BoxRec

Anyone got the result?

theguru wrote:Anyone got the result?

Won points.
Looked very average.

thnx

Looked very average in patches would be a fairer assesment I think.

He seemed to me to lose a bit of focus, or concentration and let Scott back into the fight several times. He was clearly the boss in there for probably ninety-odd percent of the fight, but he did look very suspect on the few occasions that Scott managed to exert any pressure. Unfortunately Scott wasn't able to keep that pressure going for long, and it was a pretty convincing win in the end.

I was not too impressed with Hobsons performance last night. Scott is one tough dude but at the end of a tough career.

If Scott had been 5 years young he may have walked Hobson down in about 10 rounds.

I was of the opinion it was Scotts phusical strength and punching power that distrupted Hobsons concentration.

I think there is alot to like about Hobson aswell, I think a match between him and Maccrinelli would be very tasty. Hobson certainly has the better jab.

Gutted though for Bruce Scott. If any fighter was deserving of a lonsdale belt for keeps it was him, can't see him getting it (unless Hobson vacates now and BBBoC sanction Scott with a lower ranked opponent).

The guy fought on an ITV bill, which really indicates how long he's been in the game at and around this level.

KOJOE90 wrote:If Scott had been 5 years younger he may have walked Hobson down in about 10 rounds.

That's exactly what I kept saying all the way through.

Hobson seemed very timid and even when he was holding the centre of the ring he was still less than convincing, it was almost like Klitschko-Sanders, Hobson seemed very worried about Scott's power and even a little intimidated. He panicked a little when Scott jumped at him in one of his sporadic attacks, however i am glad Hobson won as it at least edges him a little closer to a fight with Macarinelli, if Scott had won it would have meant another set of swings and roundabouts, at least a Hobson victory adds a bit of continuity to the titles.

Kilburn wrote:

KOJOE90 wrote:If Scott had been 5 years younger he may have walked Hobson down in about 10 rounds.

That's exactly what I kept saying all the way through.

We agree on something about last nights bill, Kilburn.

I think Scott five years ago would have battered the lot of the up and commers.

Only fight I caught from last night's bill unfortunately. Hobson did okay, saying he looked average is fair. Was clearly wary of Scott's power - maybe remembering the Enzo fight? Anyway, Scott does look past it at this level. I think he'd probably have beat both Enzo and Hobson if he was younger. Saying that, I think guys with massive height advantages get a raw deal sometimes when they fail to dominate with it. It don't mean shit if you don't use it.

Sky Sports kept saying BOTH men were going for a Lonsdale belt outright - a rare oversight from researcher Bob Mee. Bruce Scott had already won a belt outright. He had a notch on the belt before new Board regulations came into effect in 1999 requiring four notches. Anyone who already had a notch prior to the new regulations, could win a Lonsdale Belt under the former ruling of three notches at one weight.

Incidentally I hear Tony Moran was stopped form boxing last saturday night due to a failed brain scan sustained before the hobson fight!!

bennie wrote:Sky Sports kept saying BOTH men were going for a Lonsdale belt outright - a rare oversight from researcher Bob Mee. Bruce Scott had already won a belt outright. He had a notch on the belt before new Board regulations came into effect in 1999 requiring four notches. Anyone who already had a notch prior to the new regulations, could win a Lonsdale Belt under the former ruling of three notches at one weight.

I'm glad, Scott deserves one.

You shuld have seen Hobsons left hand after the fight,bruised and swollen to fornicate, there was even a big bruise across hiss palm where his fingers had been digging in!He had three stiches in 2 cuts, 1 on the eyelid and the other on the brow!