BoxRec

I watched it and loved it but didn't bother scoring.

I felt it could have gone either way but I see some are crying ROBBERY.

I was the same I didn't score but I felt Chisora done enough. The scores reflect the closeness I think. No robbery.

No way did Whyte win than fight. Bullshit decision.

Great fight and both deserve credit for there performance, rematch on the Wembley bill

Ricky_ wrote:No way did Whyte win than fight. Bullshit decision.

Did you score it Ricky?

Taansend wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:No way did Whyte win than fight. Bullshit decision.

Did you score it Ricky?

Yeah, i had it 8-4.

Another thing that gets on my nerves is 10-10 rounds. Hayes card on Sky had like 3 of them going by the official cards 2 judges marked a 10-10 aswell!? 10-10's should be outlawed, it's not that hard to pick a winner.

Ricky_ wrote:

Taansend wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:No way did Whyte win than fight. Bullshit decision.

Did you score it Ricky?

Yeah, i had it 8-4.

Another thing that gets on my nerves is 10-10 rounds. Hayes card on Sky had like 3 of them going by the official cards 2 judges marked a 10-10 aswell!? 10-10's should be outlawed, it's not that hard to pick a winner.

Cheers.

I had Chisora 3 up going into 11 gave Whyte 11 and Chisora 12.. I scored the first a 10-10 but could of easily went to Chisora... Chisora won 2 and 3 as well as most the middle rounds..

SD to the Hearn fighter means that the other guy won doesn't it, really? I'm sure it doesn't make Chisora feel any better, but that's validation in itself. And what a fight!

Had it 115-113 Chisora. I just can't see how Whyte won that fight.

I didn't score it per se but i would've given it a draw.

Chisora launched the better attacks and perhaps had Whyte in more trouble but Whyte consistently landed more clean shots throughout the fight.

A rematch seems the obvious way to go but I'm not sure Chisora could motivate himself again for such a hard fight with no obvious route to a title shot for the winner. He's had a good career and won't want to see it out as a gatekeeper.

had it 116 112 whyte.the rounds that delboy was having off were more clearer for whyte who when tired could always keep on scoring with little jabs etc.thats why i have whyte so many up

Didn't score it but felt like Chisora deserved it. He took time off in the later rounds so I can see why judges would score those to Whyte, but I don't think Whyte did enough in those moments to deserve to win. Felt to me as though Del Boy must have won 4 or 5 of the first 6? In that case you only needed to give him a couple of the last 6 to have him winning. Again, didn't score RBR so that could be way off.

I had it a draw,Chisora landing the stronger hurtful shots while Whyte was a bit busier,great fight though

Ricky_ wrote:

Taansend wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:No way did Whyte win than fight. Bullshit decision.

Did you score it Ricky?

Yeah, i had it 8-4.

Another thing that gets on my nerves is 10-10 rounds. Hayes card on Sky had like 3 of them going by the official cards 2 judges marked a 10-10 aswell!? 10-10's should be outlawed, it's not that hard to pick a winner.

Of course it is, incredibly difficult in some cases. Some times there are literally the same number of scoring shots and you have to judge on subjective issues such as effectiveness of shots, that old hazy issue of ring generalship etc

Ward Kovalev I had some rounds where Ward had landed 2 scoring jabs and Kovalev 1 jab and I scored Kovalev because he was more aggressive, where as some would have scored it to Ward on punches landed. 1 punch of a difference, don't tell me that is an easy round to pick a winner in.

Picking a clear winner can be difficult for all manner of reasons

Chisora by one round. Scored the same as Judge Stev Gray

10-10 rounds? Possible but a bit of a duck. Whatever happened to the Ten Point Must system?

davie wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:

Taansend wrote:
Did you score it Ricky?

Yeah, i had it 8-4.

Another thing that gets on my nerves is 10-10 rounds. Hayes card on Sky had like 3 of them going by the official cards 2 judges marked a 10-10 aswell!? 10-10's should be outlawed, it's not that hard to pick a winner.

Of course it is, incredibly difficult in some cases. Some times there are literally the same number of scoring shots and you have to judge on subjective issues such as effectiveness of shots, that old hazy issue of ring generalship etc

Ward Kovalev I had some rounds where Ward had landed 2 scoring jabs and Kovalev 1 jab and I scored Kovalev because he was more aggressive, where as some would have scored it to Ward on punches landed. 1 punch of a difference, don't tell me that is an easy round to pick a winner in.

Picking a clear winner can be difficult for all manner of reasons

It's not exactly rocket science, you just pick one. You got 4 scoring criteria to work with. If punches landed are similar numbers and of similar effectiveness then go with the guy who shows better genarlship and/or aggression.

Ricky_ wrote:

davie wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:
Yeah, i had it 8-4.

Another thing that gets on my nerves is 10-10 rounds. Hayes card on Sky had like 3 of them going by the official cards 2 judges marked a 10-10 aswell!? 10-10's should be outlawed, it's not that hard to pick a winner.

Of course it is, incredibly difficult in some cases. Some times there are literally the same number of scoring shots and you have to judge on subjective issues such as effectiveness of shots, that old hazy issue of ring generalship etc

Ward Kovalev I had some rounds where Ward had landed 2 scoring jabs and Kovalev 1 jab and I scored Kovalev because he was more aggressive, where as some would have scored it to Ward on punches landed. 1 punch of a difference, don't tell me that is an easy round to pick a winner in.

Picking a clear winner can be difficult for all manner of reasons

It's not exactly rocket science, you just pick one. You got 4 scoring criteria to work with. If punches landed are similar numbers and of similar effectiveness then go with the guy who shows better genarlship and/or aggression.

So what if one guy throws slightly more, lands slightly less, but his punches landed look slightly more effective, however he was wobbled by one of the opponents blows towards the end of the round and he shows slightly better defence but slightly worse ring generalship

so many variables, that can be seperated by so close a margin.

Sometimes one fighter wins the first minute clearly, the middle of the fight is tight and the opponent wins the third minute clearly

115-114 Chisora for me

I was a bit surprised that he hurt Whyte as much as he did. He did a poor job following up though, and had issues with punching himself out.

davie wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:

davie wrote:
Of course it is, incredibly difficult in some cases. Some times there are literally the same number of scoring shots and you have to judge on subjective issues such as effectiveness of shots, that old hazy issue of ring generalship etc

Ward Kovalev I had some rounds where Ward had landed 2 scoring jabs and Kovalev 1 jab and I scored Kovalev because he was more aggressive, where as some would have scored it to Ward on punches landed. 1 punch of a difference, don't tell me that is an easy round to pick a winner in.

Picking a clear winner can be difficult for all manner of reasons

It's not exactly rocket science, you just pick one. You got 4 scoring criteria to work with. If punches landed are similar numbers and of similar effectiveness then go with the guy who shows better genarlship and/or aggression.

So what if one guy throws slightly more, lands slightly less, but his punches landed look slightly more effective, however he was wobbled by one of the opponents blows towards the end of the round and he shows slightly better defence but slightly worse ring generalship

so many variables, that can be seperated by so close a margin.

Sometimes one fighter wins the first minute clearly, the middle of the fight is tight and the opponent wins the third minute clearly

Ring generalship is subjective in itself. Some people thought Kovalev showed better ring generalship against Ward because he was holding the centre of the ring and pushing forward. But other people thought Ward showed better ring generalship because of the opposite - he was making use of the full ring and making Kovalev follow him around.

These fights are legitimately close, and make me wonder at the people saying they are easy to score and claiming 'robberies'.

i had del boy by 1 point, but i cant complain about a SD, it was close. rematch for sure, pay them well eddie and get a decent title on the line.

Boxerbeetle wrote:

davie wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:

It's not exactly rocket science, you just pick one. You got 4 scoring criteria to work with. If punches landed are similar numbers and of similar effectiveness then go with the guy who shows better genarlship and/or aggression.

So what if one guy throws slightly more, lands slightly less, but his punches landed look slightly more effective, however he was wobbled by one of the opponents blows towards the end of the round and he shows slightly better defence but slightly worse ring generalship

so many variables, that can be seperated by so close a margin.

Sometimes one fighter wins the first minute clearly, the middle of the fight is tight and the opponent wins the third minute clearly

Ring generalship is subjective in itself. Some people thought Kovalev showed better ring generalship against Ward because he was holding the centre of the ring and pushing forward. But other people thought Ward showed better ring generalship because of the opposite - he was making use of the full ring and making Kovalev follow him around.

These fights are legitimately close, and make me wonder at the people saying they are easy to score and claiming 'robberies'.

Ring generalship is an easy one to judge when one guy is bossing the fight but in a particularly close round or fight it can be a nightmare

For starters, you can have difficulty just getting people to nail down what the term really means

For me it is who dictates the pace and the terms of the fight. But i've seen a front foot fighter control the pace by pressing it or Floyd Mayweather dictate the tempo by backing up and slowing a fight down and turning it into the type of fight that suits him. It's a minefield. I'd love to sit and talk to a top judge and get his take on it

No matter that Whyte got the decision, you didn't see Chisora complaining straight after the fight ( don't know about the post fight presser tho') .
and I think he comes out of it with much credit and will get another bigish fight off of the back of it . Really fair play to him I thought he was washed up.

davie wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:

davie wrote:
Of course it is, incredibly difficult in some cases. Some times there are literally the same number of scoring shots and you have to judge on subjective issues such as effectiveness of shots, that old hazy issue of ring generalship etc

Ward Kovalev I had some rounds where Ward had landed 2 scoring jabs and Kovalev 1 jab and I scored Kovalev because he was more aggressive, where as some would have scored it to Ward on punches landed. 1 punch of a difference, don't tell me that is an easy round to pick a winner in.

Picking a clear winner can be difficult for all manner of reasons

It's not exactly rocket science, you just pick one. You got 4 scoring criteria to work with. If punches landed are similar numbers and of similar effectiveness then go with the guy who shows better genarlship and/or aggression.

So what if one guy throws slightly more, lands slightly less, but his punches landed look slightly more effective, however he was wobbled by one of the opponents blows towards the end of the round and he shows slightly better defence but slightly worse ring generalship

so many variables, that can be seperated by so close a margin.

Sometimes one fighter wins the first minute clearly, the middle of the fight is tight and the opponent wins the third minute clearly

The fact there is so many variables makes it less likely you score the round exactly the same. Most of the time you're going to go with the punches, effectness and anount landed. If you can't split them on that then even if it comes down to an eye-catching slip or spendimg more time than the other guy holding centre of the ring, then that's justifiable enough to pick a winner. Judges are told to avoid 10-10's, they're rare.