Tweet
Harold Lederman is much better than 95% of the official judges. Sometimes he is biased, when the superstars of the sport fight, but at most "normal" fights he is very accurate.
-
-
i dont like that if some fighter loses 2.58 seconds of the round but lands one good punch and hurts but not drops the other guy, he still gives you the round... example of this is the fifth round of barrera morales 1...thats bull**** and sadly many people do that...Comment
-
I used to like him, before i saw his scoring on Barrera Marquez and Williams Margarito (for that fight he scored but didnt commentate because he was at the gatti fight i think)
Shocking, im still trying to work out how he had williams that far ahead, he obviously doesnt know the difference between a blocked punch and a landed one.
5/10.Comment
-
I'd give Harold a 9-9.5. There are very few rounds that Harrold and I actually disagree on. When I watch a fight that he's judging, I notice that once every two or three fights we will have a round or two that we don't score the same but, most of the time, we end up with the same score and the same rounds to the same fighters.
Maybe it's because I've grown up watching him and my judging style was learned from him? Who knows, but the fact of the matter is that judging is totally subjective. Some judges score more for clean, less hard-hitting punches than they do for hard, thumping punches that don't connect so cleanly. Others rank aggressiveness, even if not effective, above ring generalship (I think that ring generalship is very important, second only to clean punching).
I rank the criteria thusly:
Clean Punching
Ring Generalship
Effective Aggressiveness
Defense
In the end, tho, the way I usually determine who wins a round is by imagining that I have to be in one of the fighter's shoes in the round that just ended. The fighter that I'd rather be obviously won the round as I wouldn't want to be the guy who got hit more or did worse.Comment
-
I'm with him about 80% of the time. Sometimes I think he gives it to the agressor too much. For example last night I watched the Naz/MAB fight, and he had the fight even through six, which I thought was ridiculous. Then when Naz finally had a great round (or so I thought) he gave it to Barrera.
He was also way off in the JMM fight by giving Barrera eight rounds.Comment
-
About 90% of the time we agree. Actually one of the only times I remember disagreeing was castillo vs mayweather 1.Comment
-
Letterman's card is usually more accurate than the judges'.. and he would get a solid 8 from me.
But when Merchant is disagreeing with Letterman.. I'm usually in agreement with Merchant.
I think Larry Merchant scores fights very accurate (although at times he can be biased)
Go Merchant!Comment
-
I give Harold an 8 and the way I decided this is based on that I usually agree with him within a point or two 8 out of 10 fights.......Lately I've found myself watching some old fights like RJJ/Tarver 1, Hopkins/De La Hoya, RJJ/Johnson, Judah/Cotto, Judah/Mayweather, etc...& my boys & I find that alot of Harold Letterman's Score cards tends to be almost as biased as the commentators comments. Don't get me wrong, I like Harold more than I hate his scoring but (especially in the Hopkins/Wright fight) Harold lets his personal opinion get in the way of impartial scoring of a fight. To me Harold gets a 6 interms of his accuracy, I agree wit him more than I disagree, but not by much. Now can you Dig Dat?!? Weigh In!!
Comment
-
the Barrera Marquez fight I abit agree with him in some round but it was closer fight that what the judges score because Barrera was controling the tempo and rhythem of the fight in couple of rounds. What ****ed up Barrera is the 7th round where he KOed Marquez which was clear on the screan but I dont know if Nady was standing behind and counldnt notice it but the hitting Marquez which is down and taking a point which made alot of difference in the fight e****ally when it is a close fight in the opening round it was mostly BarreraComment
Comment