DrDuke wrote: ↑31 Mar 2018, 19:01
I scored it for Parker, maybe it is because of Parker's surprisingly good performance, but still everything was too wide on the scorecards.
no way parker won
this happens a lot, someone simply does better then expected and then gets judged way too generously
Why is everybody so surprised? Judges in UK giving all close rounds (which includes won but not so obviously by an opponent) to a local fighter happens 9 times out of 10. Unless an opponent pushes, many local fighters just play it safe knowing that they will get a nod. Parker should have known better and taken a risk.
boxing_rocks wrote: ↑31 Mar 2018, 21:15
Why is everybody so surprised? Judges in UK giving all close rounds (which includes won but not so obviously by an opponent) to a local fighter happens 9 times out of 10. Unless an opponent pushes, many local fighters just play it safe knowing that they will get a nod. Parker should have known better and taken a risk.
I thought the same, but one judge was American and one from NZ, so...maybe it's the water?
boxing_rocks wrote: ↑31 Mar 2018, 21:15
Why is everybody so surprised? Judges in UK giving all close rounds (which includes won but not so obviously by an opponent) to a local fighter happens 9 times out of 10. Unless an opponent pushes, many local fighters just play it safe knowing that they will get a nod. Parker should have known better and taken a risk.
I thought the same, but one judge was American and one from NZ, so...maybe it's the water?
Or maybe stupid English commentators talking around.
boxing_rocks wrote: ↑31 Mar 2018, 21:15
Why is everybody so surprised? Judges in UK giving all close rounds (which includes won but not so obviously by an opponent) to a local fighter happens 9 times out of 10. Unless an opponent pushes, many local fighters just play it safe knowing that they will get a nod. Parker should have known better and taken a risk.
I thought the same, but one judge was American and one from NZ, so...maybe it's the water?
Or maybe stupid English commentators talking around.
I don't get it. Sorry...you talking about the English coverage of the fight?...because I was fortunate enough to hear the non-content coverage from Showtime USA.
I had it 116 / 112 AJ.
It was a hard and very frustrating fight to watch. The English commentary was terribly bias (what's new ) but the REF i feel ruined the fight. Who selected this fellow? If Parker's team did their homework they should've appealed before the bell rung. Parker's best chance was never going to be from the outside and it turned into an outside fight, forced by the REF.
I'd like to see Parker fight Wilder, and the winner of that get a crack at AJ.........with a REF who lets the fghters fight.
amwsnw wrote: ↑31 Mar 2018, 22:51
I had it 116 / 112 AJ.
It was a hard and very frustrating fight to watch. The English commentary was terribly bias (what's new ) but the REF i feel ruined the fight. Who selected this fellow? If Parker's team did their homework they should've appealed before the bell rung. Parker's best chance was never going to be from the outside and it turned into an outside fight, forced by the REF.
I'd like to see Parker fight Wilder, and the winner of that get a crack at AJ.........with a REF who lets the fghters fight.
Why should Wilder fight Parker before getting a shot at Joshua?
amwsnw wrote: ↑31 Mar 2018, 22:51
I had it 116 / 112 AJ.
It was a hard and very frustrating fight to watch. The English commentary was terribly bias (what's new ) but the REF i feel ruined the fight. Who selected this fellow? If Parker's team did their homework they should've appealed before the bell rung. Parker's best chance was never going to be from the outside and it turned into an outside fight, forced by the REF.
I'd like to see Parker fight Wilder, and the winner of that get a crack at AJ.........with a REF who lets the fghters fight.
Why should Wilder fight Parker before getting a shot at Joshua?
All I keep reading is Wilder needs to beat Whyte, Poverkin, Parker or a rematch with Ortiz.
Wilder is obviously one of the top two heavyweight fighters in the world. He deserves the fight now.
Everyone wants it but Hearn.
Joshua wants it... Wilder wants it.... fans want it.
Let them fight now
amwsnw wrote: ↑31 Mar 2018, 22:51
I had it 116 / 112 AJ.
It was a hard and very frustrating fight to watch. The English commentary was terribly bias (what's new ) but the REF i feel ruined the fight. Who selected this fellow? If Parker's team did their homework they should've appealed before the bell rung. Parker's best chance was never going to be from the outside and it turned into an outside fight, forced by the REF.
I'd like to see Parker fight Wilder, and the winner of that get a crack at AJ.........with a REF who lets the fghters fight.
This
Parker did well considering he wasn't allowed to fight on the inside. How could a guy that much deficincy in both height and reach do much on the outside anyway.
That was the biggest shame of the fight.
amwsnw wrote: ↑31 Mar 2018, 22:51
I had it 116 / 112 AJ.
It was a hard and very frustrating fight to watch. The English commentary was terribly bias (what's new ) but the REF i feel ruined the fight. Who selected this fellow? If Parker's team did their homework they should've appealed before the bell rung. Parker's best chance was never going to be from the outside and it turned into an outside fight, forced by the REF.
I'd like to see Parker fight Wilder, and the winner of that get a crack at AJ.........with a REF who lets the fghters fight.
This
Parker did well considering he wasn't allowed to fight on the inside. How could a guy that much deficincy in both height and reach do much on the outside anyway.
That was the biggest shame of the fight.
This crooked ref reminds me of another crooked ref, joe cortez, in the hatton-mayweather fight in that most honest of all cities, las vegas. Same as Parker, Hatton needed to fight on the inside, and Cortez immediately dived in whenever they came close. Boxing is such a wonderfully honest sport. Boxing is almost as honest as Las Vegas.
..I don't see any reason fixing it..had it lack of drama? was it unspectacular? lackluster performance from Joshua? rather yes than no on all three counts..still the right man won ...no controversy here..
I didn’t see the fight but dipped into the BBC online commentary, you won’t find much more biased than that. The gist of the first three rounds was: no decisive action from either man, but all of them should go to Joshua...