Whats up with judges????????

Collapse
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • larryx
    Banned
    Unified Champion - 10,00-20,000 posts
    • May 2008
    • 13892
    • 225
    • 108
    • 15,442

    #11
    Originally posted by S.G.
    ...yeah.......
    right on then..thread started must didnt watch those fights..spinks ran the entire fight and didnt fight at all..and he certanly didnt beat taylor no way no how..and oscar was throwing but was hardly landing..people ask why did he stop jabbing,...pbf was throwing that right over his jab

    Comment

    • Scott9945
      Gonna be more su****ious
      Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
      • Mar 2007
      • 22032
      • 741
      • 1,371
      • 30,075

      #12
      Originally posted by S.G.
      i was under the impression they had TV screens to watch it now... like commentator's do

      if not, then they definitely should, imo

      The judges are in the first row from three different sides and absolutely don't have TV monitors. Of course they can look up at the giant screens, but their job is to judge what they see live in the ring. That's the way it should be IMO.

      Comment

      • S.G.
        Undisputed Champion
        Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
        • May 2008
        • 9412
        • 296
        • 635
        • 16,360

        #13
        Originally posted by Scott9945
        The judges are in the first row from three different sides and absolutely don't have TV monitors. Of course they can look up at the giant screens, but their job is to judge what they see live in the ring. That's the way it should be IMO.
        i understand it's tradition and that, but surely it makes it easier to judge on a screen...... and it's not like their eyes are glued to the screen, they could use both watching it live and watching the screen/replays to their advantage

        granted i've never sat front row, but i always find it much easier to "judge" when i watch on a screen

        Comment

        • Bushbaby
          Wild Apache
          Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
          • Dec 2008
          • 23513
          • 727
          • 370
          • 32,078

          #14
          Originally posted by larryx
          spinks-taylor-pbf-oscar-were to completly differant fights..how can you say floyd had 0 offense when he landed more punches than oscar....ans taylor outlanded spinks who did nothing
          I NEVER said Floyd had 0 offence,I simply said the fights were similar,because they both,were fighting more def. than off,fought in spurts,they both outboxed the other guy,and moved well,both got different results by the judges!!

          Comment

          • Ch@mpBox@PR
            Banned
            Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
            • Feb 2008
            • 21432
            • 432
            • 279
            • 22,261

            #15
            I agree, there have to be more consistancy in scoring. Is ridiculous sometimes, I mean, The Collazo-Berto fight was a bad scoring, but like Collazo said if it were 114-113 all around, people including ,my self, wouldnt be bicthing as much, but when you have a 116-111 scoring is unacceptable. Another absurd scoring was Casamayor-Santacruz,That was ****ing ridiculous. I think Spinks-Taylor was more like Casamayor-SantaCruz, than Gayweather-DLH!!!!!!!!!
            Last edited by Ch@mpBox@PR; 01-19-2009, 08:38 PM.

            Comment

            Working...
            TOP