Fight Score - Loma Vs Haney - 880 Entries

The truth is clear for those with eyes to see. The ones wanting to justify the robbery just make baseless claims about the videos like "they probably didn't include all of Haney's punches." Or they claim that they rewatched it themselves, but somehow didn't see all the low blows and elbows to the face from Haney. I pulled several just from the Top Tank highlights reel. They also rely heavily on the "you need to win 7 clear rounds" argument, but never can provide any 7 clear rounds that Haney won. Then they pivot to "to be the champ you need to beat the champ" and pretend you have to beat the champ on a wide margin to "deserve" the win, as if that's not a load of crap, and the saying doesn't ONLY mean that the champ retains in the case of a tie. People need to look back at Sugar Ray Leonard's career. He won as the challenger against Hagler on a controversial split. If you needed to win a wide decision, he shouldn't get credit for that win. Then, two fights later, he retained his belt against Hearns because the fight was a tie. THAT'S what the saying means. Fact is, the vast majority of cards were 115-113 Loma, and that means that Loma clearly won a close fight. A close fight that can go anyone's way has cards split all over the place for both people, not a majority of viewers all saying that the wrong person won. If 115-113 means "anyone could have won that fight, even though the overwhelming majority scored it the same way for one of the fighters", EVERY 115-113 scorecard is suspect and could have gone to the other fighter, no matter what happened in the fight. Every part of the "It wasn't a robbery" argument is flat out stupid. ​​​​​ What are you babbling on about?? If calling it a robbery makes you feel better so be it but Loma lost, end of conversation.

It was a pretty clear win. The couple of posters riding with Haney can say whatever they like but if it was a “could have gone either way” fight, more then next to nobody would have given it to Haney. Bob just screwed up like he did trying to force Bradley into being a star by gifting him a win over Manny who he thought was done. We all know who had the better career even from that point on. Bob is a snake, and somehow, for someone that’s been around forever, a very short sided one.

Seems videos no longer matter. No one is interested in proving it to themselves. The truth is clear for those with eyes to see. The ones wanting to justify the robbery just make baseless claims about the videos like "they probably didn't include all of Haney's punches." Or they claim that they rewatched it themselves, but somehow didn't see all the low blows and elbows to the face from Haney. I pulled several just from the Top Tank highlights reel. They also rely heavily on the "you need to win 7 clear rounds" argument, but never can provide any 7 clear rounds that Haney won. Then they pivot to "to be the champ you need to beat the champ" and pretend you have to beat the champ on a wide margin to "deserve" the win, as if that's not a load of crap, and the saying doesn't ONLY mean that the champ retains in the case of a tie. People need to look back at Sugar Ray Leonard's career. He won as the challenger against Hagler on a controversial split. If you needed to win a wide decision, he shouldn't get credit for that win. Then, two fights later, he retained his belt against Hearns because the fight was a tie. THAT'S what the saying means. Fact is, the vast majority of cards were 115-113 Loma, and that means that Loma clearly won a close fight. A close fight that can go anyone's way has cards split all over the place for both people, not a majority of viewers all saying that the wrong person won. If 115-113 means "anyone could have won that fight, even though the overwhelming majority scored it the same way for one of the fighters", EVERY 115-113 scorecard is suspect and could have gone to the other fighter, no matter what happened in the fight. Every part of the "It wasn't a robbery" argument is flat out stupid. ​​​​​

I would argue his problem in the 12th wasn't that he was too passive, it's that he rushed forward into punching range without getting off first. He wasn't effective, and didn't try like in the two previous rounds. He should have kept the pression. I didn't notice anu urgency. He new the fight was close.

Seems videos no longer matter. No one is interested in proving it to themselves.

The TS also believed Loma beat Teo and Salido. Lets just say his opinion is felatious.

Teo got his ass kicked that fight.... I scored it a draw. Loma didn't start until 8, and Teo won R12. I thought Teo got his ass kicked for 4 rounds too, but too little too late. Loma needed a knockdown at minimum going into the last round IMO.

You were that twat that thought Loma beat Teofimo even though he failed to throw a meaningful punch in the first 6 rounds and nearly got knocked out in the 12th. No wonder you thought Haney fight was a robbery. Loma would have to get knocked out cold in the 12th and you would still call it a draw because he won most of the rounds prior :Flush: Teo got his ass kicked that fight.... I scored it a draw.

Close doesn't mean robbery. But it also doesn't mean it wasn't a robbery. There's plenty of close fights that aren't viewed as robberies, but that doesn't preclude the existence of close fights that WERE robberies, nor does the existence of robberies that were on very wide margins. Heck, sometimes the right guy wins but it's still a robbery, such as the cards for Canelo v Bivol. Those cards were disgraceful, even if the right guy won. This is one of those Some A's are not B's therefore All A's are not B's logical fallacies. Until we can get universal scoring, like every other sport has, this discussion will persist. This way, we can see if close rds really are scored close and for whom. We can also remove judges who show a bias towards certain styles. A functioning scoring system is the only way to end these outcomes...or a 13th rd (to end draws).

Loma won the fight dudes .. wtf smh. Cliff Rold scored it 115-113 for Haney.

Close fights happen The definition of a close fight is one where the scores/winner could have gone either way. Close does not mean robbery (sorry GGGroupies :wave: ) Examples of clear robberies - DLH vs Tito Pac vs Timmy Pea vs JCC Pea vs JLR Pac vs HORN (CPGW) Close doesn't mean robbery. But it also doesn't mean it wasn't a robbery. There's plenty of close fights that aren't viewed as robberies, but that doesn't preclude the existence of close fights that WERE robberies, nor does the existence of robberies that were on very wide margins. Heck, sometimes the right guy wins but it's still a robbery, such as the cards for Canelo v Bivol. Those cards were disgraceful, even if the right guy won. This is one of those Some A's are not B's therefore All A's are not B's logical fallacies.

Close fights happen The definition of a close fight is one where the scores/winner could have gone either way. Close does not mean robbery (sorry GGGroupies :wave: ) Examples of clear robberies - DLH vs Tito Pac vs Timmy Pea vs JCC Pea vs JLR Pac vs HORN (CPGW)

They don't need to exist in the rules. It's a 10 point must system, the winner get's 10 and the loser gets 9 outside of a KD or an extremely dominant round. So in the case of a close round to which there's an argument for either fighter winning, there's a debate on which way the judge would have scored it. That is a swing round. But yes I think it seems we are closer to the same page now. Not quite. The rules specifically acknowledge even rounds and that those are to be scored 10-10, absent point deductions. Commissions do tend to suggest to judges that they not use them as crutches rather than make hard decisions, but even rounds are specifically in the rules and close/swing rounds are not. A judge should be able to explain, relative to the four judging criteria, why one fighter took the round over the other, and if they cannot, or if they believe there's an equivalently good argument for the other side, the round is supposed to be scored even, not as a gimme for the judge's preferred fighter. When there's an equivalently good argument for either side to take the round, that is definitionally an even round, not a swing round. I define a swing round as one that a fan isn't sure how to judge, and wouldn't be surprised if a judge picked one side over the other either way. But that is a FAR cry from that being how a judge is supposed to approach the round, and has no bearing on the legitimacy of the decision.

TBH this is starting to look like we've got a different definitional starting point. I'm coming at this from the standpoint of how it's supposed to be scored as per the rules, and it sounds like you are talking from a "practical" standpoint from the perspective of how decisions appear to fans. Is that what you're trying to say? Because "swing rounds" do not exist in the rules, and neither do "close rounds", and the notion that a close round can legitimately go to either guy doesn't appear anywhere, and certainly isn't supported by the dictionary definition of 'close'. However, 'close' or 'competitive' rounds do frequently get scored opposite by different judges. I suspect we have a difference of opinion about why that is, and how legitimate the results are stemming from those decisions, but if that's what you're talking about, then ok. We can agree to disagree on the value of those and whether it's legitimate for them to be assigned via bias to a particular fighter, but l will agree those could be called "swing rounds", even if I do not think the rules support the interpretation that they can legitimately go to either fighter. They don't need to exist in the rules. It's a 10 point must system, the winner get's 10 and the loser gets 9 outside of a KD or an extremely dominant round. So in the case of a close round to which there's an argument for either fighter winning, there's a debate on which way the judge would have scored it. That is a swing round. But yes I think it seems we are closer to the same page now.

Nobody thinks "Oh this is a swing round", but when the judges are split, that usually means that the round was very close, meaning it could be scored either way, meaning it was a "swing round". This isn't some new concept, this has been an ongoing occurrence throughout the the entirety of boxing history. TBH this is starting to look like we've got a different definitional starting point. I'm coming at this from the standpoint of how it's supposed to be scored as per the rules, and it sounds like you are talking from a "practical" standpoint from the perspective of how decisions appear to fans. Is that what you're trying to say? Because "swing rounds" do not exist in the rules, and neither do "close rounds", and the notion that a close round can legitimately go to either guy doesn't appear anywhere, and certainly isn't supported by the dictionary definition of 'close'. However, 'close' or 'competitive' rounds do frequently get scored opposite by different judges. I suspect we have a difference of opinion about why that is, and how legitimate the results are stemming from those decisions, but if that's what you're talking about, then ok. We can agree to disagree on the value of those and whether it's legitimate for them to be assigned via bias to a particular fighter, but l will agree those could be called "swing rounds", even if I do not think the rules support the interpretation that they can legitimately go to either fighter.

Of course not. But each individual judge should be thinking that each round either has a winner, or is even, and scoring even rounds as even. No judge should be saying "oh hey, this is a 'swing round' so I'm gonna give it to my favorite fighter because I got paid to, etc". Sometimes they get it wrong. Sometimes that's deliberate. Other times it's because boxing has fought to ensure that the scoring can remain closed and subjective so that the powers that be can manipulate the fights for money. Etc. But there's no accountability, and a lot of those bad decisions are possible at least in part because of prevailing attitudes that judges are allowed to do whatever they want in close rounds because they don't understand the rules. Even if it's not corruption, you get bias coming from stupid attitudes like "to be the champ you have to beat the champ means you have to wrest the title from his hands.". Then you get judges thinking, "well, this was close so I'm going to score it for the champ." But that's not what it means. Great example would be one of the comebacks for Sugar Ray Leonard. He won the title from Marvelous Marvin Hagler on a widely disputed split decision (also involving Dave Moretti, by the way). Then two fights later, he retained his title in a fight that ended in a tie against Thomas Hitman Hearns. One of the greatest ever to do it, and he demonstrated both that you can get the belt from the champ on a close, controversial fight (with Dave Moretti as judge), and that you keep the belt in the event of a tie if you're the champ. The moral of the story is probably that Dave Moretti should never be permitted to judge again. Nobody thinks "Oh this is a swing round", but when the judges are split, that usually means that the round was very close, meaning it could be scored either way, meaning it was a "swing round". This isn't some new concept, this has been an ongoing occurrence throughout the the entirety of boxing history.

So let's just get this straight here then, your line of thinking is, every round should be scored unanimously by all 3 judges? There shouldn't be a scenario where the judges are split? Of course not. But each individual judge should be thinking that each round either has a winner, or is even, and scoring even rounds as even. No judge should be saying "oh hey, this is a 'swing round' so I'm gonna give it to my favorite fighter because I got paid to, etc". Sometimes they get it wrong. Sometimes that's deliberate. Other times it's because boxing has fought to ensure that the scoring can remain closed and subjective so that the powers that be can manipulate the fights for money. Etc. But there's no accountability, and a lot of those bad decisions are possible at least in part because of prevailing attitudes that judges are allowed to do whatever they want in close rounds because they don't understand the rules. Even if it's not corruption, you get bias coming from stupid attitudes like "to be the champ you have to beat the champ means you have to wrest the title from his hands.". Then you get judges thinking, "well, this was close so I'm going to score it for the champ." But that's not what it means. Great example would be one of the comebacks for Sugar Ray Leonard. He won the title from Marvelous Marvin Hagler on a widely disputed split decision (also involving Dave Moretti, by the way). Then two fights later, he retained his title in a fight that ended in a tie against Thomas Hitman Hearns. One of the greatest ever to do it, and he demonstrated both that you can get the belt from the champ on a close, controversial fight (with Dave Moretti as judge), and that you keep the belt in the event of a tie if you're the champ. The moral of the story is probably that Dave Moretti should never be permitted to judge again.

about as certain as the sun rising tomorrow You can make that assumption but that's all it would be; An assumption.

a win for haney if he didnt win 7 clear rounds it wasnt a win for him How do you work that out? It was a win for him because there's 7 rounds that he arguably won and he got the decision therefore he won the fight.

It means that at least one of the judges was getting it wrong. They've all got their own formulas for arriving at the decision that they were paid to reach. What, do you think the judges are infallible and incorruptible? ​​​​​​Not to mention, none of the judges would agree that the round they scored one way "could have easily gone to the other fighter.". The fighter that gets the 10 needs to be the winner of the round in the judge's mind. If it could go either way, that's the literal definition of an even round, and is supposed to be scored that way. Judges getting it wrong doesn't mean that there's not a correct winner to the round or the fight. That logic suggests that the Tony Weeks, Adelaide Byrd, Dave Moretti, etc are just as objective and valid as anyone else, and that's clearly false. ​​​​​ So let's just get this straight here then, your line of thinking is, every round should be scored unanimously by all 3 judges? There shouldn't be a scenario where the judges are split?