BoxRec

funtime wrote:aaaaaah, the press, never ones to have an agenda them.

I think the press are normally pretty fair when scoring fights. Do you disagree?

funtime wrote:Gav did himself no favours. How many times did Buckland get wheeled back to the corner by his trainer?

That didn't affect most people's scorecards, the judges shouldn't have been so weak minded to be influenced by it either.

Some press are good at scoring bouts, others have an agenda.

Some judges are not strong willed enough (or competent enough). It was a close bout - Buckland did well to hang in there and keep firing back; I thought Rees won by a couple of rounds but it weren't the biggest robbery ever.

Horse wrote:

funtime wrote:aaaaaah, the press, never ones to have an agenda them.

I think the press are normally pretty fair when scoring fights. Do you disagree?

funtime wrote:Gav did himself no favours. How many times did Buckland get wheeled back to the corner by his trainer?

That didn't affect most people's scorecards, the judges shouldn't have been so weak minded to be influenced by it either.

I disagree this fight was a robbery. I thought rees won, but i can understand why he wouldnt get the verdict.

weak minded? Its easy to understand how a judges opinion could be influenced by one corner having to carry there man back, and would very feasibly make you believe that the other boxer was doing by far the more damage in there.

palooka wrote:Some press are good at scoring bouts, others have an agenda.

Some judges are not strong willed enough (or competent enough). It was a close bout - Buckland did well to hang in there and keep firing back; I thought Rees won by a couple of rounds but it weren't the biggest robbery ever.

It is one of the worst robberies I've seen.

Horse wrote:

palooka wrote:Some press are good at scoring bouts, others have an agenda.

Some judges are not strong willed enough (or competent enough). It was a close bout - Buckland did well to hang in there and keep firing back; I thought Rees won by a couple of rounds but it weren't the biggest robbery ever.

It is one of the worst robberies I've seen.

I thought my memory was terrible

funtime wrote:I disagree this fight was a robbery. I thought rees won, but i can understand why he wouldnt get the verdict.

Almost no one has Buckland winning though. It was close, but clear.

funtime wrote:weak minded? Its easy to understand how a judges opinion could be influenced by one corner having to carry there man back, and would very feasibly make you believe that the other boxer was doing by far the more damage in there.

So the judges are influenced by that, but pretty much no one else? It's not a valid reason for scoring rounds to the wrong fighter.

palooka wrote:I thought my memory was terrible

It was a disgrace.

I thought Rees won by 2 or 3 rounds; I've seen fights where a boxer has won clearly by 6 or 7 and lost on the cards.

How many rounds did you think Rees won by?

palooka wrote:I thought Rees won by 2 or 3 rounds; I've seen fights where a boxer has won clearly by 6 or 7 and lost on the cards.

How many rounds did you think Rees won by?

I scored it 116-112 Rees.

That's fair does - no way is it the biggest robbery ever though.

palooka wrote:That's fair does - no way is it the biggest robbery ever though.

It's not the worst, but it's still a very bad decision.

okay, so why did rees get "robbed"?

buckland going places, more miles left in the tank? buckland being moved to some major title or lucrative rivalry?

expectations - i.e. rees on the way out? (does rees' tired and sloppy look of recent encourage judges to score against him?)

betting?

crowd, location?

was buckland grunting louder than rees when throwing, did he just sound fiercer (& did this colour judges' perception of the fight)?

Horse wrote:

funtime wrote:I disagree this fight was a robbery. I thought rees won, but i can understand why he wouldnt get the verdict.

Almost no one has Buckland winning though. It was close, but clear.

funtime wrote:weak minded? Its easy to understand how a judges opinion could be influenced by one corner having to carry there man back, and would very feasibly make you believe that the other boxer was doing by far the more damage in there.

So the judges are influenced by that, but pretty much no one else? It's not a valid reason for scoring rounds to the wrong fighter.

It is if you feel a fighter is being consistently hurt through rounds (as evidenced by his state at the end of rounds) .

If this fight is being branded a robbery, then the sport is so far into is pessimistic spiral its unreal.

funtime wrote:If this fight is being branded a robbery, then the sport is so far into is pessimistic spiral its unreal.

What's unreal about a robbery being branded a robbery?

I should pretend it wasn't a blatant robbery to be more optimistic?

I can understand a high tempo bout like that between 2 solid aggressive boxers without knock out power being difficult to separate and to judge.

If every reasonably closely fought fight that goes 'the wrong way' is called a robbery then what should the real robberies and the really corrupt decisions be called?

palooka wrote:I can understand a high tempo bout like that between 2 solid aggressive boxers without knock out power being difficult to separate and to judge.

But it wasn't that hard to judge, the vast majority had Rees winning.

palooka wrote:If every reasonably closely fought fight that goes 'the wrong way' is called a robbery then what should the real robberies and the really corrupt decisions be called?

It was a really bad decision though.

I'm just repeating myself, so I should probably not bother going on about this anymore.

Horse wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:It was a 50-50 fight IMO, could've gone eitehr way, certainly no robbery

It wasn't 50-50 though. 0 out of 25 members of the press scored it for Buckland and the average press score had Rees winning by three points.

I say it how I saw it, not how the press viewed it. Plenty of close rounds, depends how you viewed them

jessi wrote:

danamba7 wrote:

Coco wrote:Imagine how George Groves would react if he lost a decision like that

Isn't worth thinking about, he'd be suicidal!

When a fight is controversial, why sit down and just take it, do something about it.

It was close though although I felt Rees had won so very different to the George case