Charlo - Martyrosian who won?

[Cent0089]

What do you think, who won the fight ?

[jujigatame]

Had it a draw. Decision was fine I guess. Can't really complain either way.

[Impractical Poster]

Depends on what you are looking for. Total punches favored Charlo. However, Vanes was the aggressor for most of the bout. Could have gone either way. Those saying it was a robbery are probably very biased towards Vanes.

[ikorolev]

I am biased towards a fighter who landed better punches and showed better ring generalship, and it happened to be Vanes.

[ReggieDiggs]

Had it a draw. Decision was fine I guess. Can't really complain either way.

This. I had it 7-3 Jermell myself so was right there with the official judges, but I felt like there were a ton of close rounds so I can't hate too much of any scorecard or opinion here. As a fighter its gotta suck for Vanes to come out on the short end of the stick, but thats the reality. There is no asterisk next to this outcome that implies it coulda gone either way unfortunately for him.

[SenorPipino]

96-94 Charlo.

His accuracy and greater punch output, outweighs the aggressiveness of Martyrosian.
Fans always holler "foul" when the underdog pushes the fight and gives a good account of himself.
But aggressiveness does not overcome more accurate punching.

A close but deserved victory for Charlo.

[crusader]

I didn't score the ninth because technical issues prevented me from seeing the whole round, but of the nine rounds I scored I had it 5-4 Vanes. As mentioned, it was very close and I think there is a fairly wide range of acceptable scores, though I thought Vanes clearly won the tenth and apparently one judge had that for Charlo.

[Badhusker]

After watching the full fight I thought it was very close. Like some others, I would be fine with a draw, or split either way. Hard to call a close fight like that a robbery no matter who wins, imo.

[Impractical Poster]

I am biased towards a fighter who landed better punches and showed better ring generalship, and it happened to be Vanes.

This, in itself is a very biased statement. I did not see better ring generalship from Vanes. Nor do i believe he landed the better punches. He landed a bit more power punches, but Charlo's power punches were a bit more pronounced and his jab was fantastic.

[ikorolev]

I am biased towards a fighter who landed better punches and showed better ring generalship, and it happened to be Vanes.

This, in itself is a very biased statement. I did not see better ring generalship from Vanes. Nor do i believe he landed the better punches. He landed a bit more power punches, but Charlo's power punches were a bit more pronounced and his jab was fantastic.

Wasn't it obvious that Vanes dictated the pace and was the aggressor ? About the punch quality, even Charlo's few "power" punches never moved Martirosyan's head, and he totally neglected body work. Charlo's jabs were just touches. Vanes on the other hand, landed quality body punches and was clearly moving Charlo's head when landing on it.

[Impractical Poster]

I guess it is all in what you consider ring generalship. Just because he was the aggressor for most of the fight and kept things busy doesn't mean he owned the superior ring generalship. In my opinion, Chris Byrd displayed outstanding generalship most of his years at heavy. And he was rarely ever the aggressor. Vanes was doing a lot of following, while Charlo was using his better footwork to move away from most of Vanes' shots and land counters of his own. Seeing as Vanes only landed 22% of his shots, I'd say Charlo did a fine job with ring generalship.

As far as Vanes' punches moving Charlo's and not the other way around. I didn't see this. Since Vanes was the one moving forward most of the fight, it may have given some the impression that his punches were more effective. However, with the exception of the head butt, neither showed any signs of being significantly effected by the others shots through out the fight. As I stated in an earlier post, I thought Charlo landed the sharper, snappier shots that looked to snap Vanes head back when he did fire power shots off.

[jockpunk]

I had in 96-94 charlo and i was rooting for vanes.

[Ian1973]

I think the diversity in the poll results (albeit from a tiny source) gives an indication to the sort of fight it was. It was difficult to score some rounds, I had Vanes four rounds up at the end though I admit it could've been different on anothers card. I do struggle to see how Charlo actually won the fight though. Most of what he threw missed and he only really threw in four or five rounds.

For me, he was lucky to get the decision and the fact that all three judges gave him the verdict leaves me a bit mystified and feeling it was a bit of an unsatisfactory outcome.

I don't think the scoring was a disgrace or a robbery, it's just not what I expected after watching / scoring the fight.

[HitBattousai]

Vanes won imo, but the fight was terrible both ways with the two fighters treating punches like they were precious jewels they couldn't let go of. I feel it was a mini-robbery because Vanes did all the effective work, but it's hard to care about it a lot when the fight was up for grabs and neither fighter did anything to try and take it definitively.

[caldo2025]

I echo the crowd reaction when hearing the verdict in the ring, I thought that Martyrosian did enough to win the fight but you just knew that he wasn't going to get the decision. Haymon loves those Charlo brothers and Watson, per usual, was blowing the kid in the corner before and after the fight.

It seems like you must really beat a Haymon Prized pupil handedly to get a decision these days. Back in the day, it was believe that to beat the champion you really have to beat the champion. That's not the case anymore with World Title fights but it sure seems to be the case with Haymon blue chippers. That's going to get pretty old, pretty fast.