BoxRec

Yeah, the 9th really was his last hurrah, he was absolutely and completely knackered in the last 3. He was barely able to throw a punch and was teeting around on wooden legs. How he didn't go down in that last is beyond me, a very brave warrior indeed, but the more hectic pace took it out of him. Clinton actually did better to stand his ground early on, because it took the wind out of Johnson's sails bigtime over the second half of the fight.

I'm usually a pretty good judge of fights.. but perhaps I was "off" this night, because I saw Johnson win 8-4. Yes, he faded down the stretch and definitely lost the last two rounds (not entirely convinced about the 10th) but I thought he won enough of the early rounds to take this fight.

The crowd got behind everything Woods did, and that's great, but the crowd shouldn't be able to win you points. Kudos to the British judge for scoring the fight properly.. I think the other two judges got caught up in the crowd reaction and probably aren't used to an effect like that.

The home fighter ALWAYS gains from the effect of the crowd, it's one of the reasons that they always try and get the champ home advantage. It is psychologically very difficult to put it out of your mind when every time the home fighter throws a shot it is greeted with roars of approval, even sometimes if it doesn't land.

Why don't they force judges to wear something which shuts out sound?

jamesmcdonnell wrote:The home fighter ALWAYS gains from the effect of the crowd, it's one of the reasons that they always try and get the champ home advantage. It is psychologically very difficult to put it out of your mind when every time the home fighter throws a shot it is greeted with roars of approval, even sometimes if it doesn't land.

Why don't they force judges to wear something which shuts out sound?

"Off you go Mr Vann to the sound proof booth"

http://www.tvfetish.net/TVGold/Gameshow ... rMrs05.jpg

jamesmcdonnell wrote:The home fighter ALWAYS gains from the effect of the crowd, it's one of the reasons that they always try and get the champ home advantage. It is psychologically very difficult to put it out of your mind when every time the home fighter throws a shot it is greeted with roars of approval, even sometimes if it doesn't land.

Why don't they force judges to wear something which shuts out sound?

Probably would claim that they could not hear the punches as well.. but if you're that close to the action, I don't think it would matter.

A lot is being made in defense of Woods' performance about the fact that the British judge scored it for Johnson. I attribute his scoring to the fact that he is used to such crowd responses as other countries (such as Britain) tend to draw bigger crowds to events and they tend to get behind their countrymen moreso than places like the USA where half the time we could give a shit about our fellow man.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:The home fighter ALWAYS gains from the effect of the crowd, it's one of the reasons that they always try and get the champ home advantage. It is psychologically very difficult to put it out of your mind when every time the home fighter throws a shot it is greeted with roars of approval, even sometimes if it doesn't land.

Why don't they force judges to wear something which shuts out sound?

Very true, I do wander what my card would have read had the fight been in the states. Perhaps the 10th might have gone to Johnson as maybe one of the 7th and 8th rounds.

stujones wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:The home fighter ALWAYS gains from the effect of the crowd, it's one of the reasons that they always try and get the champ home advantage. It is psychologically very difficult to put it out of your mind when every time the home fighter throws a shot it is greeted with roars of approval, even sometimes if it doesn't land.

Why don't they force judges to wear something which shuts out sound?

Very true, I do wander what my card would have read had the fight been in the states. Perhaps the 10th might have gone to Johnson as maybe one of the 7th and 8th rounds.

to his credit, woods was making prety powerful statements in close rounds like 8 and 10, by starting and finishing better & having johnson look like sht at the bell despite eating huge shots mid rounds

personally, i think woods won 2, 3 & 7clearly, 11 & 12 clearly, 8 closely and 10 even

viciousmaussa wrote:

stujones wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:The home fighter ALWAYS gains from the effect of the crowd, it's one of the reasons that they always try and get the champ home advantage. It is psychologically very difficult to put it out of your mind when every time the home fighter throws a shot it is greeted with roars of approval, even sometimes if it doesn't land.

Why don't they force judges to wear something which shuts out sound?

Very true, I do wander what my card would have read had the fight been in the states. Perhaps the 10th might have gone to Johnson as maybe one of the 7th and 8th rounds.

to his credit, woods was making prety powerful statements in close rounds like 8 and 10, by starting and finishing better & having johnson look like sht at the bell despite eating huge shots mid rounds

personally, i think woods won 2, 3 & 7clearly, 11 & 12 clearly, 8 closely and 10 even

2nd was definately not a clear round, a few posters agreed with my card which scored the 2nd to Johnson. I scored 8 and 10 to Woods, would it have been different if every punch Woods threw didn't get cheered.

The last 30 seconds of a round are in many senses the most important. Sugar Ray Leonard was a fighter who knew this only too well, and I think Woods made sure he grandstanded during the last minute of each round. Fair play, that's the way judges minds operate, so why not play to it

stujones wrote:

viciousmaussa wrote:

stujones wrote: Very true, I do wander what my card would have read had the fight been in the states. Perhaps the 10th might have gone to Johnson as maybe one of the 7th and 8th rounds.

to his credit, woods was making prety powerful statements in close rounds like 8 and 10, by starting and finishing better & having johnson look like sht at the bell despite eating huge shots mid rounds

personally, i think woods won 2, 3 & 7clearly, 11 & 12 clearly, 8 closely and 10 even

2nd was definately not a clear round, a few posters agreed with my card which scored the 2nd to Johnson. I scored 8 and 10 to Woods, would it have been different if every punch Woods threw didn't get cheered.

I gave 2, 11 and 12 to Woods. I missed 7, but I hear Woods won that round.

JCS83MD wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:The home fighter ALWAYS gains from the effect of the crowd, it's one of the reasons that they always try and get the champ home advantage. It is psychologically very difficult to put it out of your mind when every time the home fighter throws a shot it is greeted with roars of approval, even sometimes if it doesn't land.

Why don't they force judges to wear something which shuts out sound?

Probably would claim that they could not hear the punches as well.. but if you're that close to the action, I don't think it would matter.

A lot is being made in defense of Woods' performance about the fact that the British judge scored it for Johnson. I attribute his scoring to the fact that he is used to such crowd responses as other countries (such as Britain) tend to draw bigger crowds to events and they tend to get behind their countrymen moreso than places like the USA where half the time we could give a shit about our fellow man.

Not sure about that..

Oscar-Sturm
Quartey-Forrest
Urango-Rabah

Just a few in recent times when the non american got screwed, all far worse than Johnson-Woods.

It's finally got to him.

Johnson has spent years on the road, often being robbed in the process, he now feels that it is impossible for him to lose a decision in another fighter's country.

Syntax Error wrote:It's finally got to him.

Johnson has spent years on the road, often being robbed in the process, he now feels that it is impossible for him to lose a decision in another fighter's country.

true, there was a boxing news interview a year or 2 ago. he was aksed about all his losses. admitted hopkins battered him. called all the below "absolute joke decisions" :

Here's my opinion on the ones I've seen

Merqui Sosa - Sosa closed Johnson's eye shut early, some brutal exchanges but Johnson overwhelmed down stretch
Sheika - Johnson boxed superbly - for 3 1/2 rounds. gets dropped in 4th, does very little after that, neither does Sheika. Looks like an even fight, but Sheika dropped him and did more
Harmon - anyone who has seen this knows Harmon outboxed him
Woods I - ok, GJ outworked him certainly, but Glen hit a lot of gloves, he wasn't way ahead and was staggered and dropped in the last round
Ottke - very compeitive for 8 rounds. Ottke subtly outboxing him. Johnson GASSES after 9 and Ottke boxes his fvcking ears off down the stretch

not seen him in with J Gonzalez or Syd Vanderpool or Silvio Branco. Guess what? he says they are joke decisions. I take that with a pinch of salt Very few have seen these fights. They are not in circulation.

In addition, most ppl feel he lost tarver I (his best win) and press row scorers had him losing to Eric Harding. If he hadn't beaten Harding, he would be long retired believe me.


The bad decisions IMO: Daniel Judah

lvlarc_uk wrote:

JCS83MD wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:The home fighter ALWAYS gains from the effect of the crowd, it's one of the reasons that they always try and get the champ home advantage. It is psychologically very difficult to put it out of your mind when every time the home fighter throws a shot it is greeted with roars of approval, even sometimes if it doesn't land.

Why don't they force judges to wear something which shuts out sound?

Probably would claim that they could not hear the punches as well.. but if you're that close to the action, I don't think it would matter.

A lot is being made in defense of Woods' performance about the fact that the British judge scored it for Johnson. I attribute his scoring to the fact that he is used to such crowd responses as other countries (such as Britain) tend to draw bigger crowds to events and they tend to get behind their countrymen moreso than places like the USA where half the time we could give a shit about our fellow man.

Not sure about that..

Oscar-Sturm
Quartey-Forrest
Urango-Rabah

Just a few in recent times when the non american got screwed, all far worse than Johnson-Woods.

2 of them were in my opinion, but I still think there is a case for DLH just nicking the Sturm fight.

lvlarc_uk wrote:

JCS83MD wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:The home fighter ALWAYS gains from the effect of the crowd, it's one of the reasons that they always try and get the champ home advantage. It is psychologically very difficult to put it out of your mind when every time the home fighter throws a shot it is greeted with roars of approval, even sometimes if it doesn't land.

Why don't they force judges to wear something which shuts out sound?

Probably would claim that they could not hear the punches as well.. but if you're that close to the action, I don't think it would matter.

A lot is being made in defense of Woods' performance about the fact that the British judge scored it for Johnson. I attribute his scoring to the fact that he is used to such crowd responses as other countries (such as Britain) tend to draw bigger crowds to events and they tend to get behind their countrymen moreso than places like the USA where half the time we could give a shit about our fellow man.

Not sure about that..

Oscar-Sturm
Quartey-Forrest
Urango-Rabah

Just a few in recent times when the non american got screwed, all far worse than Johnson-Woods.

Oscar is a special circumstance. Maybe you can consider Urango an American fighter.. although his bio says Colombian and I'd agree. The wrong man won Quartey-Forrest, but Quartey has been established in the US for a long time.

Oscar-Sturm decision wasnot worse then Johnson-Woods. Quartey-Forrest was about equivalent. Urango-Rabah was probably worse.

I'm trying to think of a bad decision in the US involving a non-American that didn't happen in Vegas to one of the Vegas boys. A Vegas boy in Vegas vs. an outsider may be comparable to UK vs non-UK in UK.

I'd be a sore loser as well if I'd done enough to win and not got the decision. Woods didn't win that fight, no chance. The only reason he won it was cause he had home advantage and blind judges, Vann had it pretty much bang on, all you guys need to get your eyes checked or give up watching boxing.

Top Dog wrote:I'd be a sore loser as well if I'd done enough to win and not got the decision. Woods didn't win that fight, no chance. The only reason he won it was cause he had home advantage and blind judges, Vann had it pretty much bang on, all you guys need to get your eyes checked or give up watching boxing.

and you need to learn some humility .

it was a close fight and eitehr man could have come out trumps without complaint.

Top Dog wrote:I'd be a sore loser as well if I'd done enough to win and not got the decision. Woods didn't win that fight, no chance. The only reason he won it was cause he had home advantage and blind judges, Vann had it pretty much bang on, all you guys need to get your eyes checked or give up watching boxing.

There is no way that fight was a robbery mate. You don't know shit from shinola. There were plenty of close rounds, and Johnson did little or nothing for the last 3 rounds. Yes it could have gone Johnson's way, it was a close fight, most of those who had clinton winning (not the judges) had it to him by 1 or 2 points, indicating how close it was, but Johnson faded badly after the 9th and that was enough for Clinton to nick it.

Dont know shit? Don't think so mate. I can score a fight as good as the next man, I think Johnson won, simple as that. Woods didn't do enough in the first 8 rounds, no where near it, didn't win in my opinion. A hometown victory, nothing more nothing less.

I think the only agreement anyone can come to about that fight was the fact that it was close. It's people who are calling 'robbery' that I have a problem with.

I couldn't argue with either guy winning. It's when someone says that one bloke definitely won, that I have a complaint. No way was there a clear winner in there.

Top Dog wrote:Dont know shit? Don't think so mate. I can score a fight as good as the next man, I think Johnson won, simple as that. Woods didn't do enough in the first 8 rounds, no where near it, didn't win in my opinion. A hometown victory, nothing more nothing less.

You just reaffirming my statement. Whether or not you think Johnson or Woods won, that was a close fight, and therefore you could not justifiably call it a robbery or hometown decision.

Johnson did nothing for the last 3 rounds at all, those rounds were obviously clintons, that leaves nine rounds, if you think Johnson won say, 7 of those, that makes it 7 rounds to 5, you only need to swing by two rounds and that makes Clinton the winner. If you were such a bleeding expert on scoring fights you'd know that.

I mean, how many rounds did you think Johnson won CLEARLY and without any doubt?

Don't actually have a score card at hand, but I had it 7 rounds to 4, with 1 split, can't remember in what order. Listen, if Woods had got it by a round I wouldn't argue too much, but when you get that many rounds in it, it's a bit of a joke. Although I do think all the commenting can put you off, somethimes better to watch it and not listen to it, some of the commentating guys are a bit biased.

You've got to remember that judging fights live is not easy. The judges have very little time to tabulate their scores and hand them over, there's not a lot of time to pontificate about it. Also, when we watch boxing at home, it's easy to meander and miss bits of the round, but the judges have to sit watching very intently.

What you will also find is that many judges prefer subconsciously a certain style of fighting, and will therefore give many close rounds to a fighter who best encapsulates that style.

Judging from ringside can be very different, the whole angle of viewing is different and it's surprising how much difference it can make. Sometimes on TV it's hard to tell just how little there is on a punch, but at ringside it can be crystal clear that a certain shot had nothing on it.

You may not agree with some of those scorecards, but 7-4 is a close fight, the even round could have gone either way, and in fact judges will very seldom give a 10-10 round, so you can see how a 7-4 to Johnson could easily be a 7-5 to Johnson, and with two more close rounds going to Woods, it turns into 7-5 woods.

I totally disagree with that statement Terrence. If a round is so close that it is very difficult to find a winner, then in my book it should be a 10-10. Using this system, the guy who wins the most round clearest will win the fight, which I think is fairer and more representative of the contest as a whole. There are too many fights where the bout is decided on people just shading very close rounds where very little happens. It's the 'swing' rounds which often determine the outcome. If 10-8 rounds were given for any very decisive round it would be different, but they are hardly ever used without a knockdown, and often 10-9 does not relfect how dominant a fighter is. If a fighter wins 6 rounds clearly, then fades in the latter half, and maybe shades some, maybe not, it could easily easily be a draw. This seems to me very unfair.

yes agree with that James, I think the Vegas judges are pretty much told to always find a winner in each round - but if it's so close you can't split them, why take a wild guess and give it to one fighter over the other?

That's why I gave GJ that big round as 10-8. If Clint nicks one round and gets it 10-9, then gets badly hurt and knocked pillar to post in the next, yet GJ only gets it 10-9, I don't think that's fair at all.

I thought Johnson won the fight by a round or so.