BoxRec

Posted: **11 Dec 2016, 18:21**

I thought Chisora had it but it was close as fornicate. Rematch is guaranteed.

Posted: **11 Dec 2016, 18:46**

Great fight. Two 18 stone blokes throwing the kitchen sink at one another for the full 36 minutes.

Whatever they both got paid, they deserve double the amount for the rematch. I think the genuine beef led to both of them refusing to give up and dig down to the deepest depths of their reserves. The will power and toughness of both men was unbelievable. Dillian Whyte has some chin on him.

Chisora won that for me with his walk forward aggression but he couldnt sustain his assaults and Whyte seemed to finish most rounds the stronger.

Posted: **11 Dec 2016, 19:11**

I had Chisora by 2 rounds. I think it helped that he had Don Charles back.. He moves just like Smokin' Joe..

Had he fought like this vs. Fury or Pulev, he would've done better

Posted: **11 Dec 2016, 19:12**

Bloody hell this poll is one sided. I don't see how a Chisora win was that clear. It was about as close as it gets.

Posted: **11 Dec 2016, 20:45**

Draw for me or if I had to choose, then CHisora. i think the thing with Chisora is his best work was better than Whyte's by quite a way, but he took too many rounds off, he lost the shit rounds and won the great ones.

Posted: **11 Dec 2016, 21:39**

I loved the fight, but missed some of the rounds in there. I'll watch it again at some point this week and score it proper.

Posted: **11 Dec 2016, 22:19**

Killer Blow wrote:Bloody hell this poll is one sided. I don't see how a Chisora win was that clear. It was about as close as it gets.

I'm with you, very very close fight.

I like the 10-10 round system though. There were plenty where Whyte was sharp for the first minute and a half and Chisora took over late on.
If a fighter likes to fight on the back foot, and another likes to go forwards, who do you score for? It's totally preference. I like that Chisora put it on Whyte when he had him backed up, but also liked Whyte's ability to fight in the pocket and pick shots. I liked both of their work and in the odd round would feel that they both deserved 10pts. To say 'you have to pick a winner' will lead to more fights looking like robberies where SDs will look bizarre with landslides either way by different judges.

Posted: **12 Dec 2016, 06:19**

sharpei_louis wrote:
Killer Blow wrote:Bloody hell this poll is one sided. I don't see how a Chisora win was that clear. It was about as close as it gets.
I'm with you, very very close fight.

I like the 10-10 round system though. There were plenty where Whyte was sharp for the first minute and a half and Chisora took over late on.
If a fighter likes to fight on the back foot, and another likes to go forwards, who do you score for? It's totally preference. I like that Chisora put it on Whyte when he had him backed up, but also liked Whyte's ability to fight in the pocket and pick shots. I liked both of their work and in the odd round would feel that they both deserved 10pts. To say 'you have to pick a winner' will lead to more fights looking like robberies where SDs will look bizarre with landslides either way by different judges.

Nonsense. Scorecards very rarely have 10-10s as it is, judges are told not to use them unless exceptionally close which is why you rarely see them on official cards. Pundits use them all the time though, a guy like David Haye should be doing much better when a pundit.

Posted: **12 Dec 2016, 07:16**

Ricky_ wrote:
sharpei_louis wrote:
Killer Blow wrote:Bloody hell this poll is one sided. I don't see how a Chisora win was that clear. It was about as close as it gets.
I'm with you, very very close fight.

I like the 10-10 round system though. There were plenty where Whyte was sharp for the first minute and a half and Chisora took over late on.
If a fighter likes to fight on the back foot, and another likes to go forwards, who do you score for? It's totally preference. I like that Chisora put it on Whyte when he had him backed up, but also liked Whyte's ability to fight in the pocket and pick shots. I liked both of their work and in the odd round would feel that they both deserved 10pts. To say 'you have to pick a winner' will lead to more fights looking like robberies where SDs will look bizarre with landslides either way by different judges.
Nonsense. Scorecards very rarely have 10-10s as it is, judges are told not to use them unless exceptionally close which is why you rarely see them on official cards. Pundits use them all the time though, a guy like David Haye should be doing much better when a pundit.

Scorecards very rarely have 10-10s because we very rarely see 50/50 contests. I see nothing wrong with scoring a round 10-10, especially in a fight which was close like Whyte v Chisora. It's not ideal, but it is fair in some instances.

Posted: **12 Dec 2016, 07:25**

youngrell wrote:
Ricky_ wrote:
sharpei_louis wrote:
I'm with you, very very close fight.

I like the 10-10 round system though. There were plenty where Whyte was sharp for the first minute and a half and Chisora took over late on.
If a fighter likes to fight on the back foot, and another likes to go forwards, who do you score for? It's totally preference. I like that Chisora put it on Whyte when he had him backed up, but also liked Whyte's ability to fight in the pocket and pick shots. I liked both of their work and in the odd round would feel that they both deserved 10pts. To say 'you have to pick a winner' will lead to more fights looking like robberies where SDs will look bizarre with landslides either way by different judges.
Nonsense. Scorecards very rarely have 10-10s as it is, judges are told not to use them unless exceptionally close which is why you rarely see them on official cards. Pundits use them all the time though, a guy like David Haye should be doing much better when a pundit.
Scorecards very rarely have 10-10s because we very rarely see 50/50 contests. I see nothing wrong with scoring a round 10-10, especially in a fight which was close like Whyte v Chisora. It's not ideal, but it is fair in some instances.

You think 10-10's are rare because close rounds are rare?

Posted: **12 Dec 2016, 07:26**

Ricky_ wrote:
Taansend wrote:
Ricky_ wrote:No way did Whyte win than fight. Bullshit decision.
Did you score it Ricky?
Yeah, i had it 8-4.

Another thing that gets on my nerves is 10-10 rounds. Hayes card on Sky had like 3 of them going by the official cards 2 judges marked a 10-10 aswell!? 10-10's should be outlawed, it's not that hard to pick a winner.

Why should they be outlawed, it's part of the scoring system. In fact if there were more 10-10 rounds scored, we would have better scores as a result, that reflect the action.

Posted: **12 Dec 2016, 07:40**

Ricky_ wrote:
youngrell wrote:
Ricky_ wrote:
Nonsense. Scorecards very rarely have 10-10s as it is, judges are told not to use them unless exceptionally close which is why you rarely see them on official cards. Pundits use them all the time though, a guy like David Haye should be doing much better when a pundit.
Scorecards very rarely have 10-10s because we very rarely see 50/50 contests. I see nothing wrong with scoring a round 10-10, especially in a fight which was close like Whyte v Chisora. It's not ideal, but it is fair in some instances.

You think 10-10's are rare because close rounds are rare?

Dunno why you find that so funny, it makes complete sense.

And you'll also notice that everyone else commenting on this subject is in disagreement with you. But yeah, of course, it's you that's right

still

Posted: **12 Dec 2016, 07:58**

youngrell wrote:
Ricky_ wrote:
sharpei_louis wrote:
I'm with you, very very close fight.

I like the 10-10 round system though. There were plenty where Whyte was sharp for the first minute and a half and Chisora took over late on.
If a fighter likes to fight on the back foot, and another likes to go forwards, who do you score for? It's totally preference. I like that Chisora put it on Whyte when he had him backed up, but also liked Whyte's ability to fight in the pocket and pick shots. I liked both of their work and in the odd round would feel that they both deserved 10pts. To say 'you have to pick a winner' will lead to more fights looking like robberies where SDs will look bizarre with landslides either way by different judges.
Nonsense. Scorecards very rarely have 10-10s as it is, judges are told not to use them unless exceptionally close which is why you rarely see them on official cards. Pundits use them all the time though, a guy like David Haye should be doing much better when a pundit.
Scorecards very rarely have 10-10s because we very rarely see 50/50 contests. I see nothing wrong with scoring a round 10-10, especially in a fight which was close like Whyte v Chisora. It's not ideal, but it is fair in some instances.

There should be more 10-10 rounds scored, it gives a far better reflection of how a fight unfolded if you score the very close rounds as 10-10, as this then puts more emphasis on rounds that were won emphatically.

Posted: **12 Dec 2016, 08:13**

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
youngrell wrote:
Ricky_ wrote:
Nonsense. Scorecards very rarely have 10-10s as it is, judges are told not to use them unless exceptionally close which is why you rarely see them on official cards. Pundits use them all the time though, a guy like David Haye should be doing much better when a pundit.
Scorecards very rarely have 10-10s because we very rarely see 50/50 contests. I see nothing wrong with scoring a round 10-10, especially in a fight which was close like Whyte v Chisora. It's not ideal, but it is fair in some instances.
There should be more 10-10 rounds scored, it gives a far better reflection of how a fight unfolded if you score the very close rounds as 10-10, as this then puts more emphasis on rounds that were won emphatically.

On the contrary. 10-10 rounds are cop outs and lead to crap cards. Haye for instance on Sky i'm sure had 10-10 for both round 1 & 3, robbing Chisora of 2 points.

I read an interview with Tom Shrek once explaining why they are instructed not to give 10-10's. I searched for it but no hit, i'll look it again later. Instrad i came across this on reddit which pretty much sums it up though:

Only in the rarest of circumstances should this be used, I've personally never scored a 10-10 round. I think it's kind of a cop-out people use who are having a hard time judging a fight. If you apply all of the judging criteria to any given round you can pick a winner.

The times I've spoken with people who scored rounds 10-10, it's been because they weren't able to identify a winner in the round (IE, not because there wasn't a winner). In my opinion this speaks more to their inability to pick up on the nuances in the ring and accurately apply the judging criteria. They felt because a round was close, it could be 10-10. Rarely have I ever found this the case, there is always something one fighter does better, be it effective aggression, ring generalship, defense ext. Remember, there's more to judging then just effective aggression, if both fighters are being equally effectively aggressive, move on to the next set of criteria. If you do this, you'll find a winner to the round.

Posted: **12 Dec 2016, 08:20**

I didn't score it but I thought Chisora won, might sit down later and score it properly

Posted: **12 Dec 2016, 08:20**

Nothing much in the decision and typical close fight but always debate.

Posted: **12 Dec 2016, 09:14**

it was close but I had chishora nicking it

Posted: **12 Dec 2016, 10:30**

I thought Chisoras's best rounds were more emphatic, bit it was a real see-saw battle. Chisora's output dropped quite dramatically over the second half of the fight, and I reckon that's where he lost it.

Posted: **12 Dec 2016, 10:48**

Chisora seemed to have Whyte in real trouble at times. Even when outworked his better shots were winning him the rounds...at least for me... And a couple of times Whyte staggered around the ring.

Posted: **12 Dec 2016, 12:04**

Whyte by 2 or 3 rounds Del really was poor in the last half just looking to rest for 2+ minutes then throw a few big shots I think if Whyte pressed a bit more in the later rounds he would of stopped Del but great fight to watch.

Posted: **12 Dec 2016, 14:55**

Most thrilling fight ive seen in Britain since calzaghe lacey

Posted: **12 Dec 2016, 16:01**

After watching this live sat night I thought great fight and my gut feeling was a draw.

However,

I re watched last night and scored it 116 113 Whyte. I thought Whytes work rate was enough to nick a few of the close rounds.

Del had him rocked a few times but wasn't busy enough.

100% would watch a re match

Posted: **12 Dec 2016, 20:21**

Ricky_ wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:
youngrell wrote: Scorecards very rarely have 10-10s because we very rarely see 50/50 contests. I see nothing wrong with scoring a round 10-10, especially in a fight which was close like Whyte v Chisora. It's not ideal, but it is fair in some instances.
There should be more 10-10 rounds scored, it gives a far better reflection of how a fight unfolded if you score the very close rounds as 10-10, as this then puts more emphasis on rounds that were won emphatically.

On the contrary. 10-10 rounds are cop outs and lead to crap cards. Haye for instance on Sky i'm sure had 10-10 for both round 1 & 3, robbing Chisora of 2 points.

I read an interview with Tom Shrek once explaining why they are instructed not to give 10-10's. I searched for it but no hit, i'll look it again later. Instrad i came across this on reddit which pretty much sums it up though:

Only in the rarest of circumstances should this be used, I've personally never scored a 10-10 round. I think it's kind of a cop-out people use who are having a hard time judging a fight. If you apply all of the judging criteria to any given round you can pick a winner.

The times I've spoken with people who scored rounds 10-10, it's been because they weren't able to identify a winner in the round (IE, not because there wasn't a winner). In my opinion this speaks more to their inability to pick up on the nuances in the ring and accurately apply the judging criteria. They felt because a round was close, it could be 10-10. Rarely have I ever found this the case, there is always something one fighter does better, be it effective aggression, ring generalship, defense ext. Remember, there's more to judging then just effective aggression, if both fighters are being equally effectively aggressive, move on to the next set of criteria. If you do this, you'll find a winner to the round.

If you as a judge can't pick a winner of a round, then subjectively there wasn't a winner to the round. That's why we have three judges, to try to iron out subjectivity as much as possible.

Yeah - there is always something one fighter does better, but there may be something else that the other fighter does better. It's a matter of preference then which skillset you prefer. Or if you feel it was even, you can call a 10-10 round. Yeah when I'm scoring I look to pick a winner in a round, but I like that I can call a round even if I genuinely see it like that. To remove my option to do that would definitely misrepresent the score, as if I have to give a round to a guy when I don't really think he won it, it negates every clear round I give in the other direction. I don't think that's fair.

Don't try and tell me I'm therefore blind and unable to identify the winner of a round, it is a choice to score it even as much as it is a choice to give the round to either guy.

Posted: **12 Dec 2016, 23:20**

sharpei_louis wrote:
To remove my option to do that would definitely misrepresent the score, as if I have to give a round to a guy when I don't really think he won it, it negates every clear round I give in the other direction. I don't think that's fair.

That argument doesn't stack up. The 10pt must system doesn't reflect if rounds or close or clear (with the exception of 10-8s etc). So for example fighter A could get off to a flyer and absolutely box fighter B's head off for 3 rounds, landing many hurtful shots while only taking the odd jab back. But for the next 3 rounds they could be razor close rounds with fighter B perhaps just shading it by landing 1 or 2 more eyecatching jabs or potshots. So through 6 you got it 57-57. It's not exactly "fair" in the sense that it doesn't reflect the first guys far more dominant rounds and the fight is now level, but that's just how the scoring system is designed. Given your logic you would be incluned to give the closer rounds 10-10 so not to negate fighter A's clearer rounds.

Posted: **12 Dec 2016, 23:30**

That was a wicked fight.
Chisora will never be forgiven spitting in Wladimir Klitschko's face but he did well here.

BoxRec

Who Won - Whyte or Chisora?

Re: Who Won - Whyte or Chisora?

Re: Who Won - Whyte or Chisora?

Re: Who Won - Whyte or Chisora?

Re: Who Won - Whyte or Chisora?

Re: Who Won - Whyte or Chisora?

Re: Who Won - Whyte or Chisora?

Re: Who Won - Whyte or Chisora?

Re: Who Won - Whyte or Chisora?

Re: Who Won - Whyte or Chisora?

Re: Who Won - Whyte or Chisora?

Re: Who Won - Whyte or Chisora?

Re: Who Won - Whyte or Chisora?

Re: Who Won - Whyte or Chisora?

Re: Who Won - Whyte or Chisora?

Re: Who Won - Whyte or Chisora?

Re: Who Won - Whyte or Chisora?

Re: Who Won - Whyte or Chisora?

Re: Who Won - Whyte or Chisora?

Re: Who Won - Whyte or Chisora?

Re: Who Won - Whyte or Chisora?

Re: Who Won - Whyte or Chisora?

Re: Who Won - Whyte or Chisora?

Re: Who Won - Whyte or Chisora?

Re: Who Won - Whyte or Chisora?

Re: Who Won - Whyte or Chisora?