BoxRec

crusader wrote: It seems to me that the OP threw out a bunch of speculation about winning in the UK being "impossible" because he was cranky about tonight's result.

I think it's more that diddy just likes to find things to complain about, particularly if those things involve the UK.

Bobbyptsd wrote:If Lennox Lewis had been 7 inches shorter and a southpaw, but also been a welterweight with a speech impediment and a love for Pottery, would Annie Lennox still have had a sucessful solo career?

The number of times I have pondered this!


I could have believed this fight was 7 rounds to five for either man, or a draw. 117-111 is a discredit to the sport.

Its really not a 'British' issue and its lame that so many people use these types of situations and boxing politics to fit their backhanded agenda.... When you get a marquee name, fighting someone who doesn't bring in as much $ then the fighter with the backing gets the win. That's why there's always one impartial card and two to the home/ marquee fighter, its just an attempt to make things look more legitimate. I think the truth is that neither Brook or Porter are huge stars/ names and don't have much of a fan base, that's why the scoring was more impartial. The whole reason the fight was in the states in the first place is because Brook doesn't have the fan base to get people over here. Now if that had been Ricky Hatton, he could've fought that fight anywhere in the world and got the decision, because he turned over too much $ to not get the nod in a close fight. Brook is no Ricky Hatton and neither is Porter.

To put it in perspective, if Brook had gone over to the US and put in that same performance against guys like Mayweather, Cotto, Alvarez, Bradley, even someone like Garcia he would never have gotten that decision last night.

drew kim wrote:I am totally dumbfounded that anyone thought Porter won that....

I agree,that silly compubox was counting punches for Porter that simply were not crap.

CheckHook wrote:Its really not a 'British' issue and its lame that so many people use these types of situations and boxing politics to fit their backhanded agenda.... When you get a marquee name, fighting someone who doesn't bring in as much $ then the fighter with the backing gets the win. That's why there's always one impartial card and two to the home/ marquee fighter, its just an attempt to make things look more legitimate. I think the truth is that neither Brook or Porter are huge stars/ names and don't have much of a fan base, that's why the scoring was more impartial. The whole reason the fight was in the states in the first place is because Brook doesn't have the fan base to get people over here. Now if that had been Ricky Hatton, he could've fought that fight anywhere in the world and got the decision, because he turned over too much $ to not get the nod in a close fight. Brook is no Ricky Hatton and neither is Porter.

To put it in perspective, if Brook had gone over to the US and put in that same performance against guys like Mayweather, Cotto, Alvarez, Bradley, even someone like Garcia he would never have gotten that decision last night.

Makes sense, although there is also just some flat-out weird scoring where a judge just likes somebody for whatever reason, like the judge who scored for Shumenov over Hopkins. Other than the Castillo fight, I can't remember Mayweather getting gifts from judges but Garcia, Bradley and Alvarez certainly have benefitted from "interesting" scoring. You can add Chavez (and Shumenov for whatever reason) in there too.
Good win for Brook. Hope he gets a shot at the big boys now

giacomino wrote:[

Makes sense, although there is also just some flat-out weird scoring where a judge just likes somebody for whatever reason, like the judge who scored for Shumenov over Hopkins. Other than the Castillo fight, I can't remember Mayweather getting gifts from judges but Garcia, Bradley and Alvarez certainly have benefitted from "interesting" scoring. You can add Chavez (and Shumenov for whatever reason) in there too.
Good win for Brook. Hope he gets a shot at the big boys now

Its not so much that Mayweather has ever really needed a gift outside of Castillo, its more that if he was in a close fight with a guy with zero fan base, he would always get the nod. There's too much money at stake and too much room for bullsht cards in boxing.... I'm not really having a pop at any specific fighters, because its endemic in the sport anyway. That's why I don't like to see people come with their backhanded agenda's, because most of the time in close fights you know who is going to get the nod before the cards are announced. If anything, last night was the exception because neither guy really had the clout to get the backing of the corrupt ABC judges.

Question: if a tree falls but no one is around to hear it, does it make a noise?

I am neither american nor british, but i've been rooting for Porter. Well... he didn't win this fight. He pressured all day, threw nice bodyshots, but thats it. The judge with the draw... i don't know. But it definitely wasn't Porters fight.

Now i know who i'd favor in a fight between Porter/Brook & Thurman. It's Thurman.

diddy wrote:

Bobbyptsd wrote:How can you claim the thread is "serious" and use the word "fanboys" in the same goddamn title?

I'm not British, but I thought Porter won that for what it's worth. I thought he was dominant through the first 7 1/2 rounds or so. He certainly faded late, but fights are not scored on momentum. He just won too many rounds to lose it to me.

Fans. Fanboys. Whatever. It was a close fight. Traveling challengers are never ever ever taking straps off British champs in the UK. NEVER. EVER. Unless it's a total wipeout like Crawford - Burns.

Re-watch Bradley/Witter. Bradley was still unknown then, Witter potentially could have fought Hatton soon after, aside from the knockdown the fight was close and Bradley wasn't all that impressive but he got the win. I thought this fight was much closer than the judges had it and was very Surprised Brook got the win, but there's no way Porters mauling, inaccurate fluff fighting was in any way him showing "Dominance" He was more active in the first half of the fight but that's as kind as I can be about him

Riddick Blowe wrote:

crusader wrote: It seems to me that the OP threw out a bunch of speculation about winning in the UK being "impossible" because he was cranky about tonight's result.

I think it's more that diddy just likes to find things to complain about, particularly if those things involve the UK.

You UK fanboys are just garbage trash men like your fighters too who need biased judges and world title cash flow fights in the UK to win world titles in close fights like Michael Brodie vs Willie Jorrin or the second Glencoffe Johnson vs Clinton Woods fights. Oh wait a minute....

I think it makes a pleasant change to see referees from the home nation give a wrong score..... for the away fighter.

I had it 2 rounds to brook but never expected him to get the nod, so it was a nice to see the 2 american judges give it, arguably too wide, to brook.

Whether that happened in the UK, the USA, Germany or any other boxing nation, it came as a real surprise.

I wouldn't have expected to see the scenario the OP made, had the fight been here in the UK, because the refs and judges here are as biased/incompetent as they are anywhere else in the world, possibly more so.

but lets not start using this as an example to show that america is the last bastion of fairness and judging integrity, one swallow does not a summer make.

The very fact that the result was a massive surprise to pretty much everyone, both sides of the pond, tells you everything you need to know on that matter.

Let me just end by saying, well done Adelaide Byrd and Max Deluca (and i suppose Dave Parris) for arguably trying too hard to score a fight impartially. Your scores were perhaps a little out, but no-one can accuse any of the 3 of you of bias or corruption here

black panther wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:

crusader wrote: It seems to me that the OP threw out a bunch of speculation about winning in the UK being "impossible" because he was cranky about tonight's result.

I think it's more that diddy just likes to find things to complain about, particularly if those things involve the UK.

You UK fanboys are just garbage trash men like your fighters too who need biased judges and world title cash flow fights in the UK to win world titles in close fights like Michael Brodie vs Willie Jorrin or the second Glencoffe Johnson vs Clinton Woods fights. Oh wait a minute....

Yeah brah, that Jorrin-Brodie fight was cray!

hoagylt wrote:

drew kim wrote:I am totally dumbfounded that anyone thought Porter won that....

I agree,that silly compubox was counting punches for Porter that simply were not crap.

porter snapped brook's head back almost every round several times with uppercuts, causing him
to step back. since when do crap punches count less than no punches? brook went many rounds
hardly throwing any punches at all and you could count on one hand the shots he landed without
even using all the fingers. i get comparing effective vs ineffective, but not throwing at all NEVER has
an advantage of any kind of landed shot. brook was outlanded by multiples and threw next to nothing
in many rounds and was hit with shots that backed him up in most rounds.

to get back to the point of this thread, i have no idea what the scorecards were like in the brian rose
v alcine fight, but i saw alcine winning a lot of those rounds and if it went to the cards anyone honest
would say rose would have been at least a coin flip away from a loss. alcine has lost his title and then
two more losses and a draw in his last 7 fights and was on his way downhill careerwise and that was
rose's one big step up fight, and rose had a good chance of losing it if it went to the cards. they then had
the most ridiculous last round stoppage. that "win" was rose's claim to a world title shot at andrade,
which he obviously didn't deserve if you watched what happened to him in the andrade fight.

sucracristo wrote:

hoagylt wrote:

drew kim wrote:I am totally dumbfounded that anyone thought Porter won that....

I agree,that silly compubox was counting punches for Porter that simply were not crap.

porter snapped brook's head back almost every round several times with uppercuts, causing him
to step back. since when do crap punches count less than no punches? brook went many rounds
hardly throwing any punches at all and you could count on one hand the shots he landed without
even using all the fingers. i get comparing effective vs ineffective, but not throwing at all NEVER has
an advantage of any kind of landed shot. brook was outlanded by multiples and threw next to nothing
in many rounds and was hit with shots that backed him up in most rounds.

LOL What were you watching man? Porter lowered his head and threw wild bombs all night and didn't hit anything big ever. The only punches he landed were meaningless punches when they were in the clinch. He got caught a lot when he barged in.

drew kim wrote: LOL What were you watching man? Porter lowered his head and threw wild bombs all night and didn't hit anything big ever. The only punches he landed were meaningless punches when they were in the clinch. He got caught a lot when he barged in.

he landed hard uppercuts almost every round, and backed brooks up with them.
if you say he didn't i feel sorry for you because there's something wrong with you.
uppercuts are not meaningless, especially the ones he brooks with. brooks didn't
catch him with "a lot" of anything, because he threw next to nothing in at least half
rounds. you can count the punches he landed in most rounds on one hand with fingers left over

As a pressure fighter, Porter needs to be able to deal with opponents who hold and smother him.
Fighters should always assume that the ref isn't going to save you. Figure it out.

Good win by Brook.

Bobbyptsd wrote:

jameswilson wrote:Question for you.

If my Auntie had bollocks. Would she be my Uncle?

If Lennox Lewis had been 7 inches shorter and a southpaw, but also been a welterweight with a speech impediment and a love for Pottery, would Annie Lennox still have had a sucessful solo career?

Yeah, this thread is kind of ridiculous. I thought Porter won, but I see no point in going through all the "yeah but...." scenarios just so everyone can wave flags and yell at each other.

danconnollyeire wrote:Question: if a tree falls but no one is around to hear it, does it make a noise?

Farts smell so deaf people can enjoy them as well, so with this in mind I would say yes.

danconnollyeire wrote:Question: if a tree falls but no one is around to hear it, does it make a noise?

Does no one include animals?

Does it count as no one being around to here it if a video camera is set up and people watch/listen to it later?

danconnollyeire wrote:Question: if a tree falls but no one is around to hear it, does it make a noise?

Yes. The tree will scream "oh sh!t I'm falling".

crusader wrote:Does it count as no one being around to here it if a video camera is set up and people watch/listen to it later?

In which case you can't say conclusively that it made a noise at the time, only when the recording enters your consciousness

True, although I'd be fairly certain that the vibrations forming what I hear on video resulted from the tree falling and hence occurred when the fall happened live, regardless of who was there.

If we use sound in a psychological sense rather than a physical one and define it simply as the perception of such vibrations, I guess you could reasonably say that the trees didn't make a sound when they fell because in that moment no one perceived it.

I feel like someone has probably done a dissertation on this

I expected Porter to win, but the fact remains that was a shitty fight topping off another shitty Showtime card. Amazing how many people fellate that network for their perpetual garbage.