BoxRec

Lennox wrote: ↑15 Feb 2021, 06:31 Bad judging has always happened in the UK. Certainly since 1991 when I started collecting statistics the UK is by far the worse country for hometown judging.

That aside, commentary can be very bias. I watched Barrett v Martinez and I scored it 117-111 for Barrett. I scored rounds 5, 8 and 10 for Martinez. The 3rd round was close, so best I could have made for Martinez was a 116-112 loss. So I think the judges got this one right.

Martinez came forward and was the aggressor, Barrett fought off the back foot, picking shots, he defended Martinez shots better many of which were not scoring punches. Primarily boxing is scored by Scoring Punches. Watch it again without the sound in particular rounds 1 to 7 which seem the area for dispute where Sky TV scored for Martinez. Many of the rounds were 23-13 in terms of scoring punches in Barrett's favour. You can miss a few scoring punches from TV and even from ringside but not really a ten point gap. The Sky commentary team do this a lot and are widely out.

So all I will say is watch it again- Sound off and count the scoring punches.

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑15 Feb 2021, 06:39compubox

Oiky wrote: ↑14 Feb 2021, 14:36 Not one of them will change f**k all

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑15 Feb 2021, 06:39

Lennox wrote: ↑15 Feb 2021, 06:31 Bad judging has always happened in the UK. Certainly since 1991 when I started collecting statistics the UK is by far the worse country for hometown judging.

That aside, commentary can be very bias. I watched Barrett v Martinez and I scored it 117-111 for Barrett. I scored rounds 5, 8 and 10 for Martinez. The 3rd round was close, so best I could have made for Martinez was a 116-112 loss. So I think the judges got this one right.

Martinez came forward and was the aggressor, Barrett fought off the back foot, picking shots, he defended Martinez shots better many of which were not scoring punches. Primarily boxing is scored by Scoring Punches. Watch it again without the sound in particular rounds 1 to 7 which seem the area for dispute where Sky TV scored for Martinez. Many of the rounds were 23-13 in terms of scoring punches in Barrett's favour. You can miss a few scoring punches from TV and even from ringside but not really a ten point gap. The Sky commentary team do this a lot and are widely out.

So all I will say is watch it again- Sound off and count the scoring punches.

23-13....where does that punch stat come from? because the compubox ones have martinez outlanding zelda 10 rounds to 1 with 1 even

your homemade ones?

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑15 Feb 2021, 06:37 I watched it with the sound off and had Kiko winning, you sound like you fell into the trap of thinking someone is outboxing their opponent just because they are moving backward and jabbing air

Jimmy2020 wrote: ↑15 Feb 2021, 07:06 It's not about country of origin. Give me an example of a big name overseas fighter that has had a close decision go against him in the UK.

Lennox wrote: ↑15 Feb 2021, 07:31

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑15 Feb 2021, 06:37 I watched it with the sound off and had Kiko winning, you sound like you fell into the trap of thinking someone is outboxing their opponent just because they are moving backward and jabbing air

No other way - Martinez was not scoring. Check their faces

Jimmy2020 wrote: ↑15 Feb 2021, 06:56

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑15 Feb 2021, 06:39compubox

I'd put no more faith in compubox than Lennox. 'Compubox' is just some bloke counting too, you know.

Lennox wrote: ↑15 Feb 2021, 07:31

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑15 Feb 2021, 06:37 I watched it with the sound off and had Kiko winning, you sound like you fell into the trap of thinking someone is outboxing their opponent just because they are moving backward and jabbing air

No other way - Martinez was not scoring. Check their faces

Lennox wrote: ↑15 Feb 2021, 06:31 Bad judging has always happened in the UK. Certainly since 1991 when I started collecting statistics the UK is by far the worse country for hometown judging.

That aside, commentary can be very bias. I watched Barrett v Martinez and I scored it 117-111 for Barrett. I scored rounds 5, 8 and 10 for Martinez. The 3rd round was close, so best I could have made for Martinez was a 116-112 loss. So I think the judges got this one right.

Martinez came forward and was the aggressor, Barrett fought off the back foot, picking shots, he defended Martinez shots better many of which were not scoring punches. Primarily boxing is scored by Scoring Punches. Watch it again without the sound in particular rounds 1 to 7 which seem the area for dispute where Sky TV scored for Martinez. Many of the rounds were 23-13 in terms of scoring punches in Barrett's favour. You can miss a few scoring punches from TV and even from ringside but not really a ten point gap. The Sky commentary team do this a lot and are widely out.

So all I will say is watch it again- Sound off and count the scoring punches.

Glass Joe wrote: ↑14 Feb 2021, 11:58

rhino222 wrote: ↑16 Feb 2021, 14:29 For the record punch stats mean fornicate all.

In a 3 round fight......as a pro

Round 1 Fighter A lands 27 punches fighter B lands 5
Round 2 Fighter A lands 15 punches fighter B lands 16
Round 3 Fighter A lands 18 punches fighter B lands 20

Punches landed Fighter A 60 Fighter B 41 ..... so does Fighter A win the fight according to punchstats?

In reality.........Fighter A only won the first round so scores 28 points.......Fighter B wins the second and third so 29 points

So......punchstats mean fornicate all.

Biglid wrote: ↑16 Feb 2021, 15:32 I do not see why in this day and age neutral judges from different countries cannot judge fights remotely. They could watch the fights with the sound turned off and at the end send in their scores. It would be the equivalent to football's VAR. It does not seem right to have 4 British officials when you have a British fighter boxing someone from another country.