Devon Alexander run off opponents

Devon has been facing top fighters in his decisions but has look far from impressive. The Bradley fight was an embarassment and Mathysse won that fight. Im in the minority that gave him a slight edge in the Kotelnik fight cause of the body punching tru-out the fight. I favor Maidana in this fight

While i take your point As a fan I've felt that sense of robbery when a guy you know did something special gets bumped out of his win, boxing is brutal so when the underdog doesnt lay down and gives us something unexpected then I like to see him get his due... maybe thats just me. On judging - I agree that judging is often very subjective.... But I DONT believe this is a good thing... we need the fans, the crowd to keep these things in check.... terms like effective agression, and cleaner crisper punches should mean something in ALL fights if the sport is too have any credibility. Although a close fight is what it is... I've seen some of socrecards afterwards and I wonder WTF some of them were thinking. I understand completely, and really this has been the sports biggest problem since they decided to shorten the amount of rounds in a fight for safety reasons. I'm not trying to say judging in boxing is perfect, because it's not and IMO it needs to be changed. However, I am just making the argument for what scoring in boxing is right now. We can hate it all we want, but it is what it is. The problem we run into is judging in itself is always gray, while fans like things to be black and white, so in reality as long as there is some kind of judging in the sport people will always find ways to be upset. As for your first point, I think that's a good assessment and I really think this is why people on here feel so strongly about the Kotelnik fight in particular. I think a lot of thinking is "The underdog showed up and the favorite looked less then stellar so clearly the favorite lost". Hell, Max Kellerman even made this point ringside on the broadcast following the decision. It's crazy how much of our psyche affects how we see things, especially in boxing.

His only argument for absurdly scoring so many rounds for Alexander was that Alexander was a lot more punches. Throwing a lot of punches doesn't win a fight, and no credible judge would ever say a guy is winning because he is throwing more punches. Defending Lederman's scorecard for that fight is wrong. There is no argument for scoring Kotelnik-Alexander for Alexander. Disagree completely, Lederman said Devon was the busier fighter who controlled the pace of the fight, and had more ring generalship. He also said he was landing more cleaner punches. You may disagree with this statement, but myself and a lot of other people (including all 3 ringside judges) did. Thus not a robbery. Are you gonna tell me Lederman was roped into it being Alexander's home town? Something he has proven time and time again not to be the case? Beyond this argument people on here need to realize scoring a fight at home is much different than scoring a fight from ringside. Judges only see so much from ringside, that's why there's always 3 judges at 3 different sides of the ring. Also different judges like different things. Different judges score different types of punches. Some judges like ring generalship more, some like defense more, some want something else entirely, the list goes on and on. IT'S A SUBJECTIVE SCIENCE, there is no fact only guiding criteria.

Stepping up in competition is nice and all but robbing those fighters doesn't command much respect.

This right here show you know nothing about the science of judging fights. The only people who discredit Lederman are internet tough guy fools who know little about boxing. He is a knowledgeable man, who would run circles around anyone on here when it comes to knowledge of the sweet science. I think your missing the point, just because you don't believe the argument doesn't mean one can't be made. Lederman made an educated argument for why Devon was winning the fight, thus one could be made for Devon winning. Now, like any educated argument you don't have to believe it. Like I said different judges like different things, thus the differences in scoring amongst professional judges. I really think people on here should study the science of scoring a fight because it's clear most of you don't get it, let alone understand the difference between judging a fight ring side and judging a fight at home. While i take your point As a fan I've felt that sense of robbery when a guy you know did something special gets bumped out of his win, boxing is brutal so when the underdog doesnt lay down and gives us something unexpected then I like to see him get his due... maybe thats just me. On judging - I agree that judging is often very subjective.... But I DONT believe this is a good thing... we need the fans, the crowd to keep these things in check.... terms like effective agression, and cleaner crisper punches should mean something in ALL fights if the sport is too have any credibility. Although a close fight is what it is... I've seen some of socrecards afterwards and I wonder WTF some of them were thinking.

This right here show you know nothing about the science of judging fights. The only people who discredit Lederman are internet tough guy fools who know little about boxing. He is a knowledgeable man, who would run circles around anyone on here when it comes to knowledge of the sweet science. I think your missing the point, just because you don't believe the argument doesn't mean one can't be made. Lederman made an educated argument for why Devon was winning the fight, thus one could be made for Devon winning. Now, like any educated argument you don't have to believe it. Like I said different judges like different things, thus the differences in scoring amongst professional judges. I really think people on here should study the science of scoring a fight because it's clear most of you don't get it, let alone understand the difference between judging a fight ring side and judging a fight at home. His only argument for absurdly scoring so many rounds for Alexander was that Alexander was a lot more punches. Throwing a lot of punches doesn't win a fight, and no credible judge would ever say a guy is winning because he is throwing more punches. Defending Lederman's scorecard for that fight is wrong. There is no argument for scoring Kotelnik-Alexander for Alexander.

The fact that you referenced Harold Lederman immediately kills your credibility. This right here show you know nothing about the science of judging fights. The only people who discredit Lederman are internet tough guy fools who know little about boxing. He is a knowledgeable man, who would run circles around anyone on here when it comes to knowledge of the sweet science. Lederman's scorecard for that fight was the worst I've ever seen from him. There is no argument for Alexander winning more than 5 rounds in either fight, which means he had no argument for winning, and when a guy that has no argument for winning wins, a robbery was involved. I think your missing the point, just because you don't believe the argument doesn't mean one can't be made. Lederman made an educated argument for why Devon was winning the fight, thus one could be made for Devon winning. Now, like any educated argument you don't have to believe it. Like I said different judges like different things, thus the differences in scoring amongst professional judges. I really think people on here should study the science of scoring a fight because it's clear most of you don't get it, let alone understand the difference between judging a fight ring side and judging a fight at home.

When you keep losing fights, you have to fight good fighters to stay relevant. And not "win" hometown decisions.

Jesus, people on here really need to learn the difference between a close decision not going the way you scored it and a robbery. An argument can be made for either fighter winning both of the fights, thus not a robbery. In fact the arguments have been made by several boxing experts who had Alexander winning those fights or for him losing them. Hell, Harold Lederman made the argument during the entire fight against Kotelnik for Alexander winning it. Judging in boxing is subjective, meaning it's up to the individual judge. There is no fact or absolute correct way to score a fight, rather criteria that help guide scoring. Different judges like different things, that's just how it is. Yes, judges get it wrong sometimes (i.e. robberies), but usually it's just a difference of opinion. It's all perspective, you don't have to like it, but that's how it is. Lederman's scorecard for that fight was the worst I've ever seen from him. There is no argument for Alexander winning more than 5 rounds in either fight, which means he had no argument for winning, and when a guy that has no argument for winning wins, a robbery was involved.

Jesus, people on here really need to learn the difference between a close decision not going the way you scored it and a robbery. An argument can be made for either fighter winning both of the fights, thus not a robbery. In fact the arguments have been made by several boxing experts who had Alexander winning those fights or for him losing them. Hell, Harold Lederman made the argument during the entire fight against Kotelnik for Alexander winning it. Judging in boxing is subjective, meaning it's up to the individual judge. There is no fact or absolute correct way to score a fight, rather criteria that help guide scoring. Different judges like different things, that's just how it is. Yes, judges get it wrong sometimes (i.e. robberies), but usually it's just a difference of opinion. It's all perspective, you don't have to like it, but that's how it is. The fact that you referenced Harold Lederman immediately kills your credibility.

Jesus, people on here really need to learn the difference between a close decision not going the way you scored it and a robbery. An argument can be made for either fighter winning both of the fights, thus not a robbery. In fact the arguments have been made by several boxing experts who had Alexander winning those fights or for him losing them. Hell, Harold Lederman made the argument during the entire fight against Kotelnik for Alexander winning it. Judging in boxing is subjective, meaning it's up to the individual judge. There is no fact or absolute correct way to score a fight, rather criteria that help guide scoring. Different judges like different things, that's just how it is. Yes, judges get it wrong sometimes (i.e. robberies), but usually it's just a difference of opinion. It's all perspective, you don't have to like it, but that's how it is.

If Maidana does KO it will probably go down as a draw. The ref will say it was a headbutt like the Martinez-Cintron fight.

Devon's next fight is once again in his backyard in St. Louis, so Maidana has to KO him to get the win. If Maidana does KO it will probably go down as a draw.

I have no response to the ALexander question, other than he's gotten some gift decisions in close fights, and that's why people don't like him. Also, people were calling him the nex great thing and he hasn't lived up to that at all. In regards to Froch, he should have lost to Andre Dirrell as well.

Up there with Lara vs Williams ( not as bad but close enough) i was actually in disbelief when they announced the decision. I was posting on here about how awesome Matthysse vs Khan/Maidana/Bradley was going to be but then Devon gets the gift win. Disgraceful moment for Boxing, makes the sport look bad IMO. I gave Devon 2 or 3 rounds max plus he lost a round 10-8. There was literally no way Devon could have won that fight. it was flat out disgusting. i shut it off when they announced his name.

No doubt it's a good run of fighters but he deserved to lose against Matthysse, Kotelnik and did lose to Bradley

Carl Froch reguarly gets lauded on here for his run off opponents and rightfully so but why then all Devon gets is being called a ***** by some 30year old who still lives with his mom.You may not like some of the decisions but give hime credit for fighting the best Last 6 After Maidana Maidana Matthysse Bradley Kotelnik Urango Witter Might not be as good as Frochs but still deserves credit for fighting good fighters and i dont like Chino fight for 10 rounds but Maidana's latest ever KO was in the 8th the majority are 4th or before A great run of good fighters, but in reality he has lost 3 on the trot by getting two hometown gift decisions. Lets hope the same thing doesn't happen against Maidana. And the performance against Bradley was abysmal.

I have nothing again Devon, i use to think he was an all time great for the future but one of the thing that pisses me off about him his his trainer, That guy is just some ghetto like trainer who i just cant stand, For me whether he got gift decision is irrelevant, he still went out there after those gifts and seek out formidable fights, With other fighters they would have probably seek easy/winnable fights. Agree with everything in this post regardless of how his fights have gone he is gunning for the best.Devon seems like a nice guy its Cunningham who does alot of **** talking and it seems to come back on Devon

You sir, are either absolutely insane or have no idea how to score a fight if you think the Matthysse & Kotelnik fights were clear losses for Alexander. Both fights were close and competitive and could've went either way. RE-read boxing's scoring criteria and go back and watch both fights without letting message board groupthink cloud your judgement. Like i said, there's a big difference between winning disputed decisions against washed up fighters then there is against prime opponents at the top of their game. Do you acknowledge the fact that Kotelnik & Matthysse are vastly superior opponents and a level above a washed up Morales & washed up Chop Chop? And i think you need double check your source(s) vis-a-vis Maidana/Kotelnik. Kotelnik won seven clear rounds, which without knockdowns means he won, without debate. There's no legit way to score that fight for Alexander. Same with Matthysse, he won at least 5, with which the knockdown gives him the win, and there's no legit way to score 6 or more rounds for Alexander. So no debate, Alexander lost both. And my bad on Kotelnik-Maidana, I don't know why I thought Maidana got the decision.

Carl Froch reguarly gets lauded on here for his run off opponents and rightfully so but why then all Devon gets is being called a ***** by some 30year old who still lives with his mom.You may not like some of the decisions but give hime credit for fighting the best Last 6 After Maidana Maidana Matthysse Bradley Kotelnik Urango Witter Might not be as good as Frochs but still deserves credit for fighting good fighters and i dont like Chino fight for 10 rounds but Maidana's latest ever KO was in the 8th the majority are 4th or before Maidana - tbc Matthysse -Robbery Bradley - QUIT Kotelnik - Robbery Urango - Horseshit Witter - Pull the other one.