BoxRec

Gents,

I in no way think Clinton Woods won that fight. I had Johnson miles-ahead by half-way but fade down the stretch.

114-114

Yours? Best wishes,

"T.M.K"

I had Johnson 7-5. Woods clearly won the last 3 rounds.

1 - Johnson 10-9
2 - Johnso 10-9
3 - Woods 10-9
4 - Johnson 10-9
5 - Johnson 10-9
6 - Johnson 10-9
7 - Woods - 10-9
8 - Woods - 10-9
9 - Johnson - 10-9
10 - Woods - 10-9
11 - Woods - 10-9
12 - Woods - 10-9

Total 114-114.

I thought it was a pretty easy fight to score. I had it 114-114. Clinton saved it with the last 3.

115-114 Woods.

In my mind it was definitely close, but definitely a win for Woods. He showed he deserved to win in the 12th and all credit to him.

Well done Woods!!!!

Either fighter by 2 rounds seems good to me, very close, gruelling fight!

Cannibal wrote:I thought it was a pretty easy fight to score. I had it 114-114. Clinton saved it with the last 3.

Yep, only the 2nd and how you score the 9th were the debatable things.

116-112 Woods seems too big.

I had it Johnson by 114-113.

stujones wrote:1 - Johnson 10-9
2 - Johnso 10-9
3 - Woods 10-9
4 - Johnson 10-9
5 - Johnson 10-9
6 - Johnson 10-9
7 - Woods - 10-9
8 - Woods - 10-9
9 - Johnson - 10-9
10 - Woods - 10-9
11 - Woods - 10-9
12 - Woods - 10-9

Total 114-114.

yeah that's about right.

i gave woods the 2nd but it was very debateable.

7-5 woods on my card.

I had it 114-114 Woods definately won the last three rounds. I scored round 9 10-9 for Johnson but it could have been 10-8.

This shows everything that is wrong with the sport. Ex World Champion boxers that say the fight was nip and tuck after 7 rounds when I had Johnson at least 5 rounds ahead. Turn the commentary off and watch that fight and there is doubt that the old fella marching forward landing bigger punches against the limited Sheffield lad, had done more than enough. I remember why I am so pissed off with this utterly stupid political game that has become boxing. BTW Calzhaghe would have made mince meat of both these fighters IN THE SAME NIGHT.

Well let's see what the prodigal son Amir Khan does to redeem the situation.

115-114 Woods

Had Johnson 2 up goin in to the 10th

Woods won the last 3 too nick it by 1

I know what you mean how sometimes you are SURE you see a fight a certain way, but you cant take the first minute off of a round withput thrwing A SINGLE PUNCH over three times in the fight and expect to win the majority of the rounds.

His aggression was not effective enough.

Razor wrote:115-114 Woods

Had Johnson 2 up goin in to the 10th

Woods won the last 3 too nick it by 1

Exactly the same as you mate!! Kudos

SticknMove wrote:This shows everything that is wrong with the sport. Ex World Champion boxers that say the fight was nip and tuck after 7 rounds when I had Johnson at least 5 rounds ahead. Turn the commentary off and watch that fight and there is doubt that the old fella marching forward landing bigger punches against the limited Sheffield lad, had done more than enough. I remember why I am so pissed off with this utterly stupid political game that has become boxing. BTW Calzhaghe would have made mince meat of both these fighters IN THE SAME NIGHT.

Well let's see what the prodigal son Amir Khan does to redeem the situation.

I do agree with you in some respects, although my score card had it a draw - by the end of the 6th I thought only Johnson needed one more round to get a draw. On my card, he only got one.

However, McKenzie and Rawling were saying its nip and tuck at the end of the 6th and could be anyones. They had Woods up by the end of the 8th (they said they agree with Joe). But it was again anyones fight by the start of the 12th.

If they had the fight level by the half way stage, then they should have had it Woods by 5.

T.M.K wrote:Gents,

I in no way think Clinton Woods won that fight. I had Johnson miles-ahead by half-way but fade down the stretch.

114-114

Yours? Best wishes,

"T.M.K"

I had it for Johnson 114-113

A draw not out of the question

But didnt have Clinton winning.

Still he and Dennis Hobson are good guys, and deserve their glory

Glen Johnsons a nice guy too.

Clinton winning. 7-5 sounds right. He's more than earned that decision. To hear ppl saying Johnson was robbed is preposterous.

No way did Johnson do enough. You can't win rounds by landing only a few power shots & you can't win rds just by taking a good minute. A lot of rds, Woods boxed carefully, took the first min, Johnsion then hammers him with rights, then Woods adjusts & outworks him in the last min.

SticknMove wrote:This shows everything that is wrong with the sport. Ex World Champion boxers that say the fight was nip and tuck after 7 rounds when I had Johnson at least 5 rounds ahead. Turn the commentary off and watch that fight and there is doubt that the old fella marching forward landing bigger punches against the limited Sheffield lad, had done more than enough. I remember why I am so pissed off with this utterly stupid political game that has become boxing. BTW Calzhaghe would have made mince meat of both these fighters IN THE SAME NIGHT.

Well let's see what the prodigal son Amir Khan does to redeem the situation.

muckraker

if Johnson would've got it, there would be a real outcry.

that was a great fight.

'limited sheffield lad'? He had a monster with a clever right hand coming at him non stop. Yet he took the man's best, adjusted, came back & outworked him. That's the stuff of champions.

how anyone can try & drag this down is pathetic. close fight and woods took over whe it counted.

even Cuellar said whoever wins the 12th wins the fight

needed the last 3 - won them. well done son, deserved it. respect to GJ.

stujones wrote: 1 - Johnson 10-9
2 - Johnso 10-9
3 - Woods 10-9
4 - Johnson 10-9
5 - Johnson 10-9
6 - Johnson 10-9
7 - Woods - 10-9
8 - Woods - 10-9
9 - Johnson - 10-9
10 - Woods - 10-9
11 - Woods - 10-9
12 - Woods - 10-9

Total 114-114.

Spot On

Glad I am not the only one who thought the commentators were miles off. I was getting ready to have the piss-taken on here for having Johnson winning 5 of the first 6.....I should have been braver! :)

Mr Jones, you are invited to watch the fights at my house in future!

best wishes,

"T.M.K"

6-5-1 woods OR 7-5 woods

when johnson needed to win the rounds to sweep the fight, he couldnt even lift his arms

I cannot believe that ppl are calling this a "controversy".

IMO ppl had already made their mind up that Clinton would get a "home decision" when they never even investigated the politics of the situation that favoured Glen.

Also, a lot of ppl find it hard to believe that a Brit can beat an American (albeit via Jamaica). If you wipe out an American you beat a bum. If you win a close fight it means you lost.

Generic & predictable nonsense.

Another deserved loss for Glen, alongside Ottke, Harmon, Sheika & Sosa.

Accept it, mon

viciousmaussa wrote:I cannot believe that ppl are calling this a "controversy".

IMO ppl had already made their mind up that Clinton would get a "home decision" when they never even investigated the politics of the situation that favoured Glen.

Also, a lot of ppl find it hard to believe that a Brit can beat an American (albeit via Jamaica). If you wipe out an American you beat a bum. If you win a close fight it means you lost.

Generic & predictable nonsense.

Another deserved loss for Glen, alongside Ottke, Harmon, Sheika & Sosa.

Accept it, mon

VM, I agree with your points - but I haven't seen anyone on the British forum call it a robbery. Even those who scored it a draw or for Johnson can see why it was scored for Woods.

I cannot see how a 4 round verdict for Woods could be scored, but the fight was so close it could have gone either way.

I do stand by my view though that this shows that Woods' improvement has been greatly exagerated. For men, Johnson only won the 2nd meeting by 7-5. So I don't think giving Woods an extra round is a sign of major improvment.

WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS WHY ON EARTH DID NONE OF THE THREE SCORE CARDS INDICATE A CLOSE FIGHT oh for heavens sake i HATE caps lock it betrays me at every turn... but together the scorecards indicated a close affair.

How none of them had it thinner than a 3point margin seems so odd to me.

stujones wrote:

viciousmaussa wrote:I cannot believe that ppl are calling this a "controversy".

IMO ppl had already made their mind up that Clinton would get a "home decision" when they never even investigated the politics of the situation that favoured Glen.

Also, a lot of ppl find it hard to believe that a Brit can beat an American (albeit via Jamaica). If you wipe out an American you beat a bum. If you win a close fight it means you lost.

Generic & predictable nonsense.

Another deserved loss for Glen, alongside Ottke, Harmon, Sheika & Sosa.

Accept it, mon

VM, I agree with your points - but I haven't seen anyone on the British forum call it a robbery. Even those who scored it a draw or for Johnson can see why it was scored for Woods.

I cannot see how a 4 round verdict for Woods could be scored, but the fight was so close it could have gone either way.

I do stand by my view though that this shows that Woods' improvement has been greatly exagerated. For men, Johnson only won the 2nd meeting by 7-5. So I don't think giving Woods an extra round is a sign of major improvment.

Woods put in way more offense. He risked more & he put more on the line that fight 1 & 2. At time he paced rounds clever and showed his ring generalship. At some points he was able to outhuislte GJ inside & now & agin push him back. He nevre did any of that before. So the improement IS there. he had to risk more to win. I think Johnson fought very well & to beat Johnson, to find ways round his aggression, is a big thing.

Also, he wasn't able to take overe the champ rounds in the other fights.

Far better quality of fight than before.