just rewatched oscar/floyd -i had floyd up by 6

[BmoreBrawler]

so how does that work?
1st time u had floyd winning , then 2nd time around u had oscar winning??

I'd love to have everybody sitting together, including fans, judges, officials, and every1 else, analying the fight together to actually get a clear cut definitive answer .

first time, I just felt like floyd won but i didnt score it round by round and I assumed that the judges understood what a landed punch was so I gave them the benefit of the doubt. Second time I watched it I realized that the punchstats were totally misleading and that the aggressor and champion Oscar should have been given the nod in close rounds because the punch disparity was much closer in reality.

[boxing_pundit85]

i thought floyd won 9 rnds, and oscar 3,
any1 else share the same sentiment?

i thought floyd was too defensive in more than a few rounds, but i do agree with you that he won decisively, just not by that wide of a margin. maybe 8 4 or 7 5

[frankpaganini]

I had it (and still have it even after watching it about 5 more times since the fight) 115-113 for Oscar.

Granted Oscar didnt land by a tremendous amount but he did do several things that i thought won him rounds:

he out hustled mayweather easily. some round mayweather would only throw 35 punches. i dont believe you can win rounds against someone like Oscar with only 35 punches.

at the time oscar was the champ and i believe in the old school belief of "if you want to BE the champ you have to clearly BEAT the champ" so all the really close rounds i could have scored either way i'd give the nod to oscar on those rounds.

there are several rounds mayweather won pretty clearly in terms of landing punches and ring generalship but oscar fought a pretty good fight.

he outhustled him.
use good counterpunching at times
won rounds pretty easily in which he used the jab effectively.

had oscar sustained a body attack and sustained the jab more he would have EASILY won the fight rather than have this controversy surrounding the fight's outcome.

oscar had it though.

i was actually a tad bit surprised when they annoucned floyd as the winner. i felt like oscar did enough to retain his title or at the least earn a draw.

the meshing of their two completely different styles was interesting to watch and i go against the majority when i say this but it was one of if not my MOST favorite fight of the year.

anyway i believe the difference in styles also made it hard to score.

every round was basically; "do you like floyd's defensive fighting" or "do you like oscar's aggressive, keep coming forward fighting style".

that was the story of the fight.

this wasnt like last nights pavlik/taylor fight where i said i could have seen it going either way. this fight was a fight where i could see a draw for a 115-113 win for oscar.

its hard for me to see it 116-112 for floyd.

i dont think he THAT impressive to win 8 of 12 rounds.

it was a good fight none-the-less and this time around i think floyd will win more decisively unless the floyd sr./de la hoya team works out. then we could be seeing a very interesting fight come september.

[Fox McCloud]

I'll say this once more...

This ****** theory of having to beat the champ convincingly makes NO ****ing sense to me.

If the challenger wins 7 rounds to 5, even if they are near-even rounds, the challenger takes the belt.

You know what advantage the champion has? Keeping his belt on a draw, and it shouldn't go any farther than that.

[Slotff]

I had Oscar winning by one point the first time I watched it. 115-114.

[frankpaganini]

I'll say this once more...

This ****** theory of having to beat the champ convincingly makes NO ****ing sense to me.

If the challenger wins 7 rounds to 5, even if they are near-even rounds, the challenger takes the belt.

You know what advantage the champion has? Keeping his belt on a draw, and it shouldn't go any farther than that.

what im saying is we all know better than to think in a title fight (especially in vegas) we arent going to see an even round from a judge so in those rounds that are as close to even as possibly lean in the favor of the champ. give him the benefit of the doubt.

if a challenger clearly wins 7-5 rounds then give it to him.

but on the rounds you'd score about even give the benefit of doubt to the champ.

why?

because the champion is more proven than the challenger (in most cases...except for that fight. mayweather is certainly proven).

by the way. i didnt make it up. i'd say 8 times out of 10 judges actually score that way.

U.S./Vegas judges especially.

[Fox McCloud]

what im saying is we all know better than to think in a title fight (especially in vegas) we arent going to see an even round from a judge so in those rounds that are as close to even as possibly lean in the favor of the champ. give him the benefit of the doubt.

if a challenger clearly wins 7-5 rounds then give it to him.

but on the rounds you'd score about even give the benefit of doubt to the champ.

why?

because the champion is more proven than the challenger (in most cases...except for that fight. mayweather is certainly proven).

by the way. i didnt make it up. i'd say 8 times out of 10 judges actually score that way.

U.S./Vegas judges especially.

I know that, I wasn't indicting you specifically, but it just makes absolutely no sense to me. If a round is actually too close to call for either fighter, I think it is ridiculously to build in another advantage for the champion. If you seriously have to go that to break the tie, then it needs to be a 10-10 round IMO.

I also never score rounds 10-10, because I can always find something between the two fighters.

It seems very unfair to me that a title can only change hands on a knockout or if the challenger dominates seven rounds. That seems like a mountain that is entirely too steep for a fighter to have to climb through no fault of their own.

[frankpaganini]

I know that, I wasn't indicting you specifically, but it just makes absolutely no sense to me. If a round is actually too close to call for either fighter, I think it is ridiculously to build in another advantage for the champion. If you seriously have to go that to break the tie, then it needs to be a 10-10 round IMO.

I also never score rounds 10-10, because I can always find something between the two fighters.

It seems very unfair to me that a title can only change hands on a knockout or if the challenger dominates seven rounds. That seems like a mountain that is entirely too steep for a fighter to have to climb through no fault of their own.

to an extent i agree with you.

some type of change in scoring title fights wouldnt be something i would contest as long as its nothing crazy.

[Fox McCloud]

to an extent i agree with you.

some type of change in scoring title fights wouldnt be something i would contest as long as its nothing crazy.

And so even though official judges score that way, I try my hardest not to subscribe to that mindset, so I can try to accurately score how the fight is going, not how the fight is going with the champion getting more credit for everything he does.

[NachoMan]

I know that, I wasn't indicting you specifically, but it just makes absolutely no sense to me. If a round is actually too close to call for either fighter, I think it is ridiculously to build in another advantage for the champion. If you seriously have to go that to break the tie, then it needs to be a 10-10 round IMO.

I also never score rounds 10-10, because I can always find something between the two fighters.
It seems very unfair to me that a title can only change hands on a knockout or if the challenger dominates seven rounds. That seems like a mountain that is entirely too steep for a fighter to have to climb through no fault of their own.

It seems to me that very few people ever score even rounds. Apparently there is some sort of stigma associated with scoring 10-10 rounds; as though the scorer is committing the unforgiveable sin of being indecisive. I disagree completely with this point of view. I don't think scoring even rounds is indecisive at all. When I score a fight, it is not uncommon at all for me to score 1 or 2 even rounds in a close fight. My brother always gives me a hard time about scoring even rounds, but I feel pretty strongly that if a round was fought evenly, it should be scored that way. Stubbornly declaring a clear winner in a very close round only serves to skew the overall score IMO. I think that this explains why we often see such a wide range of scores in genuinely competitive fights.