BoxRec

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:What?

Tanzio wrote: SOGgy won almost every round from 6-12.

Tanzio wrote:How about we all score the fight and determine for ourselves who won? When I suggest that we score the fight, that does not mean between shots of tequila, and drags off a bong while your choice of hallucinogen kicks in. It does not mean gifting the fight to who you would like to have win based on a KD early in the fight. It does not mean flying with the flock who consider scoring a fight paying some attention to the entire contest (more or less).

It means paying close attention to the entirety of the fight. Watching every moment and scoring every round as a battle worth 1/12th of the entire war. It means drawing your own conclusions based on what you saw and having the wherewithal to defend your position against all comers, including the majority opinion, if necessary.

FMJ did not win every round v GingerHead.

Pac v Ramming Speed I and Krushedner v SOGgy I were very close fights, that could have gone either way, that the judges got right, imo. Pac v Horn was also left too close by Pac, although I felt that he won.

None of those three fights were robberies.

While it is impossible to do comprehensively, try to be as objective as possible, no matter how much you hate or love one or the other fighter. There are injustices in boxing but nowhere near as many as so many people have convinced themselves of through organic or ingested fantasy.

boxing_rocks wrote:

Tanzio wrote: SOGgy won almost every round from 6-12.

No, he didn't. If Krusher's name was Floyd Mayweather or Saul Alvarez, he would get 6 out of those 7 rounds. An objective judge would give him 3 or 4.

lefty wrote:Going off some of these threads; if this fight goes to points, some are gonna be claiming GGG was robbed, even if Canelo legitimately deserves the win.

Lackeos wrote:

lefty wrote:Going off some of these threads; if this fight goes to points, some are gonna be claiming GGG was robbed, even if Canelo legitimately deserves the win.

That's precisely my expectation.

IKSRTFO wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:What?

Castillo was on Floyd's undercard after he beat Johnston. It wasn't like Castillo was an HBO/Showtime attraction like Gatti or even Freitas or Tyszu

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

IKSRTFO wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:What?

Castillo was on Floyd's undercard after he beat Johnston. It wasn't like Castillo was an HBO/Showtime attraction like Gatti or even Freitas or Tyszu

What?

lefty wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:

lefty wrote:Going off some of these threads; if this fight goes to points, some are gonna be claiming GGG was robbed,
[/b]

Like he deserved 118-109 card against Trout, 117-111 against Lara and 114-114 against Mayweather ?

Tanzio wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:

Tanzio wrote:How about we all score the fight and determine for ourselves who won? When I suggest that we score the fight, that does not mean between shots of tequila, and drags off a bong while your choice of hallucinogen kicks in. It does not mean gifting the fight to who you would like to have win based on a KD early in the fight. It does not mean flying with the flock who consider scoring a fight paying some attention to the entire contest (more or less).

It means paying close attention to the entirety of the fight. Watching every moment and scoring every round as a battle worth 1/12th of the entire war. It means drawing your own conclusions based on what you saw and having the wherewithal to defend your position against all comers, including the majority opinion, if necessary.

FMJ did not win every round v GingerHead.

Pac v Ramming Speed I and Krushedner v SOGgy I were very close fights, that could have gone either way, that the judges got right, imo. Pac v Horn was also left too close by Pac, although I felt that he won.

None of those three fights were robberies.

While it is impossible to do comprehensively, try to be as objective as possible, no matter how much you hate or love one or the other fighter. There are injustices in boxing but nowhere near as many as so many people have convinced themselves of through organic or ingested fantasy.

I see the point that you are trying to make here but I don't agree. Just because a fight is close and could go either way, doesn't mean that it's not corrupt. For the top fights, I rewatch them again the next day or two and I pull up the actual scorecards from the judges. I score my round and then check the round against the actual judges scores and it's there where you see the ridiculousness that is boxing.

For example, you reference Kov/Ward 1 and I challenge you to go back and watch the second half of that fight with one eye on the actual scorecards. It will blow your mind how badly that fight was scored in the second half. Though the action was tight overall, judges had to go out of their way to score almost every round from 6-12 for Ward.

So no, i've never agreed with this view you've had on close fights and what could be considered bad decisions.

SOGgy won almost every round from 6-12. Whether or not an official scored the fight round by round the way I did makes no difference to me.

Most who claim that Krushedner v SOGgy was a robbery point at the fact that all three judges scored round 10 for SOGgy. They claim that is evidence of corruption. They claim that round 10 was totally dominated by Krushedner.

Complete delusion.

The 10th round was very close. I scored it for Krushedner, barely. It could easily be scored for SOGgy.

There were many close rounds in that fight. The problem with the Kovalytes is they stopped watching closely after the KD.

I have never vehemently argued that SOGgy clearly won that fight. It was very close. But, the only reason it was that close is because of one punch, which led a huge portion of the audience to start the wake for SOGgy early.

montrealsuper wrote:Castillo was always a B side, a good basic Mexican fighter nothing special. Wouldn't be surprised at all if Castillo played soft in the rematch with Floyd and got rewarded with future fight dates. The sport is a business now more than a sport.

Badhusker wrote:

lefty wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote: Like he deserved 118-109 card against Trout, 117-111 against Lara and 114-114 against Mayweather ?

All pathetic scores in favor of Canelo. Too bad Trout and Lara (who both out-landed Canelo) didn't have the last name Mayweather. They might have gotten a draw then. Anyone that says Canelo hasn't gotten rounds from judges he didn't deserve (more than other boxers) is a lying sack.

caldo2025 wrote:

Tanzio wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:
I see the point that you are trying to make here but I don't agree. Just because a fight is close and could go either way, doesn't mean that it's not corrupt. For the top fights, I rewatch them again the next day or two and I pull up the actual scorecards from the judges. I score my round and then check the round against the actual judges scores and it's there where you see the ridiculousness that is boxing.

For example, you reference Kov/Ward 1 and I challenge you to go back and watch the second half of that fight with one eye on the actual scorecards. It will blow your mind how badly that fight was scored in the second half. Though the action was tight overall, judges had to go out of their way to score almost every round from 6-12 for Ward.

So no, i've never agreed with this view you've had on close fights and what could be considered bad decisions.

SOGgy won almost every round from 6-12. Whether or not an official scored the fight round by round the way I did makes no difference to me.

Most who claim that Krushedner v SOGgy was a robbery point at the fact that all three judges scored round 10 for SOGgy. They claim that is evidence of corruption. They claim that round 10 was totally dominated by Krushedner.

Complete delusion.

The 10th round was very close. I scored it for Krushedner, barely. It could easily be scored for SOGgy.

There were many close rounds in that fight. The problem with the Kovalytes is they stopped watching closely after the KD.

I have never vehemently argued that SOGgy clearly won that fight. It was very close. But, the only reason it was that close is because of one punch, which led a huge portion of the audience to start the wake for SOGgy early.

It's too glorious a week to scratch at this scab again but suffice to say that you must have been watching a different fight than most people. The first fight was clearly and fairly labeled "controversial" by smarter people than us and it will be remembered as such for as long as people remember it. I guess that says it all.

Tanzio wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:

Tanzio wrote: SOGgy won almost every round from 6-12. Whether or not an official scored the fight round by round the way I did makes no difference to me.

Most who claim that Krushedner v SOGgy was a robbery point at the fact that all three judges scored round 10 for SOGgy. They claim that is evidence of corruption. They claim that round 10 was totally dominated by Krushedner.

Complete delusion.

The 10th round was very close. I scored it for Krushedner, barely. It could easily be scored for SOGgy.

There were many close rounds in that fight. The problem with the Kovalytes is they stopped watching closely after the KD.

I have never vehemently argued that SOGgy clearly won that fight. It was very close. But, the only reason it was that close is because of one punch, which led a huge portion of the audience to start the wake for SOGgy early.

It's too glorious a week to scratch at this scab again but suffice to say that you must have been watching a different fight than most people. The first fight was clearly and fairly labeled "controversial" by smarter people than us and it will be remembered as such for as long as people remember it. I guess that says it all.

Knock knock, caldo, I have said from the beginning, waaaaaay back when, before the world began suffering a continuous flash flood of Kovacolyte tears, that the fight could have gone either way, which is the definition of controversial.

Nah...it's criminal is what it is. The 3 judges scored 14 of the their last 15 boxes Wards way and there's just no way. Not as close as those rounds were and with how little Ward was doing in them. They had to go out of their way to do that and that's not how the game is supposed to be scored. Heck, i have a feeling we're going to see the same type of scoring tomorrow night.

The big problem is that the dude who most people have hated for years got the close decision. Thus the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Nothing would have changed for me if the decision had gone to Krushedner. I would have still said it could have gone either way. I would have still been on the public record scoring the fight 114-113 SOGgy.

The difference is that Team Krushedner would likely have found a way out of the rematch.

caldo2025 wrote:

Tanzio wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:
It's too glorious a week to scratch at this scab again but suffice to say that you must have been watching a different fight than most people. The first fight was clearly and fairly labeled "controversial" by smarter people than us and it will be remembered as such for as long as people remember it. I guess that says it all.

Knock knock, caldo, I have said from the beginning, waaaaaay back when, before the world began suffering a continuous flash flood of Kovacolyte tears, that the fight could have gone either way, which is the definition of controversial.



The big problem is that the dude who most people have hated for years got the close decision. Thus the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Nothing would have changed for me if the decision had gone to Krushedner. I would have still said it could have gone either way. I would have still been on the public record scoring the fight 114-113 SOGgy.

The difference is that Team Krushedner would likely have found a way out of the rematch.

Nah...it's criminal is what it is. The 3 judges scored 14 of the their last 15 boxes Wards way and there's just no way. Not as close as those rounds were and with how little Ward was doing in them. They had to go out of their way to do that and that's not how the game is supposed to be scored. Heck, i have a feeling we're going to see the same type of scoring tomorrow night.

caldo2025 wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:

Tanzio wrote: Knock knock, caldo, I have said from the beginning, waaaaaay back when, before the world began suffering a continuous flash flood of Kovacolyte tears, that the fight could have gone either way, which is the definition of controversial.



The big problem is that the dude who most people have hated for years got the close decision. Thus the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Nothing would have changed for me if the decision had gone to Krushedner. I would have still said it could have gone either way. I would have still been on the public record scoring the fight 114-113 SOGgy.

The difference is that Team Krushedner would likely have found a way out of the rematch.

Nah...it's criminal is what it is. The 3 judges scored 14 of the their last 15 boxes Wards way and there's just no way. Not as close as those rounds were and with how little Ward was doing in them. They had to go out of their way to do that and that's not how the game is supposed to be scored. Heck, i have a feeling we're going to see the same type of scoring tomorrow night.

Tanzio wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:Nah...it's criminal is what it is. The 3 judges scored 14 of the their last 15 boxes Wards way and there's just no way. Not as close as those rounds were and with how little Ward was doing in them. They had to go out of their way to do that and that's not how the game is supposed to be scored. Heck, i have a feeling we're going to see the same type of scoring tomorrow night.

Krushedner has only himself to blame for leaving the fight so close after the KD.

Hopefully he comes back strong.

boxing_rocks wrote:Canelo's beard is longer than allowed, and Sanchez raised the issue with NSAC:

https://www.ringtv.com/517215-abel-sanc ... rim-beard/

but it doesn't sound like Canelo is gonna trim it.

boxing_rocks wrote:Canelo's beard is longer than allowed, and a beard of a beginner boxer like McGregor is not relevant. The difference with other fights is that here an opposite side filed a protest, and it will be ignored to please the A side.