BoxRec

All scores on the boxing news site : http://www.boxingnewsonline.net/latest/ ... xing-media

i had Rees a 8-4 winner, a controversial outcome when you have 0 out of 25 scoring for Buckland

comments welcome

Imagine how George Groves would react if he lost a decision like that

Coco wrote:Imagine how George Groves would react if he lost a decision like that

Isn't worth thinking about, he'd be suicidal!

danamba7 wrote:

Coco wrote:Imagine how George Groves would react if he lost a decision like that

Isn't worth thinking about, he'd be suicidal!

When a fight is controversial, why sit down and just take it, do something about it.

jessi wrote:

danamba7 wrote:

Coco wrote:Imagine how George Groves would react if he lost a decision like that

Isn't worth thinking about, he'd be suicidal!

When a fight is controversial, why sit down and just take it, do something about it.

I agree, but then accept it when you get given what you wanted, don't carry on moaning but this time about the split. If he's so confident, take the fight even at 15%, KO Froch, take his belts, move on to more big fights, possibly bigger pay days and become a bigger star.

This is about Rees and Buckland; I thought Rees had it by a couple of rounds but he isn't what he once was; a lot of Bucklands punches were arm shots. It's no wonder Gavin feels like packing up - I bet he's gutted with the close fights (Crolla and Buckland) going against him.

Does there have to be a rubbish decision on every Hearn card?

I had 116-113 Rees. VERY surprised by the result, Buckland was doing a lot of coming forward and arm punches, rees was doing a lot of damaging work and only the pace of the fight was getting to him, there were very few times I thought that Rees caught a big punch and was struggling. I feel sorry for the guy, can't catch a break at the moment.

TheCobra wrote:I had 116-113 Rees. VERY surprised by the result,

Unfortunately I wasn't surprised by the result.

This sort of rubbish is becoming far too common on British shows now.

it's easy to be anti-hearn because he's the establishment now, unfairly given the exclusive sky sports contract.

but I don't see a bad decision every time, especially not on crolla-rees.

why would some dreadful conspiracy try to manipulate buckland as winner during a fight that while exciting was pretty minor, not even a british title fight.

never been as convinced by rees as many of you. I watched his world title win as it was happening and it was not a pretty sight - won the first 6 or 7 with arm shots then held for dear life and could barely stand up by the end. I liked what he did, going down to 135, winning PF, domestic & EBU titles and stopping derry Mathews in a terrific fight, but he's not some terrible hard luck case.

He doesn't have to be a terrible hard luck case for people to have a bit of empathy toward him.

Gutted for Rees after all the years of watching him. He really went through the mill as both of the lads did but I had Rees 2 rounds up and thought he'd done enough.

Strange in a close fight that not one fan has Buckland winning.

Autobarn wrote:it's easy to be anti-hearn because he's the establishment now, unfairly given the exclusive sky sports contract.

but I don't see a bad decision every time, especially not on crolla-rees.

why would some dreadful conspiracy try to manipulate buckland as winner during a fight that while exciting was pretty minor, not even a british title fight.

Dodgy decisions happen at all levels of boxing. Are you really suggesting that sort of thing only happens in big fights?

Autobarn wrote:never been as convinced by rees as many of you. I watched his world title win as it was happening and it was not a pretty sight - won the first 6 or 7 with arm shots then held for dear life and could barely stand up by the end. I liked what he did, going down to 135, winning PF, domestic & EBU titles and stopping derry Mathews in a terrific fight, but he's not some terrible hard luck case.

He wasn't robbed in this fight because you don't rate him highly?

Autobarn wrote:it's easy to be anti-hearn because he's the establishment now, unfairly given the exclusive sky sports contract.

but I don't see a bad decision every time, especially not on crolla-rees.

why would some dreadful conspiracy try to manipulate buckland as winner during a fight that while exciting was pretty minor, not even a british title fight.

never been as convinced by rees as many of you. I watched his world title win as it was happening and it was not a pretty sight - won the first 6 or 7 with arm shots then held for dear life and could barely stand up by the end. I liked what he did, going down to 135, winning PF, domestic & EBU titles and stopping derry Mathews in a terrific fight, but he's not some terrible hard luck case.

I agree, people just love to hate. And Crolla definitely beat Rees IMO.

Buckland for me ,as the stats say out worked gavin overall and in many of the close rounds

"Robbed" is a harsh word thats banded about too frequently on forums etc but thats the last 2 last fights that i felt Rees was unfortunate as i had him winning but they were close so.....

Maybe it,s his rough n tumble style that some judges dont like but whatever the reason Gavin is in danger of becoming the next John Simpson ;;-)

Coco wrote:Imagine how George Groves would react if he lost a decision like that

he'd be giving the sky commentators Chinese burns until they admitted they thought he'd won.

danamba7 wrote:

Autobarn wrote:it's easy to be anti-hearn because he's the establishment now, unfairly given the exclusive sky sports contract.

but I don't see a bad decision every time, especially not on crolla-rees.

why would some dreadful conspiracy try to manipulate buckland as winner during a fight that while exciting was pretty minor, not even a british title fight.

never been as convinced by rees as many of you. I watched his world title win as it was happening and it was not a pretty sight - won the first 6 or 7 with arm shots then held for dear life and could barely stand up by the end. I liked what he did, going down to 135, winning PF, domestic & EBU titles and stopping derry Mathews in a terrific fight, but he's not some terrible hard luck case.

I agree, people just love to hate. And Crolla definitely beat Rees IMO.

I recall, ppl moaned even more when FW called all the shots, and there were fewer fights like rees-buckland, going back a bit.

I had Rees winning by a couple of rounds, but definitely not a robbery, almost every round was close & could have gone either way.

Horse wrote:

Autobarn wrote:it's easy to be anti-hearn because he's the establishment now, unfairly given the exclusive sky sports contract.

but I don't see a bad decision every time, especially not on crolla-rees.

why would some dreadful conspiracy try to manipulate buckland as winner during a fight that while exciting was pretty minor, not even a british title fight.

Dodgy decisions happen at all levels of boxing. Are you really suggesting that sort of thing only happens in big fights?

Autobarn wrote:never been as convinced by rees as many of you. I watched his world title win as it was happening and it was not a pretty sight - won the first 6 or 7 with arm shots then held for dear life and could barely stand up by the end. I liked what he did, going down to 135, winning PF, domestic & EBU titles and stopping derry Mathews in a terrific fight, but he's not some terrible hard luck case.

He wasn't robbed in this fight because you don't rate him highly?

good, thought provoking questions, horse!

I just feel rees has become a sentimental favourite and that this colours ppl's interpretations of his fights. a former world champ who humbled himself and won domestically! in good fights as well! then lost for a world lightweight title then fought crolla & buckland - lovely lad!

ppl are distrustful of sky, & by implication hearn promotions & close winners on hearn shows - anything their boxing commentators come out with is dismissed as rhetoric, and I've stopped reading RBRs of UK shows because posters discuss the commentators more than the fights themselves.

I heard all the fuss made re crolla-rees then ended up having crolla a clear but close winner. rees was trying, bless his little socks, but he was gassing, frustrated, lacking accuracy & had his rhythm broken by a more technical than usual crolla. I think rees ticks a lot of boxes for the british scene posters and he can do no wrong on here.

Autobarn wrote:I heard all the fuss made re crolla-rees then ended up having crolla a clear but close winner. rees was trying, bless his little socks, but he was gassing, frustrated, lacking accuracy & had his rhythm broken by a more technical than usual crolla. I think rees ticks a lot of boxes for the british scene posters and he can do no wrong on here.

Rees vs Crolla wasn't a robbery, but this fight was.

Rees was clearly the winner in a close fight, just like Beltran was against Burns.

that's cool. it happens and it is unfortunate. in the case of buckland, the judges had him winning but apparently not a single poster or journalist felt the same.

anyway, buckland's victory will likely be short lived. having seen him outclassed and battered by john murray at lightweight, and in lieu of his demolition at the hands of Stephen smith, the good luck he's had will likely not take him much further.

I,d put a pound on Buckland to stop Crolla if they were to fight

I had Rees up by 2 but to be honest I thought it may be a draw. no way did I have buckland winning, gavin, although past his peak, showed some decent ring savvy.

Autobarn wrote:anyway, buckland's victory will likely be short lived. having seen him outclassed and battered by john murray at lightweight, and in lieu of his demolition at the hands of Stephen smith, the good luck he's had will likely not take him much further.

I'd favour him to beat Gethin for the British title.