Page 1 of 1
Chuck Giampa retires
Posted: 29 Apr 2008, 19:47
by stujones
One of the most well known Judges for the big ones - Chuck Giampa has called it a day to persue a career as a boxing consult and columist.
Giampa I noticed really tended to support the agressive fighter. His card for the Ibragimov vs Klitchsko fight was too close for more liking.
Of course, his last big one was Calzaghe vs Hopkins - and he scored it 116-111 to Joe.
Posted: 29 Apr 2008, 20:31
by Hagler2002
Good Ridance.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: Chuck Giampa retires
Posted: 29 Apr 2008, 22:11
by observer1
stujones wrote:One of the most well known Judges for the big ones - Chuck Giampa has called it a day to persue a career as a boxing consult and columist.
Giampa I noticed really tended to support the agressive fighter. His card for the Ibragimov vs Klitchsko fight was too close for more liking.
Of course, his last big one was Calzaghe vs Hopkins - and he scored it 116-111 to Joe.
to this day, i dont now how he gave it 116-111.
Get the feelin he wont be missed
Re: Chuck Giampa retires
Posted: 29 Apr 2008, 22:15
by Horse
observer1 wrote:to this day, i dont now how he gave it 116-111
It was only a week ago, don't act like you have been trying to come to terms with it for years.
Re: Chuck Giampa retires
Posted: 29 Apr 2008, 22:53
by observer1
Horse wrote:observer1 wrote:to this day, i dont now how he gave it 116-111
It was only a week ago, don't act like you have been trying to come to terms with it for years.
haha true.
but still, you know now how bad i was shocked he gave it 116-111.
I meant it maybe some time down the line, if, IF i look back, i will think...wow
Posted: 30 Apr 2008, 07:15
by Poncey
Didn't he judge Holyfield v Lewis 1 as well?
Posted: 30 Apr 2008, 08:11
by Max Molyneux
Actually that was a good score, no way was It close, Hopkins threw little and cheated the rest of the way.
Posted: 30 Apr 2008, 08:30
by Poncey
Agreed. I had it Joe by 1.
Posted: 30 Apr 2008, 08:34
by Poncey
Terry D wrote:Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:Agreed. I had it Joe by 1.
I had Hopkins 2 up. I really thought the decision was going the other way on the proviso that Rambling and Woodhall had it close and you could knock 2 points of their cards and add them to Hopkins' total.
Watching the fight again Hopkins landed some very clean shot whilst they muttered over them.
Why can't commentators talk about the in-ring action anymore
Would you really want them to for that fight; "Hopkins in a clinch, Joe's now slapping Hopkins, ooh in the ghoulies".
Posted: 30 Apr 2008, 08:51
by Poncey
Terry D wrote:Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:Terry D wrote:
I had Hopkins 2 up. I really thought the decision was going the other way on the proviso that Rambling and Woodhall had it close and you could knock 2 points of their cards and add them to Hopkins' total.
Watching the fight again Hopkins landed some very clean shot whilst they muttered over them.
Why can't commentators talk about the in-ring action anymore
Would you really want them to for that fight; "Hopkins in a clinch, Joe's now slapping Hopkins, ooh in the ghoulies".
No but why not shut the hell up until something happens. Currently we get this when there is a lull:
"You know Ritchie Calzaghe has beaten all these great names in the past but tonight he is really excelling himself and I am reminded of the time when (ten minutes pass along these lines)...Calzaghe has knocked his opponent out! It happened five minutes ago but I was waffling along and did not notice. Ritchie, was it a punch that did it? Yes. Ok. I'll continue with my pointless story."
They miss so much of the in-ring action, clean shots go unnoticed as they discuss the rounds that have gone into the bank or the state of the nation in general.
This is a not a pop at Rambling, it is a blanket problem. On the old tapes you think the guy has died then you get "Joe Louis lands a right hand and left hook and his opponent holds." Then silence until something else happens. Not meandering gossip that is best left for the pre-fight studio guys.
Actually, that's a good point. There was one round in the latter half of the fight where there was about 20 seconds of silence which I thought was weird.
I honestly think I could do a better job, with a stutter and a mouthful of oranges.
Posted: 30 Apr 2008, 09:37
by stujones
I know there were big time vibes going on before the announcement that it was a split decision to Calzaghe.... but when Michael Buffer read "and Chuck Giampa scores the bout 116-111" - I thought, Hopkins has got it.
It was a close fight, but it was bemusing how Calzaghe could get 116 after scoring an 8 in the first round.
I was looking at his cards... he does seem to have a favourite style and stick by it. His cards always seem to be different. Its not necessarily the aggressor - but he has his style he likes to watch that evening, and sticks by it.
He had the widest card for Mayweather vs DLH (infavour of Mayweather) - he gave Ibragimov way too many rounds vs Klitchsko. Scored the Ngougjio vs Castillo fight in favour of Ngougjio.
No I don't think he wll be missed.
Posted: 01 May 2008, 07:00
by WildWaylon
He obviously prefers fighters who want to box and didnt like Hopkins mauling tactics. Hopkins should have lost points for holding and as the ref didnt deduct points Giampa gave the rounds to Joe. American judges are well known for preferring fighters who come forward. Maybe his score was a bit wide but this sort of fighting is usually only associated with HWs and is horrible to watch. Hopkins didnt deserve to win and I am glad he didnt. Fair play to Giampa for giving the fight to Calzaghe.
Posted: 01 May 2008, 17:40
by steve689
He won't be missed although Ponce De Leon might miss him.
Wasn't he one of the clowns that scored his win over Penalosa something like 119-109?! His preference for the aggressor was notorious.
Posted: 01 May 2008, 19:41
by stujones
steve689 wrote:He won't be missed although Ponce De Leon might miss him.
Wasn't he one of the clowns that scored his win over Penalosa something like 119-109?! His preference for the aggressor was notorious.
Except it would seem for DLH vs Mayweather.
Did he score the Mosley vs DLH rematch?
Posted: 02 May 2008, 04:50
by DavidPayne
Commentators have forgotten the power of silence.
Darkie talking over the Hopkins ring walk versus DLH or Eastman or some such was the worst.
One bar opf My Way cam eout, and rather than let us soak up the atmos...Dark spoke all over it explaining why he chose that song.
It's 5am, I've been up all night for a Hopkins fight....I AM NOT A CASUAL FAN!!!!!!!1
Posted: 02 May 2008, 05:08
by Lenny
It's not just boxing, it seems that no matter what the sport, commentators seem to think people watching will fall asleep/lose interest/collapse into a coma, if they don't talk continuously. Football, rugby, snooker, people have tuned in to watch the sport not listen to the commentary.
Although the Americans have it worst, 4/5 commentators for a fight just in case there is the slightest danger of having a moments silence.
One day there will be an option to turn off the commentary but keep the crowd noises, please
Posted: 02 May 2008, 05:26
by DavidPayne
I'd like to be able to select Radio 5 commentary over the top of the images.....
Posted: 02 May 2008, 05:48
by Poncey
DavidPayne wrote:
It's 5am, I've been up all night for a Hopkins fight....
I share your pain.
Posted: 02 May 2008, 06:13
by Asterix
Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:DavidPayne wrote:
It's 5am, I've been up all night for a Hopkins fight....
I share your pain.
For Calzaghe vs Hopkins I went to sleep early and then woke up for the fight. It worked really well and I'm going to do that again for every 2-5am fight.
Posted: 02 May 2008, 08:36
by jamesmcdonnell
Terry D wrote:Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:Terry D wrote:
I had Hopkins 2 up. I really thought the decision was going the other way on the proviso that Rambling and Woodhall had it close and you could knock 2 points of their cards and add them to Hopkins' total.
Watching the fight again Hopkins landed some very clean shot whilst they muttered over them.
Why can't commentators talk about the in-ring action anymore
Would you really want them to for that fight; "Hopkins in a clinch, Joe's now slapping Hopkins, ooh in the ghoulies".
No but why not shut the hell up until something happens. Currently we get this when there is a lull:
"You know Ritchie Calzaghe has beaten all these great names in the past but tonight he is really excelling himself and I am reminded of the time when (ten minutes pass along these lines)...Calzaghe has knocked his opponent out! It happened five minutes ago but I was waffling along and did not notice. Ritchie, was it a punch that did it? Yes. Ok. I'll continue with my pointless story."
They miss so much of the in-ring action, clean shots go unnoticed as they discuss the rounds that have gone into the bank or the state of the nation in general.
This is a not a pop at Rambling, it is a blanket problem. On the old tapes you think the guy has died then you get "Joe Louis lands a right hand and left hook and his opponent holds." Then silence until something else happens. Not meandering gossip that is best left for the pre-fight studio guys.
I thought that Reg Gutteridge and Harry Carpenter had the right balance, some nice asides, background and anecdotes, and a good preamble, but actually did some blow by blow commentary.
It's something which seems to have afflicted all sports commentary.
Personally I blame Peter Aliss and Richie Benaud (Or parker from Thunderbirds), their rambling bollocks has swept the board.
Re: Chuck Giampa retires
Posted: 02 May 2008, 10:02
by scurlaruntings
stujones wrote:One of the most well known Judges for the big ones - Chuck Giampa has called it a day to persue a career as a boxing consult and columist.
Giampa I noticed really tended to support the agressive fighter. His card for the Ibragimov vs Klitchsko fight was too close for more liking.
Of course, his last big one was Calzaghe vs Hopkins - and he scored it 116-111 to Joe.
Thank god. How on earth Giampa scored it 116-111 to is beyond me.
