Coming from a Broner fan, Paulie was robbed...

Unless body work is irrelevant now, Paulie won.

Yeah man those gloves punches were flush and really put a whoopin' on broner....

Same people who were crying and saying Trout won are now arguing against it. These folks know who they are and should stay out of this thread.

yall need to cool it with these threads. they gonna see this and think we want a rematch.

Pauli won some rounds but broner landed the harder shots and dictated the fight from the 5th round on..... Round by round i had it- 1,2 pauli 3 broner 4 pauli 5,6,7,8,9 broner 10 pauli 11,12 broner... 116-112 broner There was some close rounds, but pauli just couldnt hurt broner at all, no matter how many times he landed.... This fight wasnt a robbery, Pauli gave a great effort but when you cant hurt the other guy, it makes it damn near impossible to win a fight

Coming from a Malignaggi fan, Broner won. He's a classless piece of trash but I scored the fight 117-111 in his favor.

I was rooting for a good fight; not either fighter. Pauli was so active early I had it 3-1 in his favor going into the 5th. After that, Broner's harder shots and Malinaggi's wavering pace saw him lose quite a few close rounds. It WAS close and Broner showed neither power nor outclassed the older guy; but he squeaked by in most of the middle to late rounds. I had it 115-113 Broner like most of the Showtime crew. If Pauli had been a bit younger and taken a few of the last few rounds it would've been a close win for HIM probably. His lack of power will always be his Achilles heel. It is what it is. Raises questions about Adrian but he got the 'W'.

well its not about lack of power as much as it is about lack of effective punching. u say paulie tagged broner but with what? jabs? or are u counting those ineffective body punches? fans like to pick and choose when the term "clean and effective" applies. when canelo was getting jabbed to death by trout it didnt. in this fight all of a sudden paulie throws a lot of punches that do nothing and they count. im not even talking about the power behind them. more like the placement, the effect etc. Paulie was getting through to the head/body when Broner shelled up, but as stated previously, Broner would brush them off and judges take that into consideration. I felt Broner and Canelo won competitive but clear decisions. Paulie and Trout won their share of rounds and some will argue that they in fact deserved the W. Clean/Effective punching vs. Activity/Volume. I think Broner's defensive posture and lower output made the fight seem more competitive than it was, or more competitive than it should've been. Effective punching usually comes down to "who hurt who?" in the minds of the judges, and since we all know Paulie can't punch for shit, his objective was to out-work Broner. I don't mind that Broner won, but I'm disappointed that it went to a decision. I simply over-estimated Broner's ability to carry his power up. Malignaggi did a good job and provided a style that Broner has yet to see. He got the W but he showed some flaws that could be taken advantage of.

Paulie's a stick-and-move fighter because it's difficult to keep an opponent honest when you lack power. He would've fought the way he did last night regardless of the opponent. Paulie said that he expected more power from Broner and he was never on the verge of being stopped. Paulie seems to get penalized by many because he has no power, doesn't change the fact that he threw a ton and was landing. The fight was over before they hit the ring. well its not about lack of power as much as it is about lack of effective punching. u say paulie tagged broner but with what? jabs? or are u counting those ineffective body punches? fans like to pick and choose when the term "clean and effective" applies. when canelo was getting jabbed to death by trout it didnt. in this fight all of a sudden paulie throws a lot of punches that do nothing and they count. im not even talking about the power behind them. more like the placement, the effect etc.

Amazed at how many people on this thread don't know how to score a "PRO fight"! Your observations would have some validity if it were an Amatuer Fight! This is pro boxing when effective agressiveness counts far more over light punching! Paulie backed up ALL night and it wasn't his style it was Broners power telling him not to face it head on! Both worked pretty good defenses and both fought well when you consider their styles! Broner won easily 8to4 it really wasn't close after 5 rounds! Learn what to look for when judging a Pro Fight in comparison to an Amatuer! Ray. Paulie's a stick-and-move fighter because it's difficult to keep an opponent honest when you lack power. He would've fought the way he did last night regardless of the opponent. Paulie said that he expected more power from Broner and he was never on the verge of being stopped. Paulie seems to get penalized by many because he has no power, doesn't change the fact that he threw a ton and was landing. The fight was over before they hit the ring.

man the people on this forum are stupid.... one guy says 'rounds are scored by who lands cleanest' and another guy says 'rounds are scored by who throws the most'.... neither are right..... smh.

Amazed at how many people on this thread don't know how to score a "PRO fight"! Your observations would have some validity if it were an Amatuer Fight! This is pro boxing when effective agressiveness counts far more over light punching! Paulie backed up ALL night and it wasn't his style it was Broners power telling him not to face it head on! Both worked pretty good defenses and both fought well when you consider their styles! Broner won easily 8to4 it really wasn't close after 5 rounds! Learn what to look for when judging a Pro Fight in comparison to an Amatuer! Ray. Here are some amateur and pro fighters:

Amazed at how many people on this thread don't know how to score a "PRO fight"! Your observations would have some validity if it were an Amatuer Fight! This is pro boxing when effective agressiveness counts far more over light punching! Paulie backed up ALL night and it wasn't his style it was Broners power telling him not to face it head on! Both worked pretty good defenses and both fought well when you consider their styles! Broner won easily 8to4 it really wasn't close after 5 rounds! Learn what to look for when judging a Pro Fight in comparison to an Amatuer! Ray.

I don't like people that 'try too hard', he seems to feel he has to feed his own ego all the time, i wonder why he feels the need to? I think he's trying to sell himself. When Broner acts normal he comes across as a good guy. He took an L with that post-fight comment though. People are going to despise the kid if he keeps that up.

As much as I hate to agree with you packtard.....you is right!!!! What I would like to know from all the people saying Bronner's punches had more effect: How is this self evident? Paulie looked good after the fight, he didn't get shook and Bronner didn't slow Paulie down. Where is the evidence that Bronner's punches had any more effect than Malanagie's punches? Yeah, I agree. I mean his face was more marked up but he just has skin that does that, plus his work on Broner was more to the body. Paulie did a great job.

Have to disagree, Paulies punches were effective. Broner had to worry more about defense than his own offense, dictating the style for large portions the fight. Whats Malignagg suppose to do to be effective, trade with a puncher? No he's going to try and outwork Broner, keep him from getting off, and thats what he did for lorge portions of the fight. Paulie was stifling Broner's offense with his own, but he wasn't hurting him while Broner's punches were having more of a visible effect. Paulie did win rounds no doubt, but I don't think he won the fight, it was close though and if Broner was as good as he believes, it shouldn't have been close.

Paulie was robbed. Broner looked stupid in that fight. Paulie exposed this clown As much as I hate to agree with you packtard.....you is right!!!! What I would like to know from all the people saying Bronner's punches had more effect: How is this self evident? Paulie looked good after the fight, he didn't get shook and Bronner didn't slow Paulie down. Where is the evidence that Bronner's punches had any more effect than Malanagie's punches?

Rounds are scored by effective punching. Broner popped Paulie's head back on numerous occassions. Paulie's punches were ineffective and had little visual effect on Broner. If an amateur scoring system was used then Paulie won hands down. This is the pros and Paulie's pit pat style did not and should not have earned him a W. Paulie did a lot more work to the body, and you're not going to see Broner "pop back" from body shots. Paulie even admitted that Broner was not easy to hit to the head, but was wide open to the body.

Paulie was robbed. Broner looked stupid in that fight. Paulie exposed this clown lol true whatever else Paulie did or didn't do, he certainly exposed Broner's limitations as a fighter

Paulie won 5 of the first 6 rounds on throwing and landing more punches! I had paulie 7-5. Broner was not active enough and only fought in spurts!!!! Broner is a piece of sh*t and is classlesss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! See I have a similar conondrum: I don't score fights (I suck at it!!) but I really think its hard to give Bronner more than 2 of the first five rounds. And the middle rounds were give and take, both guys occaisionally edging the other, so for teh sdake of argument if you gave Bronner a majority of these rounds you might have them even after 10 but that would mean that you would have to give Bronner rounds 4&5 and give him a majority of rounds (3) in rounds 5 through 10...doesn't the champ get a few nods in colse rounds? I think people assumed Paulie was hurt by Bronner's punches in the absence of proof thereof. Yes he got his head snapped back a few times but nothing sustained. I can see giving Bronner the last two rounds but even that is dubious because Paulie fought well in the eleventh. I agree with the last part of this post as well