I had it scored a draw. 6 rounds each. DeGale took the first 3 and then 9/10/11.
Jack caused much more damage though and won his rounds more convincingly but they're still 10-9 rounds. Some people just remember the aggression and damaged caused and forget it's scored round by round. If we scored from emotion and getting our judgement skewed because a guy is getting beaten up then we could say Maidana won the first Mayweather fight, but he didn't because Floyd managed to just win enough rounds but Floyd took all the punishment in that fight.
That's basically how i see this one. DeGale did win 6 rounds but if there HAD to be a winner, i'd say Jack would deserve it.
I'm absolutely agreed with you. The sense is that Jack won clearly if you're watching from an emotional point of view.. perhaps how a casual observer might judge a street fight. I actually had the third round shared and gave the fight to Jack overall, but the point is this was a close fight according to the scoring system used in boxing. I don't think the result can be slated as being a robbery.
I don't understand how you have reached the conclusion that Brits are naive. Your title suggests that you think all Brits across the board are naive.
I had Jack winning in this one due to the late knockdown
DeGale, as good as he is, has showed that his inconsistent behavior will prevent him from becoming a great fighter, while Jack has showed that he is a student of his craft besides the lack of talent or athleticism.
DeGale might be the better fighter, but he let Jack do his stuff to create an exciting but close fight and while i think that in the rematch DeGale could easily do it better, i doubt he will do it better in a rematch, he's just too inconsistent.
Totally agree with this. DeGale has some ability but is too immature (and dare I say unintelligent) on a personal level to be a top fighter. It prevents him from developing his game as well as thinking his way through fights. It will in my estimation see him not get results in many a close fight against decent fighters where a few brain cells might otherwise get him over the line.
He might get away with it were his plan A good enough to overwhelm all-comers, but it certainly hasn't proved to be so far.
Good fight to watch, though a little unskilled.
For me it's any fighter who is willing to put themselves and their reps on the line to test themselves against the best. Boxing would die without that spectacle. If you're not nervous for the dudes when watching a fight then something isn't right. And it's even better if they are able to deliver sweet science in the process.
Recently.. Andre Ward, Kell Brook, Roman Gonzalez, Anthony Crolla, Carl Frampton
I've not seen a huge amount of Spence but just watched his two big wins on YouTube. From that small sample I don't see Spence as being a massively skilled fighter. Though he clearly has other attributes - he does look like an athlete who will go the full 12 and then come back for more. An old Bundu got banged after being worn down by a better specimen, and Algieri is just awful. I'm not sure I can make any judgements about Spence's one punch power or any other features from what I've seen.
I've seen way more of Kell Brook. He is a good technician and I can see him landing on Spence at will, particularly if Spence goes about his business the way he did in his two big fights to date. I'm not sure how much Spence will be able to get to Brook cleanly. Though that said Kell has found it hard keeping pressure off from time to time - Porter and (understandably) GGG got him going backwards and looking ragged.
I think Kell makes Spence look silly early on, and will target Errol's body too. I'm sure Kell will face a few difficult moments (particularly later on) that he'll need to ride out, but Brook by UD for me.