BoxRec

diddy wrote: Did going to these misguided and ridiculous extremes make you feel any better about the point you were attempting to make?

No one ever said Dirrell was going to demolish DeGale....

Supremo wrote:I thought dirrel edged that. DeGale was too inactive. If the 2 knockdowns hadnt happened then that was a draw? No chance!

Bobbyptsd wrote:

Supremo wrote:I thought dirrel edged that. DeGale was too inactive. If the 2 knockdowns hadnt happened then that was a draw? No chance!

If my aunt had balls, and all that. Not sure why we would discuss the fight in some parralel universe where DeGale didn't floor Dirrell. He did, and he won.

Supremo wrote:

Bobbyptsd wrote:

Supremo wrote:I thought dirrel edged that. DeGale was too inactive. If the 2 knockdowns hadnt happened then that was a draw? No chance!

If my aunt had balls, and all that. Not sure why we would discuss the fight in some parralel universe where DeGale didn't floor Dirrell. He did, and he won.

Because I think that the knock downs coloured the judge's perception to a far higher degree than they should have. I fail to believe that the rest of that fight was "even"

crusader wrote:Supremo is obviously talking about a situtation in which the judges' perceptions were improperly influenced by the knockdowns, so I'm not sure why you think his posts are odd. It doesn't seem far-fetched to me that a judge could give a boxer who scores an early knockdown more credit in subsequent rounds than the boxer deserved based on his performance in those rounds; perhaps because the boxer floored their opponent early the judge in question started interpreting later occurances in a way that fit with the knockdowns, such as believing that lateral movement or holding was used because the one boxer was hurt again when they weren't. There is a large body of research on how perception is impacted in this manner, and it suggests that we interpret things in a way that are consistent with our expectations.

Now don't have a problem with the 114-112 cards, but the type of biased perception that Supremo mentions is still a problem whether something happened in a fight to cause it or not.

clopixolacuphase wrote:

crusader wrote:Supremo is obviously talking about a situtation in which the judges' perceptions were improperly influenced by the knockdowns, so I'm not sure why you think his posts are odd. It doesn't seem far-fetched to me that a judge could give a boxer who scores an early knockdown more credit in subsequent rounds than the boxer deserved based on his performance in those rounds; perhaps because the boxer floored their opponent early the judge in question started interpreting later occurances in a way that fit with the knockdowns, such as believing that lateral movement or holding was used because the one boxer was hurt again when they weren't. There is a large body of research on how perception is impacted in this manner, and it suggests that we interpret things in a way that are consistent with our expectations.

Now don't have a problem with the 114-112 cards, but the type of biased perception that Supremo mentions is still a problem whether something happened in a fight to cause it or not.

There's a large body of research on how, in a fight, very impressive early success can influence judging? Is there? What were the conclusions of the research? Sorry... It's just I wrote my thesis on boxing so I did a lot of reading. It was a few years ago maybe this 'research' has been published since...

There's probably some research somewhere vaguely related to what you're saying but not really related and probably has nothing with boxing at all and even if there is, who was the researcher or what was the paper they wrote... Maybe a link or something?

If you're just talking out of your arse and saying he looked much more impressive at the start and then there were swing rounds where neither did all that much so that round where fighter A kicked fighter B's arse SO hard means fighter B has to work harder to get back into the fight... I don't think that's bias I think that's just a reasonable way of looking at things. Or do you mean I like fighter A more so in a close round I'll give it to him? That's judges for you... See it's subjective scoring. It's not really measurable. They use stuff like compubox to try and make it measurable, but we all know compubox is pathetic.

Biased! I was going to take you to task on this one but then I remembered the third scorecard, the wide one, and thought better of it. I think that's probably a case of a guy who's had some lobster, cocaine and broads on somebody else's tab and wouldn't mind a few more of those nights, but maybe I've just been reading too many old boxing books! There are so many problems when it comes to scoring boxing, this fight isn't one of them. Quit whining. It was close. Dirrell's a good fighter, be proud of him. He beat the sh*t out of Abraham and I couldn't believe it when I saw that (I watched it as it happened and didn't think he'd faked it at the end at the time to be honest) and Degale, even after two knockdowns, was very very wary of him. He didn't give up and carried on fighting. Let's see where he takes this loss. I'd love to see him smash Abraham again, the man Ring have as number 2 in the division over Degale! That's crazy.

If Ward fights somebody with a pulse and Golovkin moves up, then super middle is THE division, for me anyway.