TERRY FLANAGAN'S defeat by Maurice Hooker yet again exposed the problem with judging in boxing. The Manchester man was in a very good but, crucially, close fight with Hooker last weekend in his hometown. How British judge Phil Edwards scored it 117-111 for the American is beyond me. He certainly didn't enjoy any home advantage. Click Here To Read More]
Pi55 off Frank you boggle eyed ****..nobody cares about you.. your raggedy **** broke as **** promotion or your bullsh1tter excuses for a piss poor card and ripping off boxnation subscribers.
Bellend
Quote of the day ....p1ss off frank you boggle eyed c_nt lol
He said that it was a close fight, and it could have gone either way depending on what you prefer, but then he complains about the wide scores?
Surely if it's a close fight but you prefer one fighter you will score heavily in that fighters favour? a close fight could be 118-112 either way using that logic.
This judging thing is found all the time. I had hughie beating Parker 7-5, and I gave all the even round to Parker, and Hughie threw the cleaner punches and made Parker miss in 7 of the rounds.... but I also understand that that style doesn't wash with others, and they scored Parker purely on being front-foot... it's subjective.
I scored this fight 8-4 to Hooker, he was the dominant fighter and controlled Flanagan, but I can also see the argument Flanagan was the aggressor and tried to put it on Hooker in a lot of rounds.
Pi55 off Frank you boggle eyed ****..nobody cares about you.. your raggedy **** broke as **** promotion or your bullsh1tter excuses for a piss poor card and ripping off boxnation subscribers.
Bellend
Boxingscene needs to add a like and dislike option for some of these articles. Warren writes whiny propaganda posts like this all the time, as if the viewers don’t have eyes of their own. This was in no way a “very good card,” it was hardly a good one.