did Gealey have a rematch clause ? Is there anything to suggest he will get the winner ?

hate rematch clauses, it just means that the same old people get the shots

Mate i am not a great fan of them, but when bouts are extremely close I dont mind seeing the ex champ getting a rematch. just curious if there is anything regarding geale fighting either Sturm or Barker ?

I watched a interview with Barker on eastsideboxing.com , Barker said there was something about a rematch clause but it was not a immediate and Geale was trying to evoke it as such. However if he beats Sturm, Geale will be next in line Barker stated in the video interview. There was zero mention of Soliman.

I was down the puh yesterday watching the Cotto bout and see the TAB is taking bets on Geale v Soliman, with Dec 30 as the date. Anyone heard anything ? I know they were also taking bets for Green v Choc 2 and Pac v floyd a while ago...Geale v Soliman makes good sense I reckon !!

Haven't heard anything.

Would be an entertaining fight. Geale would probably get the decision with more clean effective punching and better ring generalship.

But Sam's weird all over the place style could cause a few problems and gain him some rounds.

I'm still shattered Barker beat Geale. Seems like a big set back now.

Uppercut1 wrote: Seems like a big set back now.

the longer he is inactive the bigger the setback.

he needs to get back on the horse. quick

He only lost the fight 2 months ago so he hasn't been out of the ring long at all. he said recently that he has been back training and hopes to announce his next fight soon.