Harold Lederman is a good ****in judge!

[Silencers]

I have agreed more times with Merchant's card than Lederman's. I have no idea what Lederman sees in there sometimes.

[Fox McCloud]

I give that round to Shannon Briggs!

But Harold, he didn't throw a punch!

RING GENERALSHIP Jim! Get it through your head! Briggs won that round, no doubt about it.

[C.Y.]

I give that round to Shannon Briggs!

But Harold, he didn't throw a punch!

RING GENERALSHIP Jim! Get it through your head! Briggs won that round, no doubt about it.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Exactly what Harold would say!!

[squealpiggy]

So...

Round 1 of Mayweather-Chavez.

Punchstats:
Mayweather - 23 out of 56
Chavez 6 out of 92

Harold gives it to... JESUS CHAVEZ!

What a ****ing travesty. Especially because Chavez is a ****ing featherfist. You can't even make the argument that those 6 punches were devastating, because they weren't. They were taps from a featherfist.

I don't think that using punchstats is an accurate gauge of how the fight is going. You can land 150 clean punches in a round but if they're not effective they aren't worth anything. You can land ten little jabs and if they are making a difference to your opponent's 150 punches and your opponent's punches aren't affecting you then you win the round on CLEAN and EFFECTIVE punches.

[Scott9945]

So...

Round 1 of Mayweather-Chavez.

Punchstats:
Mayweather - 23 out of 56
Chavez 6 out of 92

Harold gives it to... JESUS CHAVEZ!

What a ****ing travesty. Especially because Chavez is a ****ing featherfist. You can't even make the argument that those 6 punches were devastating, because they weren't. They were taps from a featherfist.

Harold always prefers the busier fighter. To me that's lazy judging.

[Hitman932]

3 judges had jermain taylor beating kelly pavlik, lederman had it scored perfectly... im not saying he has always been the greatest but i think he has been doing as very good job RECENTLY.

[The Hammer]

Lederman doesn't seem to have as much bias for and against certain fighters as many boxing judges. He's not always correct, but at least he's fair and objective, and he's correct most of the time.

[Mozza]

I'll take Lederman over Tony Paolillo, and that's about it.

He scored in both Forrest-Quartey and Casamayor-Santa Cruz.

Pretty much every other judge gets the nod over Harold, even Glen Hamada.

And before you praise Harold Lederman, he was one of the ******s who scored Michael Nunn-John Scully. I don't remember which judge he was, but the three official scorecards were as follows:

120-108
119-109
118-110

All for Michael Nunn.

ESPN reported that John Scully landed more shots over the course of the fight. If that isn't absurd, then I don't know what is.

I've never seen that fight so can't comment on that specifically but the person who lands more shots does not automatically win the round. If that were the case there would be no need for judges.

[Living Legend]

I have agreed more times with Merchant's card than Lederman's. I have no idea what Lederman sees in there sometimes.

And that is the truth, by the look of it sometimes I can't tell what fight lederman is watching...

[Fox McCloud]

I've never seen that fight so can't comment on that specifically but the person who lands more shots does not automatically win the round. If that were the case there would be no need for judges.

Well whatever... I seriously doubt that you can justify only giving 2 rounds to the fighter who landed more shots overall.

More shots don't mean an automatic win, but it also should mean an automatic round or 2 being thrown your way.