Scale of 1-10, how accurate do u find Harold Letterman??

Harold usually gives a round to the fighter who is just coming forward or the one who is trying to look cute in there.

I'd give him a 7... He's usualy good, but he tends to give the agressor much more credit than he deserves... He gave Chavez the first round, in his fight against Mayweather... That was pretty crazy if you ask me.

5 out of 10 Because there are fights when I agree with him on some things and there are fights that I wonder if we are watching the same fight.

I feel you but what he was saying was true, the way Hopkins was fighting wasn't overly crazy, he would hit, miss some land some then hold, however Winky was hitting him cleaner, his shots had more of a pop, they were premeditated shots while Bernard would pitter patter and try to find his way out of tough spots and it wasn't like Winky is at 154 where he could mount a better offense and defense, a weight he's used to ya dig he was at 170+ against Hopkins and clearly not even half the fighter he is 15-20 pounds lighter, Winky may not have LOOKED impressive but he landed clean blows and all Bernard would do is try to entertain the crowd, Harold wasn't letting the horse play of Bernard blind him like it did the crowd, he looked strictly at the punches, Winky's punches looked more intended than Bernard's pitter patter punching, holding and butting style.. Harold had good reason to say what he was saying, he calls shit down the line all the time, it wasn't like he had Winky winning it u feel me he had a draw so instead of 7-5 it was 6-6, some of them rounds were close and I could see how he scored it that way, Harold is good money with me, 9.5/10.. 100 I smell it, skillet, but other than the 1st 2 rnds, B-Hop won those 50/50 rnds on Ring Generalship, money! Even though X was backing up, it was clear it was a tactic, he even backed Winky up anytime he wanted to! As for that tying up sh*t, Lennox Lewis did the same sh*t to Mike, only difference is Mike got knocked the f@$k out, all that sh*t is tactics depending on who u fightin'. Winky was quoted as sayin "The sport is called Boxing not Knock Outs", pitty pats is scoring, & winning on points is boxing. Bottomline is Winky knew he had to bring the heat to take BHop's title(like Taylor), if u land a few clean joints & want to leave the rest to the judges...."SH*T HAPPENS"..Dig It?!?!:boxing:

the guy is off probably 60 % of the time. By far the most accurate scoring ive seen is from teddy atlas on espn fights Amen to that!! Truth is these trainers (Emmanual Stewart & Teddy Atlas) give a more detailed & all around clearer/unbiased score than the commentators or Harold!:boxing:

I'd give Harold a 9-9.5. There are very few rounds that Harrold and I actually disagree on. When I watch a fight that he's judging, I notice that once every two or three fights we will have a round or two that we don't score the same but, most of the time, we end up with the same score and the same rounds to the same fighters. Maybe it's because I've grown up watching him and my judging style was learned from him? Who knows, but the fact of the matter is that judging is totally subjective. Some judges score more for clean, less hard-hitting punches than they do for hard, thumping punches that don't connect so cleanly. Others rank aggressiveness, even if not effective, above ring generalship (I think that ring generalship is very important, second only to clean punching). I rank the criteria thusly: Clean Punching Ring Generalship Effective Aggressiveness Defense In the end, tho, the way I usually determine who wins a round is by imagining that I have to be in one of the fighter's shoes in the round that just ended. The fighter that I'd rather be obviously won the round as I wouldn't want to be the guy who got hit more or did worse. Can I just say - what a fucking good post.

below 1 ... He doesnt know shit

I wish I had a ringtone of when he reads the, "Unified rules of the association of BOXING commissions!!! There is NO three knockdown rule, ONLY the referee can stop the fight, in case a cut is caused by ACCIDENTAL headbutt, we go to the scorecards after FOUR rounds have been completed, and the you cannot be saved by the bell in ANY round, including, the twelfth and final round. JIM!!!" God that part of every fight is so fucking money. Very Funny. I was thinking the same thing.

He's not perfect, but he's a shit load better than a lot the judges working today. I think if we had 3 Lettermans judging fights there would be far less poor decisions. I give him a 8.5.

no good. 2/10. i can't believe he gave the first round to trinidad in the hopkins fight.... That's another one where I was like what the fuck is going on here?

no good. 2/10. i can't believe he gave the first round to trinidad in the hopkins fight....

I dunno, sometimes I just love him and the whole HBO crew, and sometimes its just like they all decided what to say before the fight started including the fight outcome and keep parroting the same shit (DLH/Mayweather, only Manny Steward was doing real analysis).

I like when he starts off with "ok Jim". I wish I had a ringtone of when he reads the, "Unified rules of the association of BOXING commissions!!! There is NO three knockdown rule, ONLY the referee can stop the fight, in case a cut is caused by ACCIDENTAL headbutt, we go to the scorecards after FOUR rounds have been completed, and the you cannot be saved by the bell in ANY round, including, the twelfth and final round. JIM!!!" God that part of every fight is so fucking money.

I like when he starts off with "ok Jim".

I'd say an 8, the one thing he does that I like is he'll admit when a round could of gone either way. That's a good pernt ( point )...I also say an 8 :biggthump

Do you need a lesson on statistics? Would that meen 7/10? LOL :rolleyes: do you need a map?

i'd give him a 7 or an 8. hes usually spot on, but sometimes he can get some pretty stupid scores. he gave the 1st round of the wlad/byrd rematch to byrd cuz of byrd's "effective body punches". that was some never-forgive action, right there.

Probably about a 4... he has botched too many one-sided rounds for me to respect him. The one example that just made me want to never hear his scorecard again was Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Jesus Chavez round 1. Jim Lampley's quote went something like this when they announced Harold's scorecard: "Chavez charged straight ahead and threw a ton of punches but missed most of them. He was 6 of 92 in the round. Mayweather took his time, and picked his shots, landing 23 of 56. Umm, I see Harold Lederman gave the round to Chavez." Later in the fight Jim Lampley said something like this, "Harold, did you give Chavez round 1? Okay, that's all I needed to know." He babbled some shit about effective aggressiveness, blah, blah, blah. Sweet job Harold.

Barrera v. Marquez was an easy fight to judge for the most part. Two evenly matched fighters that showed no difference in ability to find each other with their punches. There was only one distinguishable difference between the two fighters. Ring Generalship. MAB showed clear cut dominance in the Ring Generalship department. Marquez moved when MAB wanted Marquez to move. Marquez came forward when MAB wanted Marquez to come forward. Marquez went backwards when MAB wanted Marquez to go backwards. Not the other way around. How a person scored Barrera v. Marquez in large part shows their ability to properly factor Ring Generalship into their scoring. If you are blind to Ring Generalship, you had a hard time scoring the fight. If you had the bout as a wide margin for Marquez, you demonstrated lack of sight for ring generalship and a tenancy to show bias towards your favorite fighter. With that said, I do not believe many judges know how to score fights correctly. I think Harold for the most part scores fights accurately. Some times, however, you can clearly see personal bias in his scores. Good point! No offense to Lederman worshippers but his scores differs from the scores of the official judges most of the time. So if 10 is accurate, I'd give him a 4. The only good thing about his scoring is the way he explain why he scored it that way.

the guy is off probably 60 % of the time. By far the most accurate scoring ive seen is from teddy atlas on espn fights