BoxRec

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑15 Oct 2022, 18:33

KiwiRider wrote: ↑15 Oct 2022, 18:32

My T Sharp wrote: ↑15 Oct 2022, 18:29 Is Shields the only world champion to have beaten everyone they have faced amateur and pro?

She got lost to Marshall, hence the beef

Shields said she thought she won the amateur bout..

Of course she would, she is the (self proclaimed) GWOAT

BigEars wrote: ↑15 Oct 2022, 18:25

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.

sav's best win is someone terrry harper schooled, of course she could've fought much better

people got hype jobbed into ignoring that she was facing old small washer women

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.

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

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.

Marshall came on second half but not enough. Mayer was robbed

forcefraser wrote: ↑15 Oct 2022, 18:46 Marshall came on second half but not enough. Mayer was robbed

Shields did slow down, but not too much. Still made the rounds competitive.

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑15 Oct 2022, 18:46

forcefraser wrote: ↑15 Oct 2022, 18:46 Marshall came on second half but not enough. Mayer was robbed

Shields did slow down, but not too much. Still made the rounds competitive.

Agreed.
It took Shields slowing down to make it even close, before that though...

I'd like a rematch over 8x3, else not.

This was the best advert for women's boxing I've seen, simultaneously the worst for short rounds.

Post-fight Presser

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑15 Oct 2022, 18:39 sav's best win is someone terrry harper schooled, of course she could've fought much better

people got hype jobbed into ignoring that she was facing old small washer women

Think Marshall inexperience and Shield's amateur background and more experience won the day.

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.

Someone on this thread said the forum was dead tonight..

Don’t know what he was talking about.

Grilling Machine wrote: ↑15 Oct 2022, 18:56 I'd like a rematch over 8x3, else not.

This was the best advert for women's boxing I've seen, simultaneously the worst for short rounds.

agreed.

Sahvana should fight Franchon Crews Dezurn @168. while pushing for a rematch with sheilds but with 3 min rounds.

ewenhay wrote: ↑15 Oct 2022, 18:41

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, 20:05

ewenhay wrote: ↑15 Oct 2022, 18:41

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.

I had Shields 9-1, Marshall got destroyed tonight

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.

Fun night out.

ewenhay wrote: ↑15 Oct 2022, 20:08

skanksta wrote: ↑15 Oct 2022, 20:05

ewenhay wrote: ↑15 Oct 2022, 18:41

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.

I mean compared to the judges scores.
97+97+96 divide 3 for CS, etc.

skanksta wrote: ↑15 Oct 2022, 20:22

ewenhay wrote: ↑15 Oct 2022, 20:08

skanksta wrote: ↑15 Oct 2022, 20:05

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.

I mean compared to the judges scores.
97+97+96 divide 3 for CS, etc.

That's not how you score fights though.

ewenhay wrote: ↑15 Oct 2022, 20:25

skanksta wrote: ↑15 Oct 2022, 20:22

ewenhay wrote: ↑15 Oct 2022, 20:08

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.

I mean compared to the judges scores.
97+97+96 divide 3 for CS, etc.

That's not how you score fights though.

It's how you measure how close your score is to the judges though -
99-91 being further away from the consensus scoring than 96-95.