Bad Decisions in Boxing

[HomicideHenry]

My Scorecard for Holmes-Spinks II



Official Scores:

144-141 (2x's) 144-142 for Spinks

Note: In the aftermath of their first fight Holmes remarked that the Las Vegas judges were "incompetent drunks," and many observers thought Holmes won the rematch, so it seems the judges had long memories and held it against Holmes.

Spinks landed 296 of 680 punches (43%) while Holmes connected on 293 of 724 (40%) in this contest; extremely razor thin.

The Fight (as I see it)


#1- HOLMES!!! comes out firing like he's out to kill Spinks & even throws him to the floor. A completely different level of intensity than the first fight.

#2- Holmes ... Taking Spinks to school outjabbing and out punching Spinks... The Jinx is constantly trying to get away and is absorbing many of those blows

#3- Holmes... Clearly still in charge but Spinks is starting to get bold and getting cute in the as if to say, "I'm not going anywhere!"

#4- Holmes... Spinks is trying to mix it up, but Holmes jab & combinations have alot of salt & pepper on them and he's clearly a motivated fighter

#5- Holmes... Clear that he's in charge of the round, though Spinks is taking more risks... It's 50-45 as far as I see it this time around & Holmes is looking like the champion of old in there

#6- Even... Certainly Spinks best round so far, however, Holmes is right there and is clearly the harder puncher and his work-rate is similar to the faster, lighter man

#7- Holmes... The last 30 seconds or so Spinks rallied back, but wasn't enough to sway my card no way no how... I'd say it's 70-64 for Holmes at this point though I wouldn't argue with a score of 70-63 (all 7 for Holmes)

#8- Holmes... Close... Very close... Holmes pressed the action most of the time in my view, even if Spinks threw more shots (they were pitter patter types), I could see it being called 'even' or even closely for Spinks... Lederman (unofficially) had it 78-74 for Holmes

#9- Holmes... Again a very close round, but I feel Larry's being "the boss" in there while Spinks just does occasional flurries... It's somewhat apparent the pace & work-rate is wearing down on the ex-champion who you could argue has won every round

#10- Spinks... Holmes was throwing punches one at a time, whereas Spinks was throwing them in pairs... So far, I have the fight 97-93 for Holmes... If this were in the era of 12 rounders, even if Holmes dropped the next two rounds he'd of won clear cut 115-113

#11- Ehhhh... I'll give it to Spinks though I can see why someone would call it even... Holmes came back in the last 30 seconds but I think Spinks did more meaningful work in the 2:30 though they both had their moments... 106- 103 Holmes... Both men very tired between rounds

#12- Very, very close round... But I'd have to give it to Spinks only because he threw slightly more punches... 115-113 Holmes... If Larry drops the next round it'll be officially a 124-123 Holmes and you may as well call it "open to interpretation" from the 13th onwards because it's virtually a draw at that point... Lederman unofficially has it 116-113 for Holmes

#13- Even... Both men dead tired & didn't quite out do the other... 125-123 Holmes... Spinks corner breaks out the ice pack & Spinks looks like he's having a dry heaving episode in the corner... Larry looks exhausted

#14- I'd give the edge to Larry... He had Spinks hurt & looking like he was going to la-la land... But somehow Spinks has this remarkable ability to rally back in short bursts of energy & makes it to even terms... Very entertaining round... 135-132 Holmes

#15-Spinks... Very entertaining round, but Spinks went the extra mile... 144-142 Larry Holmes... Even if I scored rounds "even" instead of being in favor of Holmes when they were close as hell (ie, 9) it'd still be Larry's fight

Post-Remarks

When Holmes heard the decision being read he looked over at his trainer & said, "I have a big mouth," in reference to him calling the judges incompetent drunks the last time around.

Holmes, truly feeling that there was a conspiracy against him in the sport he loved for two decades, retired feeling he'd never get a fair shake again.

It'd take a $3 million dollar payday for him to make a comeback against Mike Tyson in '88, which was twice the amount of money he made in the rematch with Spinks.

[Sidney Carton]

Holly Mims vs Joey Archer and Rubin Carter (Mims knocked both of them down)

not so. but what a punch.

yuzo claims "not so" and then posts a one second video that cuts off Archer's legs a foot and a half above the ring floor so that you can't see the very point he claims is "not so."

Try to do better next time, yuzo.

[tiny_acres]

Holly Mims vs Joey Archer and Rubin Carter (Mims knocked both of them down)

not so. but what a punch.

yuzo claims "not so" and then posts a one second video that cuts off Archer's legs a foot and a half above the ring floor so that you can't see the very point he claims is "not so."

Try to do better next time, yuzo.

KALAN is back

[Sidney Carton]

not so. but what a punch.

yuzo claims "not so" and then posts a one second video that cuts off Archer's legs a foot and a half above the ring floor so that you can't see the very point he claims is "not so."

Try to do better next time, yuzo.

KALAN is back

tiny acres lacks the ability to look at a video and see what is in it.

With tiny, zero comprehension is the proud boast.
,

[APerno]

How long did Spinks last against Mike Tyson?

Somewhat a moot point considering Spinks knew his limits as a Heavyweight which is why he went after Holmes when he knew Larry was slower, and why instead of fighting Tony Tucker opted for inactive Gerry Cooney and unknown Steffen Tangstad. Tyson was strictly a money fight.

It is wrong to say out loud but champions (sometimes even Black champions) have always avoided Black fighters if there was a reasonable white fighter available, it's always about the money.

When Zale got back in '45 Graziano (4) had just packed MSG for 7 consecutive fights; Holman Williams (1) had just taken Charley Burley (2) to school ** and he deserved the title shot, but let's face it Williams a West Coast Black fighter (with little to no NY resume); Zale-Graziano ended up 'outdoors in a ball park'; Zale-Williams would have been lucky to fill MSG; probably wouldn't even have happened in New York, never mind Yankee Stadium.

Back in '40 your name sake passed over SRR (1) and Chaerly Burley (5) to fight Fritzie Zivic (6), a popular White New Jersey boy who went 1-2 with Burley but you can't blame Armstrong he and Zivic filled MSG twice; SRR would have been a maybe (SRR wasn't a super star yet) and Burely was unknown in New York. (Burley only fought in New York City once his entire career.)

And of course we all know what Jack Johnson did once he got the title: Flynn, Moran ETC.

I am running off at the mouth about this history because I am arguing: Why should Spinks fight Tony Tucker when he has the Irish punching bag Jerry Cooney to make money off --- to "do the right thing"? Lets face it that only happens in Spike Lee movies.

I know it's wrong, I know it's racist, but I also know it's all about the money! Spinks made the right call, easier fight, more money. I suspect Tucker would have beaten Spinks, or at least come close; I think Tony Tucker was better than he is remembered.

I always felt that if a champion takes someone in the top ten and then eventually fights number #1 than he is doing it OK.

** That was near the end for Burley, he would fall out of the rankings the next year. Holman Williams would go on to split fights with Archie Moore. There is a guy who I think should get more recognition from us.

[HomicideHenry]

Tucker was dangerous enough to be the #1 mandatory for Spinks in '86 & Foreman in '94... He was rather underrated, and he gave Tyson a helluva fight.

[tiny_acres]

yuzo claims "not so" and then posts a one second video that cuts off Archer's legs a foot and a half above the ring floor so that you can't see the very point he claims is "not so."

Try to do better next time, yuzo.

KALAN is back

tiny acres lacks the ability to look at a video and see what is in it.

With tiny, zero comprehension is the proud boast.
,

Glad to see you to Kalan

[Yuzo]

yuzo claims "not so" and then posts a one second video that cuts off Archer's legs a foot and a half above the ring floor so that you can't see the very point he claims is "not so."

Try to do better next time, yuzo.

KALAN is back

tiny acres lacks the ability to look at a video and see what is in it.

With tiny, zero comprehension is the proud boast.
,

heres the video sidney.

[Ambling Alp II]

Some of these fights were not bad decisions.
There really was not any controversy about the scoring of the first Spinks-Holmes fight. Holmes complained, but most thought Spinks won clearly.
Holmes-Spinks was close.
Norton-Ali III was an extremely close fight, with several rounds that could have been judged either way.
Holyield did almost nothing in the first Moorer fight outside if the knockdown. No way he deserved that decision. Schemling-Sharkey and many other early fights we simply don't know because we didn't see it.

[Sidney Carton]

heres the video sidney.

Only shows the same as your one second video.

[Yuzo]

Only shows the same as your one second video.

i dont think archer ever went down. so does don dunphy. so does the referee, seeing how archer never receives a count. thats good enough for me.

[Sidney Carton]

Holly Mims and Georgie Benton were both championship level middleweights who were not allowed to ever get a title chance.

Mims fought out of Washington DC

but his career was actually managed by the Chicago mob.

No fighter had as many three/two day notices to fight a top contender in a ten round fight in Madison Square Garden. That means (to help the clueless) that he had no time to train and to be mentally prepared for the fight. They did that to him over and over again.

He couln't even get a decision in his own (supposed) home town of Washington DC when he fought and beat Giardello there.

Benton was used as a "policeman' by the Philadelphia mob. Like Mims, no matter how good he was or who he beat, Benton was never going to get a title fight.

[APerno]

Holly Mims and Georgie Benton were both championship level middleweights who were not allowed to ever get a title chance.

Mims fought out of Washington DC

but his career was actually managed by the Chicago mob.

No fighter had as many three/two day notices to fight a top contender in a ten round fight in Madison Square Garden. That means (to help the clueless) that he had no time to train and to be mentally prepared for the fight. They did that to him over and over again.

He couln't even get a decision in his own (supposed) home town of Washington DC when he fought and beat Giardello there.

Benton was used as a "policeman' by the Philadelphia mob. Like Mims, no matter how good he was or who he beat, Benton was never going to get a title fight.

1962 was Georgie Benton's year, making The Ring's annual rankings at #3, (including a non-title UD over Giardello) but he then drops a SD to Rubin Carter (who in '63 steals his number three spot and gets the shot at Giardello). What follows then is a split with Johnny Morris L-UD & W-SD, and he then goes into a slide dropping three in a row (being stopped twice) to Rodriguez; Calhoun, and Briscoe. During that time his only impressive win is an MD over Ellis in '64, so exactly when is it that the mob supposedly got in his way?

The only year he was in the top ten rankings was '62 and Dick Tiger (champion) gets tied up with a trilogy with Gene Fullmer and then loses the title to Giardello at the end of '63. Giardello then defends against Carter. By then Benton has fallen out of the rankings.

I think it is apocryphal that Benton was supposedly so thoroughly 'ducked.' - I know it is a popular story but The Ring rankings say different, and I don't believe that NF was influenced by the mob.

You can argue that Giardello didn't deserve the shot against Tiger in December of '63 based on his loss to Benton, there is an argument there, Giardello looks to have gotten gift challenge, but Benton, leading up to December '63, had lost to Carter in May and Johnny Morris in November so he wasn't going to get that shot at Tiger in December regardless of what the mob might have done, wrongly moving Giardello into position.

The corruption seems to be that Giardello got a gift shot at the title, not that Benton was ducked; it looks like Benton's chance slipped away with the lost to Carter and Morris in '63 which dumped him out of the rankings.

[Sidney Carton]

Holly Mims and Georgie Benton were both championship level middleweights who were not allowed to ever get a title chance.

Mims fought out of Washington DC

but his career was actually managed by the Chicago mob.

No fighter had as many three/two day notices to fight a top contender in a ten round fight in Madison Square Garden. That means (to help the clueless) that he had no time to train and to be mentally prepared for the fight. They did that to him over and over again.

He couln't even get a decision in his own (supposed) home town of Washington DC when he fought and beat Giardello there.

Benton was used as a "policeman' by the Philadelphia mob. Like Mims, no matter how good he was or who he beat, Benton was never going to get a title fight.

1962 was Georgie Benton's year, making The Ring's annual rankings at #3, (including a non-title UD over Giardello) but he then drops a SD to Rubin Carter (who in '63 steals his number three spot and gets the shot at Giardello). What follows then is a split with Johnny Morris L-UD & W-SD, and he then goes into a slide dropping three in a row (being stopped twice) to Rodriguez; Calhoun, and Briscoe. During that time his only impressive win is an MD over Ellis in '64, so exactly when is it that the mob supposedly got in his way?

The only year he was in the top ten rankings was '62 and Dick Tiger (champion) gets tied up with a trilogy with Gene Fullmer and then loses the title to Giardello at the end of '63. Giardello then defends against Carter. By then Benton has fallen out of the rankings.

I think it is apocryphal that Benton was supposedly so thoroughly 'ducked.' - I know it is a popular story but The Ring rankings say different, and I don't believe that NF was influenced by the mob.

You can argue that Giardello didn't deserve the shot against Tiger in December of '63 based on his loss to Benton, there is an argument there, Giardello looks to have gotten gift challenge, but Benton, leading up to December '63, had lost to Carter in May and Johnny Morris in November so he wasn't going to get that shot at Tiger in December regardless of what the mob might have done, wrongly moving Giardello into position.

The corruption seems to be that Giardello got a gift shot at the title, not that Benton was ducked; it looks like Benton's chance slipped away with the lost to Carter and Morris in '63 which dumped him out of the rankings.

You don't have a clue how crooked boxing is.

Keep clutching at your "rankings" and pathetic 'statistics.' .

After Benton's "fight" with Carter, Philadelphia boxing writer and mob wannabe Jack McKinney walked into Benton's dressing room, slapped Benton across the face and said, "Georgie, you threw that fight."

What did Benton do? He sat there on the table and said nothing.

reported by Bob Waters, NY Newsday boxing writer.

[APerno]

Holly Mims and Georgie Benton were both championship level middleweights who were not allowed to ever get a title chance.

Mims fought out of Washington DC

but his career was actually managed by the Chicago mob.

No fighter had as many three/two day notices to fight a top contender in a ten round fight in Madison Square Garden. That means (to help the clueless) that he had no time to train and to be mentally prepared for the fight. They did that to him over and over again.

He couln't even get a decision in his own (supposed) home town of Washington DC when he fought and beat Giardello there.

Benton was used as a "policeman' by the Philadelphia mob. Like Mims, no matter how good he was or who he beat, Benton was never going to get a title fight.

1962 was Georgie Benton's year, making The Ring's annual rankings at #3, (including a non-title UD over Giardello) but he then drops a SD to Rubin Carter (who in '63 steals his number three spot and gets the shot at Giardello). What follows then is a split with Johnny Morris L-UD & W-SD, and he then goes into a slide dropping three in a row (being stopped twice) to Rodriguez; Calhoun, and Briscoe. During that time his only impressive win is an MD over Ellis in '64, so exactly when is it that the mob supposedly got in his way?

The only year he was in the top ten rankings was '62 and Dick Tiger (champion) gets tied up with a trilogy with Gene Fullmer and then loses the title to Giardello at the end of '63. Giardello then defends against Carter. By then Benton has fallen out of the rankings.

I think it is apocryphal that Benton was supposedly so thoroughly 'ducked.' - I know it is a popular story but The Ring rankings say different, and I don't believe that NF was influenced by the mob.

You can argue that Giardello didn't deserve the shot against Tiger in December of '63 based on his loss to Benton, there is an argument there, Giardello looks to have gotten gift challenge, but Benton, leading up to December '63, had lost to Carter in May and Johnny Morris in November so he wasn't going to get that shot at Tiger in December regardless of what the mob might have done, wrongly moving Giardello into position.

The corruption seems to be that Giardello got a gift shot at the title, not that Benton was ducked; it looks like Benton's chance slipped away with the lost to Carter and Morris in '63 which dumped him out of the rankings.

You don't have a clue how crooked boxing is.

Keep clutching at your "rankings" and pathetic 'statistics.' .

After Benton's "fight" with Carter, Philadelphia boxing writer and mob wannabe Jack McKinney walked into Benton's dressing room, slapped Benton across the face and said, "Georgie, you threw that fight."

What did Benton do? He sat there on the table and said nothing.

reported by Bob Waters, NY Newsday boxing writer.

Come on Sidney of course I know how crooked the game is, I'm from New Jersey. -- Did you see that I stated that I suspect Giardello got his shot at Tiger's title when he shouldn't have.

That's an interesting story regrading the Phily mob and Benton, but I don't get it, was this mobster (Mckinney) angry that he wasn't in on the fix?

Here's a thought what, if it was Giardello who tanked his UD lost to Benton the year before (August '62) so that he could get his shot in '63 (That fight was in Phily.) That's what they say about LaMotta and Billy Fox, 'throw one for us and you'll get your shot.' But I doubt the Giardello story as well, tanking a fight by staying on your feet is just too dangerous, you fornicate that up and the hard guys are going to be very angry with you.

That's a pretty good trick being able to throw fight via a SD; that's taking one hell of a chance with the score cards. - They say that Abe Attell threw away his title (20 UD) without going down, but that takes a really special kind of talent. No doubt Benton was as much a master boxer as The Little Hebrew, but it's very had to believe that any fighter can tank a fight via a SD over ten rounds.

Besides who ever heard of an Irishman (McKinney) having any clout in an Italian controlled city like Phily? (The Bruno/Scarfo Families, under Genovese control out of new York.)

P.S. The Attell fight I referenced is the Johnny Kilbane fight where Attell supposedly gave up his title for money; Attell was just beginning his relationship with Arnold Rothstein.

[APerno]

Holly Mims and Georgie Benton were both championship level middleweights who were not allowed to ever get a title chance.

Mims fought out of Washington DC

but his career was actually managed by the Chicago mob.

No fighter had as many three/two day notices to fight a top contender in a ten round fight in Madison Square Garden. That means (to help the clueless) that he had no time to train and to be mentally prepared for the fight. They did that to him over and over again.

He couln't even get a decision in his own (supposed) home town of Washington DC when he fought and beat Giardello there.

Benton was used as a "policeman' by the Philadelphia mob. Like Mims, no matter how good he was or who he beat, Benton was never going to get a title fight.

[klompton]

How long did Spinks last against Mike Tyson?

Somewhat a moot point considering Spinks knew his limits as a Heavyweight which is why he went after Holmes when he knew Larry was slower, and why instead of fighting Tony Tucker opted for inactive Gerry Cooney and unknown Steffen Tangstad. Tyson was strictly a money fight.

Back in '40 your name sake passed over SRR (1) and Chaerly Burley (5) to fight Fritzie Zivic (6), a popular White New Jersey boy who went 1-2 with Burley but you can't blame Armstrong he and Zivic filled MSG twice; SRR would have been a maybe (SRR wasn't a super star yet) and Burely was unknown in New York. (Burley only fought in New York City once his entire career.)

This is a strange comment. Armstrong defended against Zivic on October 4, 1940. Sugar Ray Robinson turned pro on the undercard. Exactly how did Armstrong pass over SRR to defend against Zivic???

[klompton]

Some of these fights were not bad decisions.
There really was not any controversy about the scoring of the first Spinks-Holmes fight. Holmes complained, but most thought Spinks won clearly.
Holmes-Spinks was close.
Norton-Ali III was an extremely close fight, with several rounds that could have been judged either way.
Holyield did almost nothing in the first Moorer fight outside if the knockdown. No way he deserved that decision. Schemling-Sharkey and many other early fights we simply don't know because we didn't see it.

Schmeling-Sharkey exists complete. It was a close fight but I thought Schmeling deserved it. Those guys were evenly matched and had similar styles making them difficult fights for either guy to really pull ahead of the other.

[APerno]

Somewhat a moot point considering Spinks knew his limits as a Heavyweight which is why he went after Holmes when he knew Larry was slower, and why instead of fighting Tony Tucker opted for inactive Gerry Cooney and unknown Steffen Tangstad. Tyson was strictly a money fight.

Back in '40 your name sake passed over SRR (1) and Chaerly Burley (5) to fight Fritzie Zivic (6), a popular White New Jersey boy who went 1-2 with Burley but you can't blame Armstrong he and Zivic filled MSG twice; SRR would have been a maybe (SRR wasn't a super star yet) and Burely was unknown in New York. (Burley only fought in New York City once his entire career.)

This is a strange comment. Armstrong defended against Zivic on October 4, 1940. Sugar Ray Robinson turned pro on the undercard. Exactly how did Armstrong pass over SRR to defend against Zivic???

OH, I am sorry you are correct I confused 1940 and 1941, by 1941 The Ring rankings had SRR ranked as the number one .contender. I shouldn't even have throw in the SRR ranking anyway, what I was trying to assess was why Zivic and not Burley had gotten the shot at Armstrong considering that Burley had won two of the three meetings (1938) between the two men. SRR was actually a pointless point to make. -- I just went back and looked ta the '39 rankings and they have Zivic ranked number #1 which justifies Armstrong decision to take on Zivic and not the third ranked Burley, but still Burley was one fight up on Zivic, with Zivic's win being a SD and Burley's two wins a UD. But thanks for the correction.

[APerno]

Somewhat a moot point considering Spinks knew his limits as a Heavyweight which is why he went after Holmes when he knew Larry was slower, and why instead of fighting Tony Tucker opted for inactive Gerry Cooney and unknown Steffen Tangstad. Tyson was strictly a money fight.

Back in '40 your name sake passed over SRR (1) and Chaerly Burley (5) to fight Fritzie Zivic (6), a popular White New Jersey boy who went 1-2 with Burley but you can't blame Armstrong he and Zivic filled MSG twice; SRR would have been a maybe (SRR wasn't a super star yet) and Burely was unknown in New York. (Burley only fought in New York City once his entire career.)

This is a strange comment. Armstrong defended against Zivic on October 4, 1940. Sugar Ray Robinson turned pro on the undercard. Exactly how did Armstrong pass over SRR to defend against Zivic???

Wow, something else just crossed my mind: If SRR made his debut the night of the first Armstrong-Zivic fight how the hell did he end up with a number #1 ranking in '41. (The '41 Ring annual rankings are complied in mid '42) but god that is still only a year and a half of campaigning and for SRR to go from debut to a number #1 ranking that fast has got to be one of the fastest climbs ever.

[klompton]

Back in '40 your name sake passed over SRR (1) and Chaerly Burley (5) to fight Fritzie Zivic (6), a popular White New Jersey boy who went 1-2 with Burley but you can't blame Armstrong he and Zivic filled MSG twice; SRR would have been a maybe (SRR wasn't a super star yet) and Burely was unknown in New York. (Burley only fought in New York City once his entire career.)

This is a strange comment. Armstrong defended against Zivic on October 4, 1940. Sugar Ray Robinson turned pro on the undercard. Exactly how did Armstrong pass over SRR to defend against Zivic???

OH, I am sorry you are correct I confused 1940 and 1941, by 1941 The Ring rankings had SRR ranked as the number one .contender. I shouldn't even have throw in the SRR ranking anyway, what I was trying to assess was why Zivic and not Burley had gotten the shot at Armstrong considering that Burley had won two of the three meetings (1938) between the two men. SRR was actually a pointless point to make. -- I just went back and looked ta the '39 rankings and they have Zivic ranked number #1 which justifies Armstrong decision to take on Zivic and not the third ranked Burley, but still Burley was one fight up on Zivic, with Zivic's win being a SD and Burley's two wins a UD. But thanks for the correction.

It might have had something to do with the fact that Burley hadnt fought at 147 in over a year and had just lost a fight as Armstrong was looking at a defense in the Garden. That, combined with the fact that Zivic was a good draw and Burley wasnt may have had something to do with it. Risk/reward d always plays a part.

[scartissue]

My Scorecard for Holmes vs Spinks



9/21/1985, the first fight. Holmes was 48-0 looking to tie Rocky Marciano's 49-0 record. If successful this would have been Holmes 21st title defense.

Round One: Holmes

Round Two: Holmes

Round Three: Even

Round Four: Spinks

Round Five: Even (H. power+jab was every bit as meaningful as Spinks flurries)

Scores After Five (imho) 50-48 Holmes


Gotta say I admire Spinks cus sometimes he looks like a rag doll in there whenever Larry let's loose, but instead of running away he leaps right back at Holmes. Alot of balls.

Round Six: Spinks (Completely outhustles, out punches & even out jabs Holmes and makes Holmes look vulnerable for the first time in a long time)

Round Seven: Spinks (close)

Round Eight: Spinks (H. is certainly not a good infighter as Spinks takes full advantage on the inside; Holmes face is swelling up)

Round Nine: Holmes (starts getting serious, doubling up on the jab perpetually making Spinks move, and catches Spinks with hard shots)

Round Ten: Even (extremely difficult to score because Spinks had two moments in the round, whereas Holmes controlled it wirh jabs; both men could have did more)

Scores After Ten (imho) 88-87 Spinks


This is an extremely competitive fight so far with Spinks looking like the "brave little soldier" in the first five, and looking like a real contender in the next five stanzas; we have a real fight here & Spinks is proving he belongs with the best of the big guys.


Round Eleven: Even (I don't think either man did enough to sway me)

Round Twelve: Spinks (He put together more punches than Holmes jabs; half the time I'm thinking, "Double up! Triple up on the jab!", because Spinks is there for the taking but Holmes seems content to stay at first gear)

Round Thirteen: Spinks (H. controlled the first half w/ his jab but in the second half Spinks was throwing combinations; Holmes corner is frantic between rounds)

Round Fourteen: Spinks (H. looks like a man who knows he's lost. His once faithful jab isn't connecting anymore. Then again his face is really swollen)

Round Fifteen: Spinks (H. corner begging Holmes to go for broke, but his efforts at aggression seem minimal to the effort put out by Spinks)

Scores After Fifteen (imho)

138-133 Michael Spinks

Now let's compare...

Official Scores of the Fight:
143-142, 143-142, 145-142

Total Punches of the Fight:
Holmes= 247 of 567
Spinks= 318 of 697


I guess the judges saw one of my even rounds differently, because if I gave one of the rounds to Spinks my scores would have been 148-142, and that's not too far from the margin of the final scorecard.

The judges were certainly more kind to Larry than I was, and I generally consider Holmes to be the best Heavyweight of all time.... So it's ironic to me anyways the blow up Holmes had after the fight saying, "Marciano couldn't carry my jockstrap!", especially when Holmes corner begged him to step on the gas and he never really did.

Henry, not to nitpick but I thought there was something wrong with your math there. I think you scored it 147-142 for Spinks.

[scartissue]

If anyone wants to see a bad decision, watch the first fight between Curtis Parker and Mustafa Hamsho. When I saw it live I scored it 7-3 for Parker. Recently watching it again, I had it 6-2-2 Parker. Either way, a bad decision.

[Ambling Alp II]

One thing that people should ask themselves is what happens if you give all the close rounds to the guy who supposedly benefited from the bad decision. Does that make a difference, or did he still not deserve the decision.

For example in the Parker-Hamsho fight, if Hamsho gets the two even rounds then it's 6-4 for Parker. Were there close rounds that you scored for Parker but could see going the other way?
If not, then it's a bad decision. If so, then it's just a close fight that could have been scored either way.,
Sometimes there are close fights where it's reasonable for people to score it differently.

The bottom line, you have to keep track of the "swing rounds".

[scartissue]

One thing that people should ask themselves is what happens if you give all the close rounds to the guy who supposedly benefited from the bad decision. Does that make a difference, or did he still not deserve the decision.

For example in the Parker-Hamsho fight, if Hamsho gets the two even rounds then it's 6-4 for Parker. Were there close rounds that you scored for Parker but could see going the other way?
If not, then it's a bad decision. If so, then it's just a close fight that could have been scored either way.,
Sometimes there are close fights where it's reasonable for people to score it differently.

The bottom line, you have to keep track of the "swing rounds".

I totally agree with you on swing rounds. I am always hesitant on saying 'robbery' until I look at the whole chess board. I am one who scores even rounds, so if I score for one fighter, I am somewhat secure on opinion. So in the case of Parker-Hamsho, I too tallied in my even rounds to the opponent to see where it lays. But in this case, robbery! Has anyone checked this fight out?