BoxRec

If Beltran forces Burns to the ropes and lands 20 punches to Burns' forearms, and Burns lands 20 to 30 light ,fast jabs on the retreat , who wins the round? I don't know .
Just got home from the fight and sitting near ringside I had 5 rounds each with 2 even ,with an additional point off Burns for the knock down ,making Beltran the winner 115-114.
Now reading comments on here ,and text messages from friends saying Beltran was robbed. That's not how most saw it at ringside. Most felt it was very close with Beltran edging it.
What was obvious was the lack of power/strength of Burns. I know lads at a gym I go to who are in other sports but don't look any bigger than Burns but they are bench pressing 120 Kilos , and squatting something similar with relative ease. Is strength training an option for Ricky ?

dalcumly wrote:If Beltran forces Burns to the ropes and lands 20 punches to Burns' forearms, and Burns lands 20 to 30 light ,fast jabs on the retreat , who wins the round? I don't know .

If Beltran lands no punches and Burns lands 30, I'd probably score the round for Burns regardless of which direction he moves, where he spends much of the round, or how hard his punches are; it's hard for me to envision realistic scenarios in which I'd weigh a 30-0 connect discrepancy equally or less heavily than any other factors or combination of factors excluding deductions. If Burns were obviously badly hurt by those forearm shots there may be a reasonable argument for not giving him the round, but I doubt punches to the forearms would do such damage.

It's hardly the case, however, that Beltran missed with nearly everything he threw while Burns largely boxed effectively, whether the fight is considered by rounds or overall. Beltran regularly landed forceful head shots and often connected to the body when Burns lay on the ropes, which was nearly every round. Burns was effective at times, especially when he kept the jab busy, but for the most part I thought he was sloppy and ineffective. His shots, almost none of which were notable, also seemed to have very little impact on his opponent but he frequently looked troubled; Beltran was clearly doing more damaging work.

I'm not sure if being at the fight impacts scoring (e.g. the cheers of the crowd, which happened even when Burns clearly missed, would sound louder than they would on TV, and this may lead one at the fight to remember Burns's moments of relative success more than they would if viewing on TV) but I recall that several people who attended Burns's fight with Gonzalez also thought it was very close, and were surprised to find that people thought Gonzalez largely dominated. Maybe being at the fight facilitates a more accurate assessment of it, but I doubt it given that TV generally provides superior views than a fixed spot in the stands does.

is it possible the ringside crowd get caught up in the atmosphere (like the judges?) affecting their judgement

equally, it's possible armchair fans can be swayed by the commentry?

interestingly, i found it further in beltrans favour that jim watt did. i had him by 4, possibly 5 rounds

jim watt made a good point about "feeling". there were close rounds and some was quite hard to score, you just got the feeling beltran was on top.

A whole section of the crowd I was in thought burns got beaten up katsidis. We were genuinely shocked when he won widely.

A lot of it is the fixed angle u watch a fight live, hence each judge having a different side of the apron.

squared circle wrote:A whole section of the crowd I was in thought burns got beaten up katsidis. We were genuinely shocked when he won widely.

A lot of it is the fixed angle u watch a fight live, hence each judge having a different side of the apron.

When I was at wembley I thought katsidis did enough, but when I watched it again at home I was wrong, but the judges have the best seat in the house all bar the ref, there's no excuse really

davie wrote:is it possible the ringside crowd get caught up in the atmosphere (like the judges?) affecting their judgement

equally, it's possible armchair fans can be swayed by the commentry?

interestingly, i found it further in beltrans favour that jim watt did. i had him by 4, possibly 5 rounds

jim watt made a good point about "feeling". there were close rounds and some was quite hard to score, you just got the feeling beltran was on top.

People are definitely swayed by commentary, which is one reason I tend to watch bouts on mute.

the judges have the best seat in the house all bar the ref, there's no excuse really

I think the views TV audiences have are generally superior to the views any spectators at the event have. The shot changes to maximize what can be seen and viewing isn't obscured nearly as much as it would tend to be if one were sat in a fixed spot around the ring. A notable drawback to watching bouts on TV is inferior sound, as often the impact of blows, grunts, etc. go unheard when they wouldn't at the arena; this could impair one's ability to judge which fighter they see as more effective. I think, however, that watching a broadcast tends to enhance the ability to judge more than being there does, and related to that I'd like to see attempts at having judges observe the fights they're scoring on video monitors instead of by looking directly into the ring.

davie wrote:jim watt made a good point about "feeling". there were close rounds and some was quite hard to score, you just got the feeling beltran was on top.

Indeed - he looked the bigger puncher and the more confident fighter, not surprising when Burns had a broken jaw - so you come away with the perception that he was winning when, scoring the rounds individually, Burns was actually competitive because he was taking some narrowly where Beltran was taking others more widely. Still score/count the same...

Scoring rounds individually, I still came away with the perception that Beltran was winning. I don't see how Burns won more rounds than Beltran did, and he needed to do so to draw barring a scoring aberration (e.g. a 10-9 round 8 ).

I get what you mean though, and I think the tendency to view a fight as a whole rather than just the sum of its parts is a significant contributor to unwarranted complaints of poor judging.