BoxRec

The high number surprised me although as the you will see on the article the ave score was close. I scored it 114-114.

The 117-111 score i feel is far too wide.

so how did you all score the fight?

here is the article with all the scores...... http://www.boxingnewsonline.net/nine-me ... ell-brook/

I find that surprising, but reassuring. I am really glad Brook's achievement, as the dust settles on it, will be seen as legit and genuine.

I thought the draw was surprising but there you go

Thats not the first time this year where the vast majority have had the same fighter winning only by a round,usually when a fights so closely scored,its 50/50 on who people thought won

I had it even but Brook deserved it and this fight will never be remembered as a robbery or a gift

Porter's stock will plummet like Broner's

handsofstone wrote:Thats not the first time this year where the vast majority have had the same fighter winning only by a round,usually when a fights so closely scored,its 50/50 on who people thought won

I had it even but Brook deserved it and this fight will never be remembered as a robbery or a gift

Porter's stock will plummet like Broner's

I don't thinks so.
Porter isn't a complete dick, for starters

but he also has an entertaining style. on top form and against the right type of opponent, he's very watchable and always got the power to stop you with one punch. That's a combination that can easily be sold to the viewing public

I think he can work himself back into title contention, although he's only likely to ever pick a title up against a weaker champion, i wouldn't say it's beyond the realms of possibility he might win another world title fight if he is matched against the right style of opponent

He also has a far better attitude to Broner and I firmly believe he's the type who will go back to the gym and redouble his efforts to get ready to go again. He may also have learnt a lot from a defeat that he may not have picked up winning 24 on the bounce

I think the bout seemed more competitive than the 117-111 card indicates because there wasn't a huge amount to split them in several rounds, but I don't think there were more than 3 rounds that clearly shouldn't have gone to Brook.

In my view 115-113 to 117-111 for Brook are fine and I had it 116-113 for him. I'm actually surprised at how good the judging generally seems to be, as I would've expected more people to be swayed by Porter's aggression, which was ineffective but something that I thought might create an illusion of success for more observers.

The cards compiled by FSC are quite similar to the predictions for the bout; one-sided in who they favored but indicating competitiveness.

I always say the same thing, it's called boxing for a reason, it's not called brawling. In my opinion in a close fight like this, the fighter who threw less punches but picked the cleaner, more hurtful shots, should always get the nod over the fighter who throws more but next to nothing lands. The highlights were 90% Brook. Porter very rarely caught Brook clean and never hurt him. Brook shook Porter 3 times. Definitely deserved the win.

davie wrote: but he also has an entertaining style. on top form and against the right type of opponent, he's very watchable and always got the power to stop you with one punch. That's a combination that can easily be sold to the viewing public

He absolutely is not, never has, & will never be a one-shot hitter. Honestly. He throws arm punches & overwhelms you with pressure. He is not a puncher by any stretch of anyone's imagination.

Who in the name of Satan has he ever taken out with one punch? Who--as I actually predicted before the fight, preen-preen--looked the puncher in the ring Saturday night?

He gets a bit of leverage on the left hook sometimes but mostly he's off-balance when he throws it, so if it misses he swings himself around & body-slams you. The right hand comes literally from outside his own stance, he throws it mostly from outside his own right leg.

& I don't really see his messy, fall-in & rough you up style as "entertaining" & one "that can easily be sold to the viewing public".

Sorry man, I too think far more of him than Broner but this is the sort of post that Parson's Cross et al obviously has had in mind when they strenuously harangue anyone who tries to be the slightest bit objective.

Are some of these scores handed in to coincide with other peoples opinions and the actual fight result.

Watching the fight live and checking social media, quite a few had Porter a winner.

This comes out and 80% have got Brook winning

Chris W 1982 wrote:Are some of these scores handed in to coincide with other peoples opinions and the actual fight result.

Watching the fight live and checking social media, quite a few had Porter a winner.

This comes out and 80% have got Brook winning

Who'd you have Chris?

I am shocked at the 80% score in favour of Porter. I thought Porter won that by a landslide and he was robbed. Brook hardly got going until the last few rounds.

gasman wrote:I am shocked at the 80% score in favour of Porter. I thought Porter won that by a landslide and he was robbed. Brook hardly got going until the last few rounds.

Haha, good try bro.

Porter 115-113 mate.

Chris W 1982 wrote:Porter 115-113 mate.

Really? Even though all he did was plough forward swinging wild shots with few, if any, doing any damage. Aggression is one thing but it surely has to be effective... On the other hand, Brook caught him clean a fair few times and rocked him twice...

I don't know if some people have any idea on how to score a fight ???

If somebody comes rolling out throwing hooks and they land on my arms and shoulders, because I've a good defence, and I regularly land solid stiff jabs on his coupon, who do you think wins the round.

Remember that Willie Pep once one a round without throwing a punch, because he made his opponent miss every punch he threw.

If anybody still thinks Porter made the fight close, please have a look again at the first 6 rounds and let me know at what point, and in which round he lands a clean shot. You don't get credit if you don't land on the target area.

Incidentally I think the British judge fell into a trap. Subconsciously, because he didn't want to be seen as bias towards his fellow countryman, scored several of the close rounds to Porter. I've seen it before. most recently at the Limond v Woodhouse fight.

A better way of judging fights is to return only one score. In other words, take the 3 judges score for each round and the majority score counts. EG 10-9, 10-9, 9-10. Then the round would be scored 10-9. It seems a fairer way.

By the way has anyone seen the official scorecards?

what is clear is that the fight was won in rounds 6-11...... Kell swayed the judges in most of these rounds, that how I saw the fight unfold. the last round was a toss up.

dalcumly wrote:I don't know if some people have any idea on how to score a fight ???

If somebody comes rolling out throwing hooks and they land on my arms and shoulders, because I've a good defence, and I regularly land solid stiff jabs on his coupon, who do you think wins the round.

Remember that Willie Pep once one a round without throwing a punch, because he made his opponent miss every punch he threw.

If anybody still thinks Porter made the fight close, please have a look again at the first 6 rounds and let me know at what point, and in which round he lands a clean shot. You don't get credit if you don't land on the target area.

Incidentally I think the British judge fell into a trap. Subconsciously, because he didn't want to be seen as bias towards his fellow countryman, scored several of the close rounds to Porter. I've seen it before. most recently at the Limond v Woodhouse fight.

A better way of judging fights is to return only one score. In other words, take the 3 judges score for each round and the majority score counts. EG 10-9, 10-9, 9-10. Then the round would be scored 10-9. It seems a fairer way.

By the way has anyone seen the official scorecards?

Agree 100%

I do wonder about the people who scored it for Porter. Had similar thoughts after Pacquiao vs Bradley 2, when a small minority didn't think Manny won or thought the fight was drawn. What are these people watching?

danamba7 wrote:
Really? Even though all he did was plough forward swinging wild shots with few, if any, doing any damage. Aggression is one thing but it surely has to be effective... On the other hand, Brook caught him clean a fair few times and rocked him twice...

thats exactly how i saw it ...when watching it again I turned off the awful commentary Hailing was offering and I couldnt see much significance what porter did apart from pressing and swinging widly ... i just saw another Lacy with just a tiny bit more skill

Thanks for all the comments guys, appreciate it