Page 1 of 2
Ben Tackie...help needed
Posted: 02 Dec 2003, 12:28
by bennie
Ben Tackie lost by scores of 119-108, 120-108 and 120-108 to Kostya Tszyu in their world title fight last year.
And he lost by scores of 118-109, 119-108 and 119-108 in his 12-rounder with Sharmba Mitchell earlier this year. Out of the 24 rounds, how many did he actually win? I have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to working out things like this. Hope you can help.
Posted: 02 Dec 2003, 12:31
by Loftgroov
Hmm...looks like he struggled to win a round!!
(Implying Hatton could outbox him fairly easily, and should avoid being drawn in. But then...thats not Hatton's style eh...)
Posted: 02 Dec 2003, 12:33
by Twinkle Toes
Wel it's a 10 point must system yeah, so going of that logic, it looks like he won 1 round against Tszyu.
Against Mitchell he won 1 round and shared 3.
Pretty sure thats right.
Actually how can we have a 119-108 card? That aint right is it?
Re: Ben Tackie...help needed
Posted: 02 Dec 2003, 12:33
by The_Power
bennie wrote:Ben Tackie lost by scores of 119-108, 120-108 and 120-108 to Kostya Tszyu in their world title fight last year.
And he lost by scores of of 118-109, 119-108 and 119-108 in his 12-rounder with Sharmba Mitchell earlier this year. Out of the 24 rounds, how many did he actually win? I have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to working out things like this. Hope you can help.
i believe that against tszyu he won
1 tied round on one card, and none on the others.
against mitchell
1 on the first card.
none on the second or third.
I believe that is how it is worked out.
Posted: 02 Dec 2003, 12:35
by Kilburn
Yeah I know what you mean Bennie. It's too much of a hassle to sit down and work out.
Ian Darke is the man to ask. He loves coming out with his lighting quick "3 rounds to 2 and one even is how referee Dave Parris saw that one" as soon as the decision is announced.
Posted: 02 Dec 2003, 12:37
by Kilburn
Well, if you score 108 then you haven't won a round. So then...
Posted: 02 Dec 2003, 12:39
by Twinkle Toes
But if a round is classed as a draw, aint it scored 10-10?
Ahh fornicate it, it's hurting me head already :)
Posted: 02 Dec 2003, 12:40
by Kilburn
How can you score 119-108? One of the rounds would have to be scored 9-9 wouldn't it?
Oh hang on, the knockdown...
Posted: 02 Dec 2003, 12:42
by Kilburn
But Tszyu didn't score a knockdown only Mitchell did. But Tszyu still got a 119-108, how was that?
Posted: 02 Dec 2003, 12:42
by bennie
Bring back the old 'Rounds' scoring system!
Posted: 02 Dec 2003, 12:46
by Kilburn
I'm waiting for some real clever twat to give us all a first class explanation.
I bet they're busy scribbling away right now. Who's it gonna be?
Posted: 02 Dec 2003, 12:48
by Loynesy
Kilburn - was in the middle of typing a response but didn't want to be referred to as a smart @rse after reading your last post!
Posted: 02 Dec 2003, 12:48
by knockout
Kilburn wrote:But Tszyu didn't score a knockdown only Mitchell did. But Tszyu still got a 119-108, how was that?
fornicate knows??
Posted: 02 Dec 2003, 12:48
by mrbassie
Kilburn wrote:But Tszyu didn't score a knockdown only Mitchell did. But Tszyu still got a 119-108, how was that?
Impossible, must've been the same judge that did Brodie-Chi
Posted: 02 Dec 2003, 12:51
by Kilburn
To get 119-108 in the Tszyu fight there must have been a 10-10 round, but another round must've been scored 10-8 because the champ was dominating so well.
I reckon.
Posted: 02 Dec 2003, 12:52
by Kilburn
But that still doesn't work. How did Tszyu lose a point off 120 if Tackie didn't get 10 points in any of the rounds?
Posted: 02 Dec 2003, 12:54
by knockout
Kilburn wrote:But that still doesn't work. How did Tszyu lose a point off 120 if Tackie didn't get 10 points in any of the rounds?
did tackie lose a point somewhere?? making a 10-9 round to him a 9-9 round????
Posted: 02 Dec 2003, 12:54
by Kilburn
Loynesy wrote:Kilburn - was in the middle of typing a response but didn't want to be referred to as a smart @rse after reading your last post!
Hey mate enlighten us please!
Posted: 02 Dec 2003, 12:54
by Kilburn
knockout wrote:did tackie lose a point somewhere?? making a 10-9 round to him a 9-9 round????
Could be, could very well be...
Posted: 02 Dec 2003, 12:57
by knockout
Loynesy wrote:Kilburn - was in the middle of typing a response but didn't want to be referred to as a smart @rse after reading your last post!
loynsey: (matt k from boxing monthly here)
enlighten us you damn smart ass :-)
how you doing anyway??? york hall and a curry with Goz is long overdue!!!
Posted: 02 Dec 2003, 12:59
by DG.
Lets just agree that Tackie can be outboxed......easily..!
Not Hattons style, though.
Posted: 02 Dec 2003, 12:59
by bennie
This is turning into a genuinely amusing thread. I've just checked Graham Houston's report of the Tszyu-Tackie fight in Boxing Monthly (I know what you're thinking: why didn't I do that beforehand!) and all is revealed for that one, but I still need to know about the Mitchell fight.
Here's the link, by the way:
http://www.boxing-monthly.co.uk/content/0206/one.htm
Posted: 02 Dec 2003, 13:00
by knockout
DG. wrote:Lets just agree that Tackie can be outboxed......easily..!
Not Hattons style, though.
http://www.lasvegassun.com
In another fight in which the obvious loser scored a last-round knock down, the pay-per-view commenced with Gregorio Vargas (39-6-1, 28) cruising to an easy victory over Ben Tackie (18-1, 11) to fill the vacant WBC Continental lightweight title. Vargas won with one score of 117-110 and two scores of 116-111.
Posted: 02 Dec 2003, 13:01
by Kilburn
This is boxing nerdism at it's finest.
Posted: 02 Dec 2003, 13:03
by knockout
Kilburn wrote:This is boxing nerdism at it's finest.
i am just putting my anorak on as we speak