maverick23 wrote: ↑15 Oct 2022, 18:19
99-91 CS. Claressa’s just too quick and skilful for Savannah I think and Savannah couldn’t have put anymore into it.
Perhaps if Savannah had fought more quality fighters before this it would have helped but she stepped up about 4 levels tonight.
The problem for Savannah is there just isn't many other quality fighters in their weight class.
Christina Hammer and perhaps Hanna Gabriel's at her best, but otherwise the girls Savannah has fought are as good as any of the rest.
She could have fought Hammer, Gabriels or Dezurn. I’m not saying it would help we win but I think she had too much confidence in her power.
skanksta wrote: ↑15 Oct 2022, 18:39
Well, not robbery, but "I don't know how anyone can have it close??" When you only gotta score 1.5 rounds wrong to get it close.
It wasnt close though.
1.5 wrong rounds is exactly that. 1.5 rounds scored incorrectly.
If you need 1.5 wrong rounds to even have it remotely close then you have your answer.
About as straightforward a unanimous points victory as you can get
Last edited by ewenhay on 15 Oct 2022, 18:45, edited 1 time in total.
blanca wrote: ↑15 Oct 2022, 18:27Cool man just having a bit of fun lad
I know!
I'd have given it to Shields by a couple of rounds as a judge. But I felt Marshall was interrupted in her flow a couple of times, and found it hard to dismiss my emotion she'd have won those rounds clearly with another 30 seconds.
The subjectivity imposed by short rounds was really highlighted in this fight. Likewise, I fancy Marshall would've fared quite well in 11 and 12 had they happened.
Shields counter punched her way to a deserved decision. Just way too fast for Marshall who would only counter with one shot while Shields would counter with about 5. I had Shields up by about 4.
skanksta wrote: ↑15 Oct 2022, 18:39
Well, not robbery, but "I don't know how anyone can have it close??" When you only gotta score 1.5 rounds wrong to get it close.
It wasnt close though.
1.5 wrong rounds is exactly that. 1.5 rounds scored incorrectly.
If you need 1.5 wrong rounds to even have it remotely close then you have your answer.
About as straightforward a unanimous points victory as you can get
Well if you score it 99-91 that is more wrong than 96-95.
skanksta wrote: ↑15 Oct 2022, 18:39
Well, not robbery, but "I don't know how anyone can have it close??" When you only gotta score 1.5 rounds wrong to get it close.
It wasnt close though.
1.5 wrong rounds is exactly that. 1.5 rounds scored incorrectly.
If you need 1.5 wrong rounds to even have it remotely close then you have your answer.
About as straightforward a unanimous points victory as you can get
Well if you score it 99-91 that is more wrong than 96-95.
Not sure about that
I thought 8 of the 10 rounds were clear. 7 to Shields and 1 to Marshall. The other 2 were close.
So I'd say 96-95 would be.a worse card than 99-91 as you're probably getting a couple of rounds completely wrong in that scenario.
But 7-3 or 8-2 or thereabouts is probably in the right ball park.
Just got in from watching this live. I wasn't scoring it round for round, but it was clear from where I was sitting that it was a Shields win. I said before it was announced that if Marshall got it, it would be a robbery, so the Shields win was a relief.
From where I was sat, Marshall just never found her optimum distance. The crowd were very much behind her, but Shields shut her down.
