Adamek vs Cunningham II was a RAZOR CLOSE drawish kind of fight.

[BRITISH LlON]

I just finished watching Adamek vs Cunningham II, cause I didn't have time yesterday. But I checked boxingscene yesterday and saw how everybody said it was a clear robbery and at least a 8 rounds to 4 victory for Cunningham.
Now after scoring the fight, I have to strongly disagree with the opinion of most pple here. Because the fight was RAZOR CLOSE from start to finish and I scored it for Cunningham by only 1 point and I can see a draw as well.
I gave Adamek rounds 5,6,8 and 9
I gave Cunningham rounds 2,3,4,10 and 12
I scored rounds 1,7 and 11 a draw.

I agree though that the fact that Michael Buffer announced the fight as a draw at first and then changed it to an Adamek win was very shady to say the least.
That being said, it was a very close fight and Cunningham might have edged it. And I remember one thing during watching the NBC broadcast: at the beginning of the 12th round commentator Freddie Roach said he has it dead even and that the winner of this (last) round wins the fight. I looked on my scorecard and I had it exactly the same: 4 rounds each with 3 rounds even and then I felt Cunningham edged the last round.

So no way was it a "robbery" or "at least a 8 rounds to 4" win for Cunningham.

[BRITISH LlON]

seriously, what is it about? Cunningham is in a razor close fight and doesn't get the decision and everybody cries robbery cause he didn't get the decision on american soil?
If Cunningham vs Adamek II was a "big robbery", then Mayweather vs Cotto was a HIGHWAY robbery

[UnicornGirl]

Look Adamek is nothing more than a C Class fighter.

But it was a close fight, they hating cuz Adamek is Euro and Cunny is American. It is what it is.

Adamek still got wobbled by a range finder jab though and would get brutally koed by Haye.

[PACnPBFsuck]

When press row, the announcers and people in forums have it for Cunningham at over 95%, and Adamek wins with a 3 and 4 round advantage on 2 score cards, what do you call that?

[BRITISH LlON]

Originally Posted by PACnPBFsuck

When press row, the announcers and people in forums have it for Cunningham at over 95%, and Adamek wins with a 3 and 4 round advantage on 2 score cards, what do you call that?

I don't know how the press scored it, but I heard 3 pple commentating on the NBC broadcast and they had it the way I saw it: as a razor close fight, a draw or a close Cunningham victory.
Anybody who wants to tell me Cunningham "clearly" won this fight, doesn't know what he is talking about.
Almost every round was very very close.
EDIT: now I watched press scores from here: http://fightscorecollector.blogspot.co.at/
almost EVERYBODY from the press who scored it for Cunningham, had it 115:113 which is 7 rounds to 5 which is VERY CLOSE.
I also had it for Cunningham, but only by 1 point.
So I have no problem with anybody scoring it 115:113, but those people who cry robbery and say it was at least 8 rounds to 4 are ....well....

[ElBossHogg™]

Originally Posted by BRITISH LlON

I don't know how the press scored it, but I heard 3 pple commentating on the NBC broadcast and they had it the way I saw it: as a razor close fight, a draw or a close Cunningham victory.
Anybody who wants to tell me Cunningham "clearly" won this fight, doesn't know what he is talking about.
Almost every round was very very close.
EDIT: now I watched press scores from here: http://fightscorecollector.blogspot.co.at/
almost EVERYBODY from the press who scored it for Cunningham, had it 115:113 which is 7 rounds to 5 which is VERY CLOSE.
I also had it for Cunningham, but only by 1 point.
So I have no problem with anybody scoring it 115:113, but those people who cry robbery and say it was at least 8 rounds to 4 are ....well....

just because it is 7-5 dont mean it close means it was fair matched bout where their was a winner.

[PACnPBFsuck]

Originally Posted by BRITISH LlON

I don't know how the press scored it, but I heard 3 pple commentating on the NBC broadcast and they had it the way I saw it: as a razor close fight, a draw or a close Cunningham victory.
Anybody who wants to tell me Cunningham "clearly" won this fight, doesn't know what he is talking about.
Almost every round was very very close.
EDIT: now I watched press scores from here: http://fightscorecollector.blogspot.co.at/
almost EVERYBODY from the press who scored it for Cunningham, had it 115:113 which is 7 rounds to 5 which is VERY CLOSE.
I also had it for Cunningham, but only by 1 point.
So I have no problem with anybody scoring it 115:113, but those people who cry robbery and say it was at least 8 rounds to 4 are ....well....

7-5 or 8-4 Cunningham is acceptable, there's no scenario that you can make for Adamek winning that fight and then to have him winning 8-4, is a slap in the face.

[Earl Hickey]

couldn't give a ****, the pair of them are worthless and not going anywhere.

Hardly going to send shockwaves through boxing is it

[BRITISH LlON]

Originally Posted by ElBossHogg™

just because it is 7-5 dont mean it close means it was fair matched bout where their was a winner.

well there are different kinds of "7 rounds to 5- fights".
There was e.g. Malignaggi vs Juan Diaz I which was in my opinion a fight in which Malignaggi pretty clearly won 7 rounds and Juan Diaz pretty clearly won 5 rounds. So I agree in that fight it was wrong to give Diaz the win.
But when you look at Cunningham vs Adamek II, then you can see that there were almost no rounds which one fighter clearly won cause all of them were pretty much razor close.
So in a close fight like that, I really cannot understand the argument that it was a robbery, even if I would have scored it 7 rounds to 5 for Cunningham (which I didn't)

[The Weebler II]

Originally Posted by Earl Hickey

couldn't give a ****, the pair of them are worthless and not going anywhere.

Hardly going to send shockwaves through boxing is it

It gives the US a semi-credible heavyweight. Adamek is ranked at No.3 by RING.