BoxRec

Your card?

I thought 115-113 either way was straight. 117-111? No way.

116-112, possibly 116-111

Quixall wrote:116-112, possibly 116-111

Broner winning? He hardly did anything really, but it was a close fight.

Some of tge commentators and pundits scores with 8, 9 or 10 point margins for broner were an absolute joke.

Paulie edged it for me, even without the points deductions the ref should have made.
Far greater work rate and probably landed more punches

Whoever thought Malignaggi won they have no clue about how to score a fight IMO.

Please tell me which 7 rounds you gave him?

I had it 6-5 and 1 even to Paulie.

It was close granted but it was no way a 5 or 6 round win to Broner or worse if you go on Steve Lillis's card.

Broner landed the better shots but he didnt do enough.

davie wrote:Some of tge commentators and pundits scores with 8, 9 or 10 point margins for broner were an absolute joke.

Paulie edged it for me, even without the points deductions the ref should have made.
Far greater work rate and probably landed more punches

I was amazed to see that Broner landed the more punches during the fight according to showtimes stats. Broner definitely landed the better quality shots and his defence for the most part was unbelievable. But Paulie is by some distance the worst champ at welterweight so I'm not sure how to rate Broner because he didn't win by miles but to be fair he didn't seem to be trying at all in the first 4 rounds or so.

300 wrote:

Quixall wrote:116-112, possibly 116-111

Broner winning? He hardly did anything really, but it was a close fight.

yep, if you thought i meant paulie i am suprised

Quixall wrote:

300 wrote:

Quixall wrote:116-112, possibly 116-111

Broner winning? He hardly did anything really, but it was a close fight.

yep, if you thought i meant paulie i am suprised

Had to check, a lot of people scored for Paulie on work rate.

it was close, depends if u prefer work rate, to hurtful punches. broner is quality but quite lazy it seems, and will coast wherever possible

the confusion regarding scores is surely down to quality vs quantity.

I keep comparing broner to guzman, who also failed to make weight for world title fight(s, in guzman's case) and was less impressive the higher he moved up.

if you look at guzman's fight with Jorge barrios, guzman had a great defence and landed the cleaner shots, but he had too many quiet spells while his opponent carried on working. one judge voted against him, and fans got all upset about it, but ppl overlooked that guzman was starting to fail with the quality/quantity battle, that he was unable to sustain a formidable enough pace. guzman and broner both use the shoulder roll, and throw flashy punches that become less impressive the higher they go in weight.

I see trouble ahead of broner. maybe he'll grow into 147 like mayweather did after shaky showings at 140 and 147. or maybe broner's going to find it a lot harder up in weight, now. and the decisions could start going against him. those flat feet and that one-pace will hurt him as a chunky welterweight.

we've had enough broner-burns. I think broner would be a superb route back for khan, or a good goal for kell brook. broner will still be in the p4p top 10 as he's moved up 2 weights to win a title (albeit unimpressively).

95gerog wrote:it was close, depends if u prefer work rate, to hurtful punches. broner is quality but quite lazy it seems, and will coast wherever possible

I think he was somewhat exposed last night as being a flat footed plodder who is easy to hit. He might do the shoulder roll like Mayweather and have a similar fighting posture but he's definietly not on the same level and he's going to have to show something else to convince me otherwise.

columbo wrote:

95gerog wrote:it was close, depends if u prefer work rate, to hurtful punches. broner is quality but quite lazy it seems, and will coast wherever possible

I think he was somewhat exposed last night as being a flat footed plodder who is easy to hit. He might do the shoulder roll like Mayweather and have a similar fighting posture but he's definietly not on the same level and he's going to have to show something else to convince me otherwise.

i understand what your saying, but PM is a decent fighter, so to call Broner a plodder is a bit harsh after he just beat PM. I'm not broners biggest fan, but he does have a lot of quality. I'm not sure anyone would say he is on Floyds level.

Hagler2002 wrote:Whoever thought Malignaggi won they have no clue about how to score a fight IMO.

Please tell me which 7 rounds you gave him?

Your card?

95gerog wrote:

columbo wrote:

95gerog wrote:it was close, depends if u prefer work rate, to hurtful punches. broner is quality but quite lazy it seems, and will coast wherever possible

I think he was somewhat exposed last night as being a flat footed plodder who is easy to hit. He might do the shoulder roll like Mayweather and have a similar fighting posture but he's definietly not on the same level and he's going to have to show something else to convince me otherwise.

i understand what your saying, but PM is a decent fighter, so to call Broner a plodder is a bit harsh after he just beat PM. I'm not broners biggest fan, but he does have a lot of quality. I'm not sure anyone would say he is on Floyds level.

Well he was plodding to be fair! He hardly used his legs to get out of the way of punches. He'll get away with that with a non puncher like Paulie but if he does that against someone who can punch a bit he's gonna be in trouble.

If Broner is the next big thing in boxing he needs to prove it. I had the fight pretty even TBH so the split decision didnt really surprise me. I thought Mallignaggi did very well and Broner just enough.

I think it could have gone either way and really broner should have had some deductions so on those official score cards paulie would have won, Paulies work rate was so high and regardless of the power alot of those punches were landing. Broner just got exposed imo - he's giving the big i am but guys like alexander, bradley, quite possibly khan providing his chin can take the shots, and definatley mayweather would beat him with relative ease i think. Im not convinced broner is better than guys like ortiz and berto.

Yeah he's exciting to watch and flashy but his work rate is poor, he can be tagged fairly easily and he doesnt have devastating power at welter if paulie had some pop in his punches broner would have been battered.

Autobarn wrote:the confusion regarding scores is surely down to quality vs quantity.

I keep comparing broner to guzman, who also failed to make weight for world title fight(s, in guzman's case) and was less impressive the higher he moved up.

if you look at guzman's fight with Jorge barrios, guzman had a great defence and landed the cleaner shots, but he had too many quiet spells while his opponent carried on working. one judge voted against him, and fans got all upset about it, but ppl overlooked that guzman was starting to fail with the quality/quantity battle, that he was unable to sustain a formidable enough pace. guzman and broner both use the shoulder roll, and throw flashy punches that become less impressive the higher they go in weight.

I see trouble ahead of broner. maybe he'll grow into 147 like mayweather did after shaky showings at 140 and 147. or maybe broner's going to find it a lot harder up in weight, now. and the decisions could start going against him. those flat feet and that one-pace will hurt him as a chunky welterweight.

we've had enough broner-burns. I think broner would be a superb route back for khan, or a good goal for kell brook. broner will still be in the p4p top 10 as he's moved up 2 weights to win a title (albeit unimpressively).

against khan, i see it being an interesting clash of styles for the first half of the fight with khan maybe leading by the half way point through higher workrate, but i could see broner catching khan somewhere in the second half with a nice wee counter left hook to the ear, khan doing the hokey kokey and the fight falling away with him and broner pissibly stopping him

I had it 116-112 for Broner, though I could see it closer.

I thought Paulie landed more punches in several of the early rounds while Broner did very little, and I had it 3-1 for Paulie after 4 because of this. However, around the 5th Broner seemed to increase his output while Paulie began to lose steam, and I thought Broner's punches were jarring Paulie and having a much greater impact than Paulie's were having. I also thought Broner was much more accurate and began to connect about as frequently or more frequently than Paulie was, making it difficult for me to score rounds for Paulie solely for landing more as I did earlier. This shift characterized most of the rounds from the 5th in my view, and of the last 8 rounds I scored only the 10th for Paulie.

Hagler2002 wrote:Whoever thought Malignaggi won they have no clue about how to score a fight IMO.

Please tell me which 7 rounds you gave him?

I'd like to know too.

Broner will lose eventually. Both a worn Hatton and KHAN manhandled Paulie

Hagler2002 wrote:Whoever thought Malignaggi won they have no clue about how to score a fight IMO.

Please tell me which 7 rounds you gave him?

The ones where he landed the more "accurate punches with the knuckle part of the glove on the target area" as per the boxing rules. If a round is otherwise even then the fighter taking the centre of the ring and taking the fight can get an advantage in the score BUT only if the fight is otherwise even. Broner was stronger and when he landed he had more power but he just wasn't effective enough and landed no more than six punches in around, none of which hurt Paulie sufficiently to cancel out Paulie's numerous fast, accurate albeit less powerful shots.
Walking forward and taking shot on the shoulders, arms and head then throwing yours isn't defensive boxing. No rolls, parries, slips or counters exposed Broner as nowhere near the finished article he thinks he is.

Clint Magnum wrote:

Hagler2002 wrote:Whoever thought Malignaggi won they have no clue about how to score a fight IMO.

Please tell me which 7 rounds you gave him?

Broner was stronger and when he landed he had more power but he just wasn't effective enough and landed no more than six punches in around, none of which hurt Paulie sufficiently to cancel out Paulie's numerous fast, accurate albeit less powerful shot.

I think this is nonsense.

There were numerous rounds in which Broner landed more than six punches, and I thought he was more accurate than Paulie to the extent that he regularly landed more in rounds and overall despite throwing fewer punches.

Walking forward and taking shot on the shoulders, arms and head then throwing yours isn't defensive boxing

Simply taking shots on the head obviously isn't good defensive boxing, but making an opponent hit arms and shoulders with a sizeable majority of their punches may be. I don't think Broner showed great defense, but Paulie was missing a significantly greater proportion of shots than Broner was.

To those who think a decision for Paulie would've been just, which rounds do you think could've been fairly scored for him?

Quality or quantity ,, thats the big question ,, but even so , Paulie landed the shots ,, ok he landed a lot on the arms ,, BUT he still landed a lot more on the scoring area.. Now did they have quality and power NO ,, But if it does'nt matter how many you land and you only count the harder punches ..
Then in future just get them in the ring and bring one of them arcade games in , and whoever hits the hardest takes the title ... Or maybee we can go the other way and say whoever has the best chin wins ,, and since we all agree Broner hit harder , then Paulie had the better chin ..

Or we can just score it the way it should be scored , the fighter who lands the most punches landed with the knuckle part of the glove on the scoring area wins .

In which case PAULY WON EASY .

Boxing is subjective when judging .

ANYBODY who says it was an easy win either way are fools though in my opinion .

Ive not attempted to score the bout but surely it can only be seen as a round or 2 either way .

Broner looked lazy to me, too busy posturing and 'trying' to look cool to put any effort into the fight.