How close was Jones vs Hopkins 1?

[billeau2]

- -Ain't noone ever gonna fix U ******...NOONE!!!

If you look at what Willie Pep did, that is called "research." You and Redumber could learn from that post

[markusmod]

I thought Jones clearly won when I watched it live.

[Willie Pep 229]

I thought Jones clearly won when I watched it live.

When I watched it live I thought the same thing. Jones won what was a stinker of a fight. I would like to have seen it called a NC, but the sports betting is important to the game and the bets needed to be paid or the interest and the crowds diminish.

[QueensburyRules]

- -Like I say, Roy did it one handed prob carrying an injured hand into the fight that early on became a full break. Roy not given enought credit for his footwork in that fight as he let Poppy lead his ugly mug all night for target practice.

[markusmod]

When I watched it live I thought the same thing. Jones won what was a stinker of a fight. I would like to have seen it called a NC, but the sports betting is important to the game and the bets needed to be paid or the interest and the crowds diminish.

For some reason I remember watching this fight with the replay of Morrison-Foreman

[Anthony342]

When I watched it live I thought the same thing. Jones won what was a stinker of a fight. I would like to have seen it called a NC, but the sports betting is important to the game and the bets needed to be paid or the interest and the crowds diminish.

Speaking of no contests, how come boxing commissions have no problem changing a fighter's win to a no contest if they test positive for a banned substance, but can't do the same thing to overturn a bad judges' decision? Why not do the same thing that's done for gamblers when a win is changed to a no contest?

[LeOoze]

Honestly I thought it was a wipeout. 116-112 is too generous to Hopkins after I watched it. I don't know if I even gave him 2 rounds.

[Willie Pep 229]

Speaking of no contests, how come boxing commissions have no problem changing a fighter's win to a no contest if they test positive for a banned substance, but can't do the same thing to overturn a bad judges' decision? Why not do the same thing that's done for gamblers when a win is changed to a no contest?

I don't know what they do about bets when a fight is ruled a NC because of drug use. That usually happens a day or two later I would expect that many bets would have already been paid. But I don't know.

There is a difference between the two scenarios you offered. With the PEDs situation the fighter broke the rules and taking away his victory is based on the illegal act.

If a commission over turns a verdict for bad judging and I am that judge I am going to sue the State for defamation of character. Hell I would be within my rights, they would by their actions make it impossible for me to get work. I would be covered with a guilt without any due process and my career could well be over.

Now if I was proven to be 'on the take' then ofcourse that's different.

But if you think about it your saying these guys over here (the commission) thinks this but this guy over here ( the bad judge) thought that about the fight.

You can't re-judge a fight because it's just another judgement; does the original victor now get to appeal the decision to yet another group of guys (an appeals court of some sort) and then we have another group of guys re-re-judging the fight.

[QueensburyRules]

- -No need to overthink a proto Poppy stinker...

[Anthony342]

I don't know what they do about bets when a fight is ruled a NC because of drug use. That usually happens a day or two later I would expect that many bets would have already been paid. But I don't know.

There is a difference between the two scenarios you offered. With the PEDs situation the fighter broke the rules and taking away his victory is based on the illegal act.

If a commission over turns a verdict for bad judging and I am that judge I am going to sue the State for defamation of character. Hell I would be within my rights, they would by their actions make it impossible for me to get work. I would be covered with a guilt without any due process and my career could well be over.

Now if I was proven to be 'on the take' then ofcourse that's different.

But if you think about it your saying these guys over here (the commission) thinks this but this guy over here ( the bad judge) thought that about the fight.

You can't re-judge a fight because it's just another judgement; does the original victor now get to appeal the decision to yet another group of guys (an appeals court of some sort) and then we have another group of guys re-re-judging the fight.

What if the judge wasn't on the take and was just a sucky judge? We've seen plenty of fights where there were horrible decisions, everyone knew it and nobody in charge of boxing did anything about it. So why not do something about it when it's obvious someone did a crappy job. In any other profession when someone does a crappy job, they get punished by being suspended and eventually fired, so why not when it comes to judging fights?