BoxRec

I thought Martirosyan won the fight. If throwing jabs and punches that don't land are scoring punches then I can see why Charlo got the decision.

I thought the judges were wrong, but that is hardly a first.

Anybody else disagree with the verdict?

I thought the verdict was fair but I would've had no problems with a draw or a close decision the other way.

I actually had it four rounds to Martirosyan but I could see it being scored closer, most of the rounds were close.

That was a close fight.
Martirosyan started well but Charlo got himself back into the fight, some of the rounds could have gone either way.
I thought a turning point was the clash of heads/punch that caused Martirosyan's eye problems, he seemed to drop off mentality and only rallied late in the 10th.

To me, Martirosyan won at least 6-7 rounds. He threw better quality punches and was better in ring generalship. Charlo's head punches didn't even move Martirosyan's head, and he barely threw any body punches.

It was a pretty close fight, but a clear robbery.

Not a fan of either guy but I thought Vanes edged it but here in America the brutha will always get the nod when back peddaling and jabbing.

It's like the judges automatically give African american fighters 3 points before the bell even rings.

Oh and let's not forget Charlo is with good ole Al haymon.

I don't know about the 'brother' part, but I think many people often look at that type of back-foot boxing approach and assume that it's more effective than it is, especially when it's a quick and sometimes flashy guy like Charlo utilizing it. In many rounds he was hardly doing more than flicking out jabs occasionally and moving, and I don't see what he did to be a clear winner.

Charlo LANDED very little for me. I thought he clearly lost the fight.

kidbazooka1 wrote:but here in America the brutha will always get the nod when back peddaling and jabbing.

It's like the judges automatically give African american fighters 3 points before the bell even rings.

Uh...

I just...

Uh...

Um...

Right. Right. Of course.

ikorolev wrote:To me, Martirosyan won at least 6-7 rounds. He threw better quality punches and was better in ring generalship. Charlo's head punches didn't even move Martirosyan's head, and he barely threw any body punches.

It was a pretty close fight, but a clear robbery.

How can a close fight be a robbery, you fuckwit I'm hurting here, thanks for your idiotic comment, it gave me a good laugh, nay, a hernia.

Ian1973 wrote:I thought Martirosyan won the fight. If throwing jabs and punches that don't land are scoring punches then I can see why Charlo got the decision.

I thought the judges were wrong, but that is hardly a first.

Anybody else disagree with the verdict?

I had it 97-94 for Martirosyan. Charlo was poor apart from 1 or 2 rounds and then he only worked for half the round. A lazy fighter for me that will be exposed in the not too distant future. A sweet bit of home cooking.

I enjoyed the fight. Fought at a very high level throughout.

In no way was this fight a robbery. Byrd's card was a little wide for my liking, but the fight could have gone either way. Vanes was the aggressor for the majority of the bout, but Charlo was landing the flashier punches and did a good job of accentuating Vanes missed punches.

dberry wrote:

ikorolev wrote:To me, Martirosyan won at least 6-7 rounds. He threw better quality punches and was better in ring generalship. Charlo's head punches didn't even move Martirosyan's head, and he barely threw any body punches.

It was a pretty close fight, but a clear robbery.

How can a close fight be a robbery, you fuckwit I'm hurting here, thanks for your idiotic comment, it gave me a good laugh, nay, a hernia.

Only an idiot can't understand it. It was close but a winner (by 3-4 rounds) was clear, and it was Vanes.

kidbazooka1 wrote:Not a fan of either guy but I thought Vanes edged it but here in America the brutha will always get the nod when back peddaling and jabbing.

It's like the judges automatically give African american fighters 3 points before the bell even rings.

Oh and let's not forget Charlo is with good ole Al haymon.

I guess that's the way it was in Mayweather vs Canelo, huh?? Some serious racist stuff there. I've never seen an African American just inherit points either before he starts nor during the fight, if that was the case then Trout would've easily beaten Canelo by your bigoted statement.

I thought Vanes won the fight.

I have to admit I fell asleep during the fight after the first few rounds....was not an exciting fight imo. From what I did see it looked close, but Vanes was being the aggressor and the more effective puncher. Maybe they should do a rematch.

KBB wrote:

kidbazooka1 wrote:Not a fan of either guy but I thought Vanes edged it but here in America the brutha will always get the nod when back peddaling and jabbing.

It's like the judges automatically give African american fighters 3 points before the bell even rings.

Oh and let's not forget Charlo is with good ole Al haymon.

I guess that's the way it was in Mayweather vs Canelo, huh?? Some serious racist stuff there. I've never seen an African American just inherit points either before he starts nor during the fight, if that was the case then Trout would've easily beaten Canelo by your bigoted statement.

I thought Vanes won the fight.

Canelo always has judges gifting him rounds. Vanes looked better than Canelo, and Lara looked better than Charlo, but Canelo won while Vanes lost.

ikorolev wrote:

KBB wrote:

kidbazooka1 wrote:Not a fan of either guy but I thought Vanes edged it but here in America the brutha will always get the nod when back peddaling and jabbing.

It's like the judges automatically give African american fighters 3 points before the bell even rings.

Oh and let's not forget Charlo is with good ole Al haymon.

I guess that's the way it was in Mayweather vs Canelo, huh?? Some serious racist stuff there. I've never seen an African American just inherit points either before he starts nor during the fight, if that was the case then Trout would've easily beaten Canelo by your bigoted statement.

I thought Vanes won the fight.

Canelo always has judges gifting him rounds. Vanes looked better than Canelo, and Lara looked better than Charlo, but Canelo won while Vanes lost.

So you're basically saying you agree with him?? The fact of the matter is that you pointed out that Canelo won, is he African American? Did Mosley get 3 point vs Pacquiao? Did Floyd get 3 point facing Oscar?? Did Hopkins get 3 points vs Calzaghe??

That was some racist stuff to say and anyone who agrees with that is as much a bigot as kidbazooka is.

KBB wrote:

ikorolev wrote:
Canelo always has judges gifting him rounds. Vanes looked better than Canelo, and Lara looked better than Charlo, but Canelo won while Vanes lost.

So you're basically saying you agree with him?? The fact of the matter is that you pointed out that Canelo won, is he African American? Did Mosley get 3 point vs Pacquiao? Did Floyd get 3 point facing Oscar?? Did Hopkins get 3 points vs Calzaghe??

That was some racist stuff to say and anyone who agrees with that is as much a bigot as kidbazooka is.

I certainly disagree that fighters get points based on their race. We all know though that home fighters get those undeserved points.

ikorolev wrote:I certainly disagree that fighters get points based on their race. We all know though that home fighters get those undeserved points.

Do they now? Did Hopkins get points over Calzaghe? How about Trout (who is from Texas) did he get points over Canelo (who is from Mexico)??

Ian1973 wrote:I thought he clearly lost the fight.

I think anyone who clearly thought much beyond it was a close fight that coulda went either way is clearly wrong. I can definitely understand someone feeling like Vanes won, but there were a TON of close rounds that I could understand people having varying opinions on that coulda made for varying outcomes.

For full disclosure I scored it 7-3 Jermell, but this was definitely one of the closest 7-3 scored fights I've seen in awhile.

KBB wrote:

ikorolev wrote:I certainly disagree that fighters get points based on their race. We all know though that home fighters get those undeserved points.

Do they now? Did Hopkins get points over Calzaghe? How about Trout (who is from Texas) did he get points over Canelo (who is from Mexico)??

When humans are involved, there are exceptions to almost any rules, but don't pretend that there isn't well known home advantage.

ikorolev wrote:

KBB wrote:

ikorolev wrote:I certainly disagree that fighters get points based on their race. We all know though that home fighters get those undeserved points.

Do they now? Did Hopkins get points over Calzaghe? How about Trout (who is from Texas) did he get points over Canelo (who is from Mexico)??

When humans are involved, there are exceptions to almost any rules, but don't pretend that there isn't well known home advantage.

Who said I was pretending anything, the bottom line is that you have no proof of that and I've provided 2 great examples of two hometown fighters who did not get any hometown advantage.

All you have is innuendo.

ikorolev wrote:

dberry wrote:

ikorolev wrote:To me, Martirosyan won at least 6-7 rounds. He threw better quality punches and was better in ring generalship. Charlo's head punches didn't even move Martirosyan's head, and he barely threw any body punches.

It was a pretty close fight, but a clear robbery.

How can a close fight be a robbery, you fuckwit I'm hurting here, thanks for your idiotic comment, it gave me a good laugh, nay, a hernia.

Only an idiot can't understand it. It was close but a winner (by 3-4 rounds) was clear, and it was Vanes.

No, fuckhead, only an idiot would make that statement.

To be fair to him mate, you can have a close but clear fight in that in terms of rounds won was close (say 7 rounds to 5) but it was clear who won said rounds.

black panther wrote:To be fair to him mate, you can have a close but clear fight in that in terms of rounds won was close (say 7 rounds to 5) but it was clear who won said rounds.

Obviously. I don't think that was the case here though. There were a bunch of rounds that depending on how you felt about Vanes' aggression or Jermell's effectiveness could have you coming up with either guy winning the round. There was much to dispute here imho, even on a round by round basis. I think I was more impressed with Vanes' aggression at the beginning (gave him the first two rounds or 2 outta the first 3 idr exactly), but then was more taken with Jermell & thought Vanes was far less effective.