BoxRec

It's no wonder no champs wanna fight on the road in the UK. Are those cards serious? What a catastrophe. Brook won 1 round.

diddy wrote:It's no wonder no champs wanna fight on the road in the UK. Are those cards serious? What a catastrophe. Brook won 1 round.

Only one judge had Brook up. The other two had it even.

Who the fvck cares?

If the towel had not been thrown and Brook made it to the bell in the 5th, I am very confident that 3G would have been up on a minimum of two cards and at minimum even on the other.

Oh ok well someone told Brook he was up on the cards.

http://www.BS.com/brook-saw-up ... vy--108943

How could anyone who watched that fight have actually given Brook more than 1 round? Under what criteria? Who cares? It's The Who cares attitude that's killing the sport. You jagaloons will pay to see any crap they throw your way. If people cared more about corruption and incompetence maybe it would be a better sport than it is today. The only fights I'll actually watch until Ward-Kovalev are the ones I have money on. I couldn't give a crap less about any of this other garbage they try to spoon feed us.

I disagree with the OP. I watched the fight with UK commentary and had Brook up 2-1-1 at the time of the stoppage. I rewatched it with HBO commentary and had it 2-2. I can respect any card from 3-1 GGG to 3-1 Brook. What's more worrying is that two judges gave Brook the 1st, which I thought was the one clear Golovkin round (not including the 5th of course).

jezzamundo wrote:I disagree with the OP. I watched the fight with UK commentary and had Brook up 2-1-1 at the time of the stoppage. I rewatched it with HBO commentary and had it 2-2. I can respect any card from 3-1 GGG to 3-1 Brook. What's more worrying is that two judges gave Brook the 1st, which I thought was the one clear Golovkin round (not including the 5th of course).

Watch fights muted. It's the only way to score them.

diddy wrote:Watch fights muted. It's the only way to score them.

It's certainly the most accurate way, but also the least enjoyable in my opinion. I've done it a few times, but it feels more like work than leisure.

jezzamundo wrote:

diddy wrote:Watch fights muted. It's the only way to score them.

It's certainly the most accurate way, but also the least enjoyable in my opinion. I've done it a few times, but it feels more like work than leisure.

Ive muted before and agree, can become a chore.

But Im also with OP I could only give Brook the second and Id had a tiny tickle on him.

diddy wrote:Oh ok well someone told Brook he was up on the cards.

http://www.BS.com/brook-saw-up ... vy--108943

How could anyone who watched that fight have actually given Brook more than 1 round? Under what criteria? Who cares? It's The Who cares attitude that's killing the sport. You jagaloons will pay to see any crap they throw your way. If people cared more about corruption and incompetence maybe it would be a better sport than it is today. The only fights I'll actually watch until Ward-Kovalev are the ones I have money on. I couldn't give a crap less about any of this other garbage they try to spoon feed us.

I had it 3-1 for 3G but 2-2 is not outrageous. 3G was giving Brook the end of rounds, which is the most impactful part, like it or not.

Judging boxing is subjective. We have witnessed so many horrid decisions over the years that I have become numb to it. Furthermore, there is such a lemming mentality with boxing fans that often close fights are held up as horrible decisions based on the influence of the popularity of the combatants and the commentary.

That is why I enjoy 3G and Krusher fights, they take it out of the hands of subjectivity.

The part of the official cards that was ridiculous was two judges giving Brook the first round. I don't think giving him 3 or 4 would be criminal and he definitely won round 2.

ANYONE THAT HAD BROOK AHEAD IN THAT FIGHT NEED HELP HE ONLY WON ONE ROUND PERIOD AND WHO EVER GAVE BROOK THE 1ST ROUND NEED EDUCATING ABOUT BOXING AND HOW WE JUDGE A FIGHT NOT THE NOISE THE CROWD IS MAKING

diddy wrote:Watch fights muted. It's the only way to score them.

I score fights just fine with the sound. All you have to do is focus on the action, and not let the commentators try to tell you something is happening that isn't. Just watch the fight carefully, and just for yourself. I'm always able to see right through BS from the commentators or the crowd getting exciting about a guy hitting gloves.

Don't tell Horse that Brook didn't deserve the first

Incidentally, the judges for some of the fights on the Usyk-Glowacki card were wesring noise-cancelling headphones, which I liked to see. I think even when someone is trying to be impartial it's often tough to avoid being influenced by the crowd and nearby commentators.

Tanzio wrote:

diddy wrote:Oh ok well someone told Brook he was up on the cards.

http://www.BS.com/brook-saw-up ... vy--108943

How could anyone who watched that fight have actually given Brook more than 1 round? Under what criteria? Who cares? It's The Who cares attitude that's killing the sport. You jagaloons will pay to see any crap they throw your way. If people cared more about corruption and incompetence maybe it would be a better sport than it is today. The only fights I'll actually watch until Ward-Kovalev are the ones I have money on. I couldn't give a crap less about any of this other garbage they try to spoon feed us.

Judging boxing is subjective.

It certainly is, and that's part of the reason why having the KO ability of GGG is such a valuable asset.

GGG is able to remove the judges competence, or otherwise, out of the equation and hand down his own verdicts.

diddy wrote:It's no wonder no champs wanna fight on the road in the UK. Are those cards serious? What a catastrophe. Brook won 1 round.

Well there were only 4 rounds scored, you were only one close round away from scoring it level

And you know fornicate all

davie wrote:

diddy wrote:It's no wonder no champs wanna fight on the road in the UK. Are those cards serious? What a catastrophe. Brook won 1 round.

Well there were only 4 rounds scored, you were only one close round away from scoring it level

And you know eff all

Yeah. Sure. I know "eff all". I do know you Brits come up with stupid statements like "eff all" that somehow become part of your everyday vernacular. Strange, strange people.

diddy wrote:

davie wrote:

diddy wrote:It's no wonder no champs wanna fight on the road in the UK. Are those cards serious? What a catastrophe. Brook won 1 round.

Well there were only 4 rounds scored, you were only one close round away from scoring it level

And you know eff all

Yeah. Sure. I know "eff all". I do know you Brits come up with stupid statements like "eff all" that somehow become part of your everyday vernacular. Strange, strange people.

We also have a sense of humour, apparently that never transfered across the Atlantic either.

davie wrote:

diddy wrote:

davie wrote:
Well there were only 4 rounds scored, you were only one close round away from scoring it level

And you know eff all

Yeah. Sure. I know "eff all". I do know you Brits come up with stupid statements like "eff all" that somehow become part of your everyday vernacular. Strange, strange people.

We also have a sense of humour, apparently that never transfered across the Atlantic either.

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that was a tongue in (ass)cheek comment

Technically he wasn't up. It was a majority draw. and had round 5 finished, that was defo a GGG round. But it doesn't matter, cus GGG knew he was gonna finish Brook inside the distance.

Ruthless-RKO wrote:Technically he wasn't up. It was a majority draw. and had round 5 finished, that was defo a GGG round. But it doesn't matter, cus GGG knew he was gonna finish Brook inside the distance.

Indeed, it's about as relevant as me saying "I gave Khan 3 of the first 5 rounds against Canelo"
None of that makes the slightest difference when he is on his back.

...it's just like marathon race, both guys running shoulder to shoulder for a while till one of them runs out of gas, drops behind and is unable to continue...was Brook good? yes, he was...was he competitive? yes, he was....but just for one third of the distance as largely expected...why was he up on cards? two reasons: subjective character of the sport and occasional bonus you get as a home favourite..

crusader wrote:Don't tell Horse that Brook didn't deserve the first

Incidentally, the judges for some of the fights on the Usyk-Glowacki card were wesring noise-cancelling headphones, which I liked to see. I think even when someone is trying to be impartial it's often tough to avoid being influenced by the crowd and nearby commentators.

Judges should be watching on TV.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

crusader wrote:Don't tell Horse that Brook didn't deserve the first

Incidentally, the judges for some of the fights on the Usyk-Glowacki card were wesring noise-cancelling headphones, which I liked to see. I think even when someone is trying to be impartial it's often tough to avoid being influenced by the crowd and nearby commentators.

Judges should be watching on TV.

Yeh right, with the biased commentary everytime Brook landed?

They don't need sound, ringside seats aren't nearly as clear as tv. Add in different angles and it's a laughable set up.