How good of a judge is Harold Lederman?

[Exciterx30]

I have seen a pattern in many close but clear fights and that is that Lederman tends to favor the aggressor even if he is getting countered effectively. This is the fame that Vegas judges have, they like the fighter who presses the action. This is not always the best quality in a fighter because, after all, what good is it to go forward while getting hit cleanly by a good counterpuncher? I guess Lederman has the Vegas mentality being a New York judge.

The reason why I start this thread is because I just finished watching Carlos Quintana vs. Paul Williams and I can't believe Lederman scored 115-113 for Williams. That verges on ridiculous. I think the closest that fight could be scored was 115-113 Quintana. There have been other fights but I am not going to mention all of them.

Anyway, do you agree with his style of scoring on a regular basis?

[IronDanHamza]

Good enough to score Round 1 of Mayweather Vs. Jesus Chavez to Chavez.

[goblin213]

His scoring for the Kotelnik-Alexander fight was a joke.

Jim!

[JmH Reborn]

The worst with the same regurgitated lines every fight.

[markfrombrookly]

He's not a good judge at all. His daughter is way better then he is.

[LatinKing416]

these old geysers lederman, merchant etc.... they were good 20+ years ago... when their eyesight and ocular reflexes werent those of senile 80 year old men

thats why theyre mostly garbage now.... they cant see punches, all they can see is swings and knockdowns

[gauze]

it depends on whether or not the fighter hbo favors is actually winning the fight. if that fighter is losing...terrible judge.

[paulf]

He ain't what he used to be. His daughter always turns in a good scorecard, though

[ИATAS]

i think you pretty much summed it in that he consistently scores for the aggressor, which isn't always the right thing of course.

The other thing he says a lot is "I ask myself, who would I have rather been after the round" and that's who he scores it to. That's not how scoring works....at all. If fighter A gets nailed a few big times in a round, but absolutely dominated the rest of the round, albeit maybe not as big of hits, that doesn't mean fighter A lost the round just because Lederman rather have been the other guy. (if that makes sense)

[goblin213]

i think you pretty much summed it in that he consistently scores for the aggressor, which isn't always the right thing of course.

The other thing he says a lot is "I ask myself, who would I have rather been after the round" and that's who he scores it to. That's not how scoring works....at all. If fighter A gets nailed a few big times in a round, but absolutely dominated the rest of the round, albeit maybe not as big of hits, that doesn't mean fighter A lost the round just because Lederman rather have been the other guy. (if that makes sense)

Kellerman says that.