Seems I'm the only one... Saturday

[a force]

I scored it 114-111 to Catterall. Definitely a robbery as I don’t think there were enough close rounds for it to go the other way.

I think the coverage by the broadcaster makes a huge difference. In this instance Nelson & everyone else working for Sky criticised the scoring immediately. I remember when Ryder got robbed against Callum Smith in a fight I scored wider (116-112) & they went back to the pundits who were family friend Bellew & gym mate Crolla who claimed it was a fair decision & Bellew said ‘people only scored rounds to Ryder as he was doing better than expected’. 117-111 to Callum Smith is the worst card Ive ever seen delivered on a fight in Britain.

I think the difference here is that Sky don’t have Taylor signed & didn’t have any pundits aligned to Taylor. I hope they’ve genuinely turned a corner & will be fair with their punditry now.

Also for all the pundits who say there’s no corruption why does it never go the away fighters way when he hasn’t deserved it? If Catterall went up to Scotland & only won 5 rounds would he ever win a decision with the judges giving him 7 or 8 rounds? Of course not.

And before anyone mentions the crowd making an impact look at O’Hara Davies - Vazquez. Everyone dislikes Davies & wants him to lose yet he got that controversial decision.

[margaret thatcher]

ya exactly. bad decisions go to the house fighter way too often to just be incompetence. if that were it, we should regularly see guys like taylor getting robbed at home after putting schoolings on their visiting opponent. and like mentioned , it's not as if there is some always massive crowd going wild for the a-side to explain it away

btw, who was judging both those fights...........ijl of course. reminds me that he only gave linares 2 rounds against kevin mitchell and had mcdonnell drawing vs vargas in a fight where mcd won 3-4 rounds top

[Counter-puncher]

btw, who was judging both those fights...........ijl of course. reminds me that he only gave linares 2 rounds against kevin mitchell

jesus I'd forgotten that

[jameswilson]

If we all put our heads together and tried to remember and list all the shockers there have been down the years, even the ones where a fighters been stopped and the score at the time of the stoppage has become public. There’s just no way it can add up.

When you look at football it’s similar, I mean you literally have video playback and still the refs can’t spot blatant hand fornicating balls. Cricket and rugby (union and league) and tennis (to be fair I only watch a few games a year) for whatever reason seem to manage to get it right. You even have the referees on microphone talking through their decisions and the bad errors that are made seem to be very sparse. The refs there are so transparent they are literally willing to be on mic talking through their thought process and in some cases speak to forms of the media afterwards. Football and boxing it’s just almost every weekend there’s cock ups and they’re hardly ever asked to justify it.

All the nights we’ve gone to bed and got on with things while some poor saps potentially been done out of the hundreds of thousands or millions that would have come had the ‘rub gone their way.’

Subconsciously we all know what the real crack is I reckon and it’s as bent and in your face as we all know it to be. We tune in every Friday and Saturday all the same praying it’s one of the weekends where in the end we say ‘ref and judges did a good job this time.’

[margaret thatcher]

[CaptainSpacerod]

As the risible Robert Smith and all the other apologists for corruption trot out all the usual “close fight”, “subjective sport”, “honest judges just doing a job” cliches I’m always hoping the interviewer asks them one question …… how come virtually every single time there’s a contentious decision it goes in favour of the house fighter ?

How many times have you seen a fight where the unknown / low profile fighter gets clearly beaten by the house fighter yet somehow the judges favour him. Now I don’t watch boxing as often as many on here do but I can’t remember a single time that’s happened. Law of averages surely means that the underdogs would get their fair share of mystifying decisions, maybe not even anywhere near half the time once other factors are considered but still a fair percentage of the time.

It must be corrupt.

[margaret thatcher]

it does happen, but very very rarely. hugely dwarfed by the number of bs decisions going to the house fighter. far easier to imagine a guy like taylor getting a bullshit win at home (as here), then to see him putting on a clinic in front of his home crowd, only for some unmarketable challenger to get the decision

it's the main reason i cant buy that it's just incompetence, far too lopsided of a split between a and b side

[forcefraser]

I think it's down to a lack of objectivity.

Objectivity in scoring a fight is virtually impossible unless you have judges who have absolutely no previous knowledge or opinion on a boxer.

Subconsciously they may prefer one style to another or believe one fighter is better than the other and this affects the way they score a fight.

It's not an excuse for poor scoring but I'm sure this is the reason rather than corruption.

[mickey1975]

I think it's down to a lack of objectivity.

Objectivity in scoring a fight is virtually impossible unless you have judges who have absolutely no previous knowledge or opinion on a boxer.

Subconsciously they may prefer one style to another or believe one fighter is better than the other and this affects the way they score a fight.
I'm terrible for this.
It's not an excuse for poor scoring but I'm sure this is the reason rather than corruption.

[Foggy]

I’d read that Catterals local MP has lodged a police complaint (not sure what will come of this)

[Controversial]

I think it's down to a lack of objectivity.

Objectivity in scoring a fight is virtually impossible unless you have judges who have absolutely no previous knowledge or opinion on a boxer.

Subconsciously they may prefer one style to another or believe one fighter is better than the other and this affects the way they score a fight.

It's not an excuse for poor scoring but I'm sure this is the reason rather than corruption.

Yes I agree, you would assume all judges are boxing fans so they will have their favourites like everyone else. In a 50/50 round I think most people would side more with their preferred fighter, even if just subconsciously.

[TheLeprechaun]

10-9 Catterall
10-9 Catterall
10-9 Catterall
10-9 Catterall
10-9 Catterall
10-9 Catterall
10-9 Taylor
10-8 Catterall
10-9 Taylor
10-8 Taylor
9-9
10-9 Taylor

114-111 Catterall was my scorecard. Curious as to what rounds you disagreed with?

[Ruthless-RKO]

10-9 Catterall
10-9 Catterall
10-9 Catterall
10-9 Catterall
10-9 Catterall
10-9 Catterall
10-9 Taylor
10-8 Catterall
10-9 Taylor
10-8 Taylor
9-9
10-9 Taylor

114-111 Catterall was my scorecard. Curious as to what rounds you disagreed with?

I don't see how anyone can argue the first 6..

Many on here had it 6-0 halfway... and that's not exaggerating. Hardly any bias here.

Most picked Taylor pre-fight, but majority on the forum are very honest and vocal when it comes to who performed better, who deserved the win and the scorecards.