Fact #1: Despite Paulie Maliggnagi's scorecard, Austin Trout was the rightful winner tonight.
Fact #2: Cotto may seem like a sore loser, but we don't really know what goes inside his head. He may think he won the fight and being in his "2nd" house makes it harder for him to accept his loss.
Fact #3: I'm no one to judge and though I agree that Austin DID won the fight, the 119 - 109 makes the other cards look suspicious. Every score I've seen hasn't been that wide and this being in the "hometown" of the challenger makes me paranoid. Please argue/argument on this one.
Fact #4: Austin was just a superior boxer and had a better game plan than Cotto. No reason for him to hang em up if he doesn't want to.
:usa: :usa: :usa:
Pauilie did the same thing with his Hatton scorecard. His bias was showing. He's still a great commentator though. Just don't let him comment on his previous opponents.
i was begining to like paulie but after tonight , he's a c0cksucker again ...
114- 114 and this mofoker had the nerve to say one of the judges needed to go home ?...f0cking dipsh1t...
5 + 6 were clear Cotto rounds IMO. He did show flashes of vintage Cotto, that's why I don't think he should retire yet
Man i'm glad you weren't a judge tonight, :lol1:
I agree that Cotto probably thought he won the fight.
there were a lot of close rounds in there and it didn't look like Trout had much snap on his punches, it's entirely conceivable he thought it was 7-5 in his favor or something.
You could score that fight every round to Trout. There was about 3 close rounds that you could score for Cotto but no clear ones that he won.
5 + 6 were clear Cotto rounds IMO. He did show flashes of vintage Cotto, that's why I don't think he should retire yet