BoxRec

kameda, they're crying that he was robbed.

Shows what a bunch of crack pots they are.

I just cant see it myself but there's a few good posters who thought that,some rounds were close i suppose and neither guy was hurt which always makes it hard but for me personally McDonnell was a clear winner

I can't see any argument for kameda winning the jab was landing cleanly, McDonnell controlled the fight and the centre of the ring.

I had it 117-111 McDonnell no way was that a close fight.

Kameda won the fight. 115-112

McDonnell won rounds 3,5,11 and 12. Rounds 7 and 10 were close. The rest of them were clear Kameda rounds. To have McDonnell winning the fight is to favor aggression regardless of whether it's effective or not. Which is to say, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of Professional Boxing, and how to score it.

If you want to tell me you had it 114-113 McDonnell I can accept that. There were some close rounds in there, and that would be a score that's at least within reason, but to have 117-110 or 116-111 for McDonnell is just absurd.

The Revival wrote:Kameda won the fight. 115-112

McDonnell won rounds 3,5,11 and 12. Rounds 7 and 10 were close. The rest of them were clear Kameda rounds. To have McDonnell winning the fight is to favor aggression regardless of whether it's effective or not. Which is to say, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of Professional Boxing, and how to score it.

So the judges have a fundamental misunderstanding of judging a professional boxing match?

Kingfield wrote:

The Revival wrote:Kameda won the fight. 115-112

McDonnell won rounds 3,5,11 and 12. Rounds 7 and 10 were close. The rest of them were clear Kameda rounds. To have McDonnell winning the fight is to favor aggression regardless of whether it's effective or not. Which is to say, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of Professional Boxing, and how to score it.

So the judges have a fundamental misunderstanding of judging a professional boxing match?

In this case yes. Happens all the time in Boxing.

The Revival wrote:Kameda won the fight. 115-112

McDonnell won rounds 3,5,11 and 12. Rounds 7 and 10 were close. The rest of them were clear Kameda rounds. To have McDonnell winning the fight is to favor aggression regardless of whether it's effective or not. Which is to say, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of Professional Boxing, and how to score it.

If you want to tell me you had it 114-113 McDonnell I can accept that. There were some close rounds in there, and that would be a score that's at least within reason, but to have 117-110 or 116-111 for McDonnell is just absurd.

If the jabs were missing and his aggression was ineffective how did McDonnell control the centre of the ring for the vast majority of rounds?

The judges cards weren't even close to having it to kameda. It wasn't a close fight. The jabs were landing cleanly.

To say 'the rest were clear Kameda rounds' to me highlights a fundamental misunderstanding. Close yes, clear, no, most definitely not.

Finn wrote:

The Revival wrote:Kameda won the fight. 115-112

McDonnell won rounds 3,5,11 and 12. Rounds 7 and 10 were close. The rest of them were clear Kameda rounds. To have McDonnell winning the fight is to favor aggression regardless of whether it's effective or not. Which is to say, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of Professional Boxing, and how to score it.

If you want to tell me you had it 114-113 McDonnell I can accept that. There were some close rounds in there, and that would be a score that's at least within reason, but to have 117-110 or 116-111 for McDonnell is just absurd.

If the jabs were missing and his aggression was ineffective how did McDonnell control the centre of the ring for the vast majority of rounds?

The judges cards weren't even close to having it to kameda. It wasn't a close fight. The jabs were landing cleanly.

If you say so bud. I know I what saw, and I know what I'm watching. I have a poll in the Current Scene, feel free to cast your vote.

The Revival wrote:

Finn wrote:

The Revival wrote:Kameda won the fight. 115-112

McDonnell won rounds 3,5,11 and 12. Rounds 7 and 10 were close. The rest of them were clear Kameda rounds. To have McDonnell winning the fight is to favor aggression regardless of whether it's effective or not. Which is to say, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of Professional Boxing, and how to score it.

If you want to tell me you had it 114-113 McDonnell I can accept that. There were some close rounds in there, and that would be a score that's at least within reason, but to have 117-110 or 116-111 for McDonnell is just absurd.

If the jabs were missing and his aggression was ineffective how did McDonnell control the centre of the ring for the vast majority of rounds?

The judges cards weren't even close to having it to kameda. It wasn't a close fight. The jabs were landing cleanly.

If you say so bud. I know I what saw, and I know what I'm watching. I have a poll in the Current Scene, feel free to cast your vote.

The current scene has posters who believe the boxing Mafia fixed the results to rob manny pacquioa of his victory against may weather.

Finn wrote:
The current scene has posters who believe the boxing Mafia fixed the results to rob manny pacquioa of his victory against may weather.

There are certainly idiots out there, and I don't agree with that sorta nonsense at all. I just call 'em like I see 'em. I had the Mayweather vs Pacquiao fight 117-111 Floyd personally.

No Fix, Mayweather was just better, and Pacquiao fought Floyd's fight.

As most will know, I tend to be a huge fan of Japanese boxers and the such...but Kameda was well beaten. I had it 117-111 but could, if you gave the closer rounds to Kameda, see 114-113 to McDonnell. No way he lost.

Strangely Tomoki fought the wrong fight from the final minute of round 2.

The Current Scene crowd were almost certainly watching on the US network CBS (as I was) and the commentary was incredibly misleading. The analysts were Paulie Malignaggi and Virgil Hunter, and they had Kameda dominating the fight. The "unofficial judge" was a Canadian gentleman named Corey Erdman, and he had Kameda up by 98-92 after 10 rounds. The commentary was SO misleading I had to mute the sound so that it was barely audible. I ended up with McDonnell 115-112.

In almost every case of a so-called controversial decision, it's -- in my opinion -- largely a matter of viewers being influenced and often misled by the commentary.

It was obvious after a few rounds that Kameda was fighting under a great deal of mental strain, thanks to Jamie's pressure, thudding jab and physical strength. Tomoki's dad was shouting "Hai!" every time Tomoki landed a shot in the first few rounds, but by the middle rounds the dad was very quiet, hardly a peep out of him. (It was around this point that I muted the sound; Hunter and Paulie were telling me that Tomoki was giving Jamie a boxing lesson, and I was seeing Jamie bullying the smaller man, slamming the jab into his face and just being too insistent for Tomoki.) At least Paulie admitted afterwards that all his Twitter followers tweeted to say they thought McDonnell won. ... These commentaries are sometimes a matter of everyone involved wanting to be on the same page, IMO: no one wants to be the "odd man out" in the commentary.

Graham Houston wrote:The Current Scene crowd were almost certainly watching on the US network CBS (as I was) and the commentary was incredibly misleading. The analysts were Paulie Malignaggi and Virgil Hunter, and they had Kameda dominating the fight. The "unofficial judge" was a Canadian gentleman named Corey Erdman, and he had Kameda up by 98-92 after 10 rounds. The commentary was SO misleading I had to mute the sound so that it was barely audible. I ended up with McDonnell 115-112.

In almost every case of a so-called controversial decision, it's -- in my opinion -- largely a matter of viewers being influenced and often misled by the commentary.

It was obvious after a few rounds that Kameda was fighting under a great deal of mental strain, thanks to Jamie's pressure, thudding jab and physical strength. Tomoki's dad was shouting "Hai!" every time Tomoki landed a shot in the first few rounds, but by the middle rounds the dad was very quiet, hardly a peep out of him. (It was around this point that I muted the sound; Hunter and Paulie were telling me that Tomoki was giving Jamie a boxing lesson, and I was seeing Jamie bullying the smaller man, slamming the jab into his face and just being too insistent for Tomoki.) At least Paulie admitted afterwards that all his Twitter followers tweeted to say they thought McDonnell won. ... These commentaries are sometimes a matter of everyone involved wanting to be on the same page, IMO: no one wants to be the "odd man out" in the commentary.

I had it a point wider for McDonnell, with a couple of "swing rounds".

Must admit I'm surprised there's even much of a debate about this, McDonnell won clearly for me.

I thought Sky had the same commentary as the US,we had Dave Bontempo

Boxerbeetle wrote:Must admit I'm surprised there's even much of a debate about this, McDonnell won clearly for me.

Same. I cannot possibly see how anyone had Kameda winning the fight even without the knockdown.

handsofstone wrote:I thought Sky had the same commentary as the US,we had Dave Bontempo

Apparently not because the U.S. Commentators we had thought Kameda was struggling from the second round, which is the way I saw it.

I am honestly really baffled by this one McDonnell said he found it very easy in the post fight interview. I thought he clearly dominated.

Dan Rafael was having a particularly bad night on Twitter during the fight.
It was a clear win for Jamie, Malignaggi and Hunter both know the game inside out but they were well off calling it for Kameda. His corner knew at the final bell what was coming. They've paid Jamie well twice now and not got the result they thought was coming.

Graham Houston wrote:The Current Scene crowd were almost certainly watching on the US network CBS (as I was) and the commentary was incredibly misleading. The analysts were Paulie Malignaggi and Virgil Hunter, and they had Kameda dominating the fight. The "unofficial judge" was a Canadian gentleman named Corey Erdman, and he had Kameda up by 98-92 after 10 rounds. The commentary was SO misleading I had to mute the sound so that it was barely audible. I ended up with McDonnell 115-112.

In almost every case of a so-called controversial decision, it's -- in my opinion -- largely a matter of viewers being influenced and often misled by the commentary.

It was obvious after a few rounds that Kameda was fighting under a great deal of mental strain, thanks to Jamie's pressure, thudding jab and physical strength. Tomoki's dad was shouting "Hai!" every time Tomoki landed a shot in the first few rounds, but by the middle rounds the dad was very quiet, hardly a peep out of him. (It was around this point that I muted the sound; Hunter and Paulie were telling me that Tomoki was giving Jamie a boxing lesson, and I was seeing Jamie bullying the smaller man, slamming the jab into his face and just being too insistent for Tomoki.) At least Paulie admitted afterwards that all his Twitter followers tweeted to say they thought McDonnell won. ... These commentaries are sometimes a matter of everyone involved wanting to be on the same page, IMO: no one wants to be the "odd man out" in the commentary.

To be fair to Paulie, he came on twitter and admitted he called it wrong

Malignaggi is usually a very good analyst. I scored rounds 1,2 and 9 for Kameda and the rest for McDonnell, although a couple were close. The Sky commentators only gave Kameda one round, which I thought was a bit harsh.

Kameda's reaction at the end said it all. Head and hands down at the final bell and only giving a half hearted arm raise a second later

He looked like a beaten man at the final bell, that's for sure

Graham Houston wrote:The Current Scene crowd were almost certainly watching on the US network CBS (as I was) and the commentary was incredibly misleading. The analysts were Paulie Malignaggi and Virgil Hunter, and they had Kameda dominating the fight. The "unofficial judge" was a Canadian gentleman named Corey Erdman, and he had Kameda up by 98-92 after 10 rounds. The commentary was SO misleading I had to mute the sound so that it was barely audible. I ended up with McDonnell 115-112.

In almost every case of a so-called controversial decision, it's -- in my opinion -- largely a matter of viewers being influenced and often misled by the commentary.

It was obvious after a few rounds that Kameda was fighting under a great deal of mental strain, thanks to Jamie's pressure, thudding jab and physical strength. Tomoki's dad was shouting "Hai!" every time Tomoki landed a shot in the first few rounds, but by the middle rounds the dad was very quiet, hardly a peep out of him. (It was around this point that I muted the sound; Hunter and Paulie were telling me that Tomoki was giving Jamie a boxing lesson, and I was seeing Jamie bullying the smaller man, slamming the jab into his face and just being too insistent for Tomoki.) At least Paulie admitted afterwards that all his Twitter followers tweeted to say they thought McDonnell won. ... These commentaries are sometimes a matter of everyone involved wanting to be on the same page, IMO: no one wants to be the "odd man out" in the commentary.

We had the international feed over here, the commentator scored it 119-108 to McDonnell, Jamie Moore in the studio for Sky had it 119-109, both just as bad as Erdman's card and Malignaggi and Hunter can't have been any worse than the commentators.