BoxRec

I watched the fight in the local pub after being out since 1pm, i thought Johnson had the better fight & won by a big margin (by 4 rounds) but i must admit i watched the fight through beer eyes, maybe Johnson going forward all the time & looking aggressive swayed me, im gunna have to watch it again cos i dint see it as close as what people say, mind you well done Woods.

guys, no way woods won that fight.

'best lightheavyweight in the world' lol. Let's see woods 'beat' johnson like that in America.

Glen deserves a rubber match over there after being cheated in two fights over here.

viciousmaussa wrote:

SticknMove wrote:This shows everything that is wrong with the sport. Ex World Champion boxers that say the fight was nip and tuck after 7 rounds when I had Johnson at least 5 rounds ahead. Turn the commentary off and watch that fight and there is doubt that the old fella marching forward landing bigger punches against the limited Sheffield lad, had done more than enough. I remember why I am so pissed off with this utterly stupid political game that has become boxing. BTW Calzhaghe would have made mince meat of both these fighters IN THE SAME NIGHT.

Well let's see what the prodigal son Amir Khan does to redeem the situation.

muckraker

if Johnson would've got it, there would be a real outcry.

that was a great fight.

'limited sheffield lad'? He had a monster with a clever right hand coming at him non stop. Yet he took the man's best, adjusted, came back & outworked him. That's the stuff of champions.

how anyone can try & drag this down is pathetic. close fight and woods took over whe it counted.

even Cuellar said whoever wins the 12th wins the fight

No muckraker pal, I want deserving fighters merit the belts they wear. I felt that Johnson done enough in the first 3/4 of the fight to get the decision, even though he is an old worn out fighter. The thing I object to is the commentary making out that the fight was close, in the first half, when it appeared to me not to be the case. The effort of Woods in the later rounds narrowed the gap, but he never won any round convincingly IMO.

I had Clinton winning the second round and the fight by a round, however part of my decision may have just been because he did better in the second than the third. I think the thing that lost it for Johnson was the fact he didn't fight for large periods of rounds. I didn't give the 9th a 10-8 because Clinton landed a few shots and didn't look outclassed just in trouble.

I also thought the punch that served clinton the best seemed to be the uppercut. I have always thought clinton's strength was that he did the basics well (moved sideways kept his hands up) but at about 4 or 5 times in the first 6 rounds I was yelling put your hands up, and again in round 9.

viciousmaussa wrote:.

Woods put in way more offense. He risked more & he put more on the line that fight 1 & 2. At time he paced rounds clever and showed his ring generalship. At some points he was able to outhuislte GJ inside & now & agin push him back. He nevre did any of that before. So the improement IS there. he had to risk more to win. I think Johnson fought very well & to beat Johnson, to find ways round his aggression, is a big thing.

Also, he wasn't able to take overe the champ rounds in the other fights.

Far better quality of fight than before.[/quote]

Yes, but Johnson was 37 and for the last half of the boxed like a 37 year old. He was so tired that he couldn't finish Woods when he was there for the taking in the 10th.

He was still (on many occasions) getting outspeeded by a relatively slow fighter and looked as leaky in defence.

Woods surely KNEW that to beat Johnson he needed to back him up. Most on this forum have been saying that after the first fight. I still maintain he would have lost had Johnson not gassed, and Johnson has shown in the past he can gas out. He did so vs Ottke, vs Sheika, vs Woods, vs Tarver. This time, and at 37, he gased out a few rounds before the championship rounds.

Woods has learned from the two fights to finally execute the correct game plan to beat Johnson - but I would say he is technically and quicker, better, more resiliant or anything else that his team claim he is.

Its the same Woods, who fought a smarter fight (although, I gave Woods more than one round of the first 6 in the other fights).

I, like a few of you, had it 114-114. And any time I score a fight a draw, I can't argue with either fighter getting the nod. 116-112 seemed too wide for Woods, but had it been scored 116-112 for Johnson that would have been too wide as well.

I notice people are already calling 'Robbery!'. One of the most overused phrases in boxing. A robbery would be Damaen Kelly losing on all 3 cards earlier this year. Tonight was a close fight, officially a split decision, and it could have gone either way. Not a robbery.

All I will say is that Calzaghe must have been rubbing his hands. He must be very confident of beating either of those two, even stepping up in weight. That was two well-matched, solid pros. Calzaghe, at his best, is somewhat more than that. It also reaffirms my belief that neither Tarver nor Johnson were ever pound for pound contenders, just because they held wins over Roy Jones.

Woods was a bit lucky - but who cares? Lots of sideline stuff. Team Woods was stuck in a tiny dressing room (a disabled toilet, no less) and Hobson exploded. But he had the last laugh. Nice to see Frank and Dennis shake hands after the verdict, though.
Great night of boxing.

bennie wrote:Woods was a bit lucky - but who cares? Lots of sideline stuff. Team Woods was stuck in a tiny dressing room (a disabled toilet, no less) and Hobson exploded. But he had the last laugh. Nice to see Frank and Dennis shake hands after the verdict, though.
Great night of boxing.

Christ I heard there were issues with the dressing room but didn't realised they tried to fcuk him over that much... Warren would have happily hamstrung Woods if he'd of got away from it wouldn't he.

I didn't score it but awaiting the verdict felt Johnson had won it.

viciousmaussa wrote:I cannot believe that ppl are calling this a "controversy".

IMO ppl had already made their mind up that Clinton would get a "home decision" when they never even investigated the politics of the situation that favoured Glen.

Also, a lot of ppl find it hard to believe that a Brit can beat an American (albeit via Jamaica). If you wipe out an American you beat a bum. If you win a close fight it means you lost.

Generic & predictable nonsense.

Another deserved loss for Glen, alongside Ottke, Harmon, Sheika & Sosa.

Accept it, mon

but clearly not as clearcut as his loss to tarver in their 2nd fight!!

shoutout2u wrote:

viciousmaussa wrote:I cannot believe that ppl are calling this a "controversy".

IMO ppl had already made their mind up that Clinton would get a "home decision" when they never even investigated the politics of the situation that favoured Glen.

Also, a lot of ppl find it hard to believe that a Brit can beat an American (albeit via Jamaica). If you wipe out an American you beat a bum. If you win a close fight it means you lost.

Generic & predictable nonsense.

Another deserved loss for Glen, alongside Ottke, Harmon, Sheika & Sosa.

Accept it, mon

but clearly not as clearcut as his loss to tarver in their 2nd fight!!

yea, cos there was no doubt, tarver's tentacles were just a bit too fast. different fight this, much more artillery

stu, johnson is a bit older from their 1st fights, a bit less stamina plus more skills. he took a lot more shots than the first two fight, was inside longer with woods, & let's not exaggerate it was the last two rounds from a war that he faded, vs a bigger bloke. he faded in the first two fight, particularly the 2nd where he looked knackered from his efforts

glen is very much a threat to anyone in a very competitive weight class. i've been saying GJ is more skilled now, and his shots were more compact, faster and more hurtful than before.

it was a terrific fight & Johnson went right hand crazy in the 9th. that was going to take a fair bit out of him.

i think we should all be leased with a terrific fight. i don't see how Johnon got more than a draw. it was very much like Adamek-Briggs, with Johnson being Briggs & landing the meatier single shots


I rescored it 6-5-1 Woods. Gave the the tenth even. Don't reckon Johnson deserved that round, though he landed about seven great rights and a good body shot, Woods started the round better and finished with a compact combination that stopped him in his tracks.

viciousmaussa wrote:

stujones wrote:

viciousmaussa wrote:I cannot believe that ppl are calling this a "controversy".

IMO ppl had already made their mind up that Clinton would get a "home decision" when they never even investigated the politics of the situation that favoured Glen.

Also, a lot of ppl find it hard to believe that a Brit can beat an American (albeit via Jamaica). If you wipe out an American you beat a bum. If you win a close fight it means you lost.

Generic & predictable nonsense.

Another deserved loss for Glen, alongside Ottke, Harmon, Sheika & Sosa.

Accept it, mon

VM, I agree with your points - but I haven't seen anyone on the British forum call it a robbery. Even those who scored it a draw or for Johnson can see why it was scored for Woods.

I cannot see how a 4 round verdict for Woods could be scored, but the fight was so close it could have gone either way.

I do stand by my view though that this shows that Woods' improvement has been greatly exagerated. For men, Johnson only won the 2nd meeting by 7-5. So I don't think giving Woods an extra round is a sign of major improvment.

Woods put in way more offense. He risked more & he put more on the line that fight 1 & 2. At time he paced rounds clever and showed his ring generalship. At some points he was able to outhuislte GJ inside & now & agin push him back. He nevre did any of that before. So the improement IS there. he had to risk more to win. I think Johnson fought very well & to beat Johnson, to find ways round his aggression, is a big thing.

Also, he wasn't able to take overe the champ rounds in the other fights.

Far better quality of fight than before.

Your forgeting Johnsons getting on in years and probably doesn't have quite the same workrate as before. If Johnson had the stamina he would have pulled out the last 3 rounds and won. I thought Woods was going to score a KO early though, which was impressive, but if

Overall a great fight, great defensive in fighting, and a toe-toe war. IF it lived upto its earlier pace it would have been fight of the year.

BTW Maussa your biased to your fellow Sheffield man, it could have been 7-5 either way - certainly no robbery

I'm not biased. I just re scored it 6-5-1 Woods & liked Woods' work & strong finish that little bit better. I had them going back and forth in rounds after the 8th. Johnson hammered him in 9, Woods to me got a level 10th and took the last two.

I accept that ppl could have it either way. What I will say is, this is the first one that ppl have had Woods winning.


Johnson is old but not worn out. No wonder he was more tired. But he can fight through tiredness. There were heavier shots exchanged, and he & Woods were in a FAR more physical fight. Glen is still a threat to anyone and loses nothing from this fight as there are those who prefered his harder single shots. Also, the sweltering ring did Woods no good, but I don't think it did Johnson a favor either.

I was saying all week that Johnson was as good as ever. His attacks were faster (hence coming in 3 lbs under for speed), and sharper. I saw him great right counter against Richard Hall. He has less stamina now (wouldn't anyone) but he is a way better technician now. Still, Woods' improvement in class made a subtle difference last night.

Politics aside, let's give both guys credit. We either think Woods won, Johnson won, or that it was a draw.

I can't really comment 100% on the fight because I missed the middle (well didnt pay enough attention), but heres mine from what I saw

1. Johnson
2. Woods big
3. Woods big
4. Johnson
9. Johnson BIG ROUND
10. Woods edged it
11. Woods edged it
12. Woods edged it

I want to see Woods-Adamek, maybe Adamek will come over here if no one else will fight him. Or Woods Tarver would be good too. Woods doesnt need Calazagebut that fight would be OK

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:I want to see Woods-Adamek, maybe Adamek will come over here if no one else will fight him. Or Woods Tarver would be good too. Woods doesnt need Calazagebut that fight would be OK

I'd love any of those fights...well, Woods-Tarver would only be luke warm to me.

I thought Woods fought totally the wrong fight, slugging it out from early on, he was very deluded if he thought he was going to ko Johnson... he fought Johnsons fight from early on and only really started to pick up rounds from midway when he started moving more and Johnson was tired. Scorewise I made it a draw due to Clintons strong finish... but Johnson definately deserves a rematch. The commentary was as awful as always, it was so biased that I was embarrased... Clinton done well to finsih so strong but he's a lucky man to still be champ today and whoever came up with his fight 'plan' yesterday should be fired...

silkov wrote:I thought Woods fought totally the wrong fight, slugging it out from early on, he was very deluded if he thought he was going to ko Johnson... he fought Johnsons fight from early on and only really started to pick up rounds from midway when he started moving more and Johnson was tired. Scorewise I made it a draw due to Clintons strong finish... but Johnson definately deserves a rematch. The commentary was as awful as always, it was so biased that I was embarrased... Clinton done well to finsih so strong but he's a lucky man to still be champ today and whoever came up with his fight 'plan' yesterday should be fired...

agreed. there was no plan from Woods but to ship haymakers with his chin. poor defence. no lateral movement, getting in the trenches with a stronger guy, trying to outhustle the outhustler. Johnson was the aggressor throughout, was never hurt, hurt woods many times, had the superior ring generalship, bossed the fight, had the better defence.

Many of the close rounds should have gone to johnson because there was no discernable edge in effective shots landed from Woods. And of course Glen never stopped coming forward and imposing himself.

Riddick Blowe wrote:

silkov wrote:I thought Woods fought totally the wrong fight, slugging it out from early on, he was very deluded if he thought he was going to ko Johnson... he fought Johnsons fight from early on and only really started to pick up rounds from midway when he started moving more and Johnson was tired. Scorewise I made it a draw due to Clintons strong finish... but Johnson definately deserves a rematch. The commentary was as awful as always, it was so biased that I was embarrased... Clinton done well to finsih so strong but he's a lucky man to still be champ today and whoever came up with his fight 'plan' yesterday should be fired...

agreed. there was no plan from Woods but to ship haymakers with his chin. poor defence. no lateral movement, getting in the trenches with a stronger guy, trying to outhustle the outhustler. Johnson was the aggressor throughout, was never hurt, hurt woods many times, had the superior ring generalship, bossed the fight, had the better defence.

Many of the close rounds should have gone to johnson because there was no discernable edge in effective shots landed from Woods. And of course Glen never stopped coming forward and imposing himself.

I think Clintons whole approach to the fight was wrong, he was too hyped up and too emotional about it and it showed in his performance. While I scored it 'live' as a draw if there was a winner it would have to be Johnson imo... most of the 'early' rounds that went to Woods could easily have been given to Johnson, while Johnson had several dominant rounds.... Johnson won 5 of the first 6 rounds imo... Had the fight been in America I'm pretty sure Johnson would have won...
Why Clinton didnt start by boxing behind the jab and then get more involved later on when Johnson had tired is totally beyond me, if he was following corner advise then I'd say thats cause for serious concern because it was totally the wrong advise... And who the hell told Clinton he could ko Johnson???
I also dont go for this watching someone beating you in a previous fight again and again, especially if you are not particularly confident anyway as Clinton seems to be....

stujones wrote:1 - Johnson 10-9
2 - Johnso 10-9
3 - Woods 10-9
4 - Johnson 10-9
5 - Johnson 10-9
6 - Johnson 10-9
7 - Woods - 10-9
8 - Woods - 10-9
9 - Johnson - 10-9
10 - Woods - 10-9
11 - Woods - 10-9
12 - Woods - 10-9

Total 114-114.

Wow Mr Jones that is a carbon copy of my scorecard.

Excellent fight I really enjoyed it with the fight swinging one way or the other. Maybe the best main event ITV have broadcast since their Boxing 'comeback'.

One thought that was going through my mind during the last half of the fight was had Johnson slipped a little since thier last fights or has Wood improved? I think to be honest it's a little more of the latter than the former.

Both fighters fought like Champions.

Riddick Blowe wrote:

silkov wrote:I thought Woods fought totally the wrong fight, slugging it out from early on, he was very deluded if he thought he was going to ko Johnson... he fought Johnsons fight from early on and only really started to pick up rounds from midway when he started moving more and Johnson was tired. Scorewise I made it a draw due to Clintons strong finish... but Johnson definately deserves a rematch. The commentary was as awful as always, it was so biased that I was embarrased... Clinton done well to finsih so strong but he's a lucky man to still be champ today and whoever came up with his fight 'plan' yesterday should be fired...

agreed. there was no plan from Woods but to ship haymakers with his chin. poor defence. no lateral movement, getting in the trenches with a stronger guy, trying to outhustle the outhustler. Johnson was the aggressor throughout, was never hurt, hurt woods many times, had the superior ring generalship, bossed the fight, had the better defence.

Many of the close rounds should have gone to johnson because there was no discernable edge in effective shots landed from Woods. And of course Glen never stopped coming forward and imposing himself.

Definately the way I saw the fight Riddick. Woods gave up his height and reach because he does not know how to use either. He has plenty of heart and bottle which has put him where he is in the sport, but is very limited. Johnson, despite what others on here may say, looked an old worn out fighter who could not sustain the attcks in the later rounds, letting Woods back in the fight.

mattym wrote:WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS WHY ON EARTH DID NONE OF THE THREE SCORE CARDS INDICATE A CLOSE FIGHT oh for heavens sake i HATE caps lock it betrays me at every turn... but together the scorecards indicated a close affair.

How none of them had it thinner than a 3point margin seems so odd to me.

That's a very good point. That fact that Johnson got 1 nod and Woods got 2 nods makes it sound like it was close on the cards...but the fact is none of the 3 judges thought it was close, which is wrong.

I scored it to Clinton by a round. Johnson gave away the last two rounds and ultimately it cost him.

What a fantastic fight it was though, both guys gave it 100%. Johnson will still give anybody in the division an incredibly difficult night, and a 4th fight with Clinton wouldn't be a forgone conclusion either.

I think criticism of the way Clinton boxed is harsh; he was in against the division's hardman, who he had failed to beat on two previous occasions. This was quality world championship boxing, and a physically demanding fight to boot. Clinton can look more effective against lesser opposition, which is something that can be said of any boxer, but being pushed right down to the wire by somebody as tough and unstoppable as Glen Johnson is nothing to be ashamed of.

Well done Clinton

viciousmaussa wrote:stu, johnson is a bit older from their 1st fights, a bit less stamina plus more skills. he took a lot more shots than the first two fight, was inside longer with woods, & let's not exaggerate it was the last two rounds from a war that he faded, vs a bigger bloke. he faded in the first two fight, particularly the 2nd where he looked knackered from his efforts

glen is very much a threat to anyone in a very competitive weight class. i've been saying GJ is more skilled now, and his shots were more compact, faster and more hurtful than before.

it was a terrific fight & Johnson went right hand crazy in the 9th. that was going to take a fair bit out of him.

i think we should all be leased with a terrific fight. i don't see how Johnon got more than a draw. it was very much like Adamek-Briggs, with Johnson being Briggs & landing the meatier single shots


I rescored it 6-5-1 Woods. Gave the the tenth even. Don't reckon Johnson deserved that round, though he landed about seven great rights and a good body shot, Woods started the round better and finished with a compact combination that stopped him in his tracks.

I can see what your saying, but Johnson "extra" skills is what gave him a 5 round lead at the half way stage - his stamina problems (which were slightly more than a "bit" worse). Is what cost him 5 out of the last 6 rounds. He was exhausted after the 6th and it was really evident in the 9th cause he couldn't finish Woods off - despite the Sheffield man being "gone" for about 2 minutes. He didn't do enough work to warrant a 10-8 round on my card (and Woods was out of it) and whilst I give Woods the UPMOST respect for winning the last 3 rounds after the 9th, it didn't suprise me cause going back to the corner it looked like it was Johnson who had taken the beating.

Johnson aging stamina was evident in the Tarver rematch, not a great pace at all - but he looked knackered at about the 8th round, and again lost the fight down the stretch. Richard Hall is a very faded fighter himself.

114 - 114 or 7 rounds to 5 Johnson.

I lost count of the score though but Woods won the last 3 as Johnson faded and looked hurt.