Lets settle it. Should Lomachenko get a rematch?

[Cypocryphy]

The difference is those fights you listed the champ made sure to have a rematch clause inserted in the contract, if I’m not mistaken. They were also close.

Loma and Bob didn’t do this and weren’t going to give Teo a rematch if he lost.

This fight wasn’t close unless you gave Loma any round from 1-7 or 12 just because you like him as a fighter.

The first Berrera had rematch clause. The first Marquez vs Pacquioa didn’t. And Floyd vs Maidona didn’t or if it did, it wasn’t if Maidona lost. Come on man. You know Floyd had to give those guys a rematch.

And if you think the fight wasn’t close, that’s on you. That says more about your ability to judge a fight than the reality of the situation. As you can see by the votes and the comments, you are in a small minority. An outlier. So it doesn’t quite count.

[The Big Dunn]

The first Berrera had rematch clause. The first Marquez vs Pacquioa didn’t. And Floyd vs Maidona didn’t or if it did, it wasn’t if Maidona lost. Come on man. You know Floyd had to give those guys a rematch.

And if you think the fight wasn’t close, that’s on you. That says more about your ability to judge a fight than the reality of the situation. As you can see by the votes and the comments, you are in a small minority. An outlier. So it doesn’t quite count.

Ok maybe so. Close fights deserve a rematch. We agree. The question becomes was this close?

You have to consider the people voting are Loma fans.

With all due respect, my score is closer to the judges scores than a draw would be. Given that fact, whose scores are really questionable?

it’s not that I am the outlier, it is that Loma is popular on nsb and posters are giving him rounds he didn’t win because of that.

I can’t see how he gets any round from 1-7 or round 12. If you think he won one of those rounds, please explain why.

[Cypocryphy]

Ok maybe so. Close fights deserve a rematch. We agree. The question becomes was this close?

You have to consider the people voting are Loma fans.

With all due respect, my score is closer to the judges scores than a draw would be. Given that fact, whose scores are really questionable?

it’s not that I am the outlier, it is that Loma is popular on nsb and posters are giving him rounds he didn’t win because of that.

I can’t see how he gets any round from 1-7 or round 12. If you think he won one of those rounds, please explain why.

Okay. Sure. I can do that. But before we do that, let's set out the criteria for judging a boxing fight. Actually, what I need to do before I criticize anything is ask you how you score a boxing match. Maybe we are giving weight to different things. I don't know. So let me ask you, how do you judge matches?

[The Big Dunn]

Okay. Sure. I can do that. But before we do that, let's set out the criteria for judging a boxing fight. Actually, what I need to do before I criticize anything is ask you how you score a boxing match. Maybe we are giving weight to different things. I don't know. So let me ask you, how do you judge matches?

I score a fight the way the rules require a fight be scored.

Loma did nothing offensively rounds 1-7. He didn’t have a willie pep “ won the round with defense “ either. He won rounds 8-11 clearly. He lost round 12 clearly.

Loma is popular on nsb. He got his ass kicked when many thought he’d lose.

Most close scores reflect the above, not what actually happened in the fight.

[Cypocryphy]

I score a fight the way the rules require a fight be scored.

Loma did nothing offensively rounds 1-7. He didn’t have a willie pep “ won the round with defense “ either. He won rounds 8-11 clearly. He lost round 12 clearly.

Loma is popular on nsb. He got his ass kicked when many thought he’d lose.

Most close scores reflect the above, not what actually happened in the fight.

Well, that doesn't really help me too much. Big Dunn: "I score a fight like it is suppose to be scored." Doesn't help at all. So let me help you out here:

Rules:

• Clean, effective punches
• Effective Agression
• Ring Generalship
• Defense

Can you agree on that at least?

[The Big Dunn]

Well, that doesn't really help me too much. Big Dunn: "I score a fight like it is suppose to be scored." Doesn't help at all. So let me help you out here:

Rules:

• Clean, effective punches
• Effective Agression
• Ring Generalship
• Defense

Can you agree on that at least?

Come on dude. Stop playing. If you know the rules on how to score a fight-which you just posted- you know what my answer meant.

This is a boxing diehard site, not espn.

Stop wasting time. Loma didn’t win any rounds from1-7 or 12.

[LeOoze]

Yeah. The judges gave it to Teofimo. The scorecards were absolutely controversial. It was a super close fight and should have been a draw. You are just making **** up. Why, I wonder. If you don't like a fighter, that's your prerogative. But if you are going to talk bull****, I'll hit you in the face with a fist full of facts.

What facts? Loma won 4 rounds max. He lost the first 7 rounds and the last round. Not that close lol. Stop being a moron.

[The Big Dunn]

Yeah. The judges gave it to Teofimo. The scorecards were absolutely controversial. It was a super close fight and should have been a draw. You are just making **** up. Why, I wonder. If you don't like a fighter, that's your prerogative. But if you are going to talk bull****, I'll hit you in the face with a fist full of facts.

This fight wasn’t a draw dude. Loma gave it to Teo, not the judges.

Now if you disagree with the 119-109 scorecard, I’m with you because that was imo way too wide and not indicative of the fight.

But you can’t be taken seriously with a draw. There isn’t a round Loma won other then 8,9,10 and 11.

[Cypocryphy]

This fight wasn’t a draw dude. Loma gave it to Teo, not the judges.

Now if you disagree with the 119-109 scorecard, I’m with you because that was imo way too wide and not indicative of the fight.

But you can’t be taken seriously with a draw. There isn’t a round Loma won other then 8,9,10 and 11.

Okay ... just holdup a sec. I'm not trying to waste time, I just need to know we are on the same page. I'm not trying to insult you. I'm getting there. It's important to agree here.

So now that we (obviously) agree on the scoring criteria, let's flesh it out.

Rules:

• Clean, effective punches
  • To the untrained eye, it can appear as if a boxer is landing a lot of shots, when, in fact, most are being blocked or aren’t landing flush. A judge needs to look for hard shots that land clean. This means that a soft or touching punch is not as effective as a hard punch.
• Effective Agression
  • Being aggressive gives the impression of dominance, but unless the boxer is landing shots and not constantly getting countered, it isn't really 'effective'. Judges look for effective aggression, where the aggressor consistently lands punches and avoids those from his opponent.
• Ring Generalship
  • The fighter who controls the action and enforces their will and style.
• Defense
  • How well is a boxer slipping, parrying, and blocking punches.

So let's speed this up. Do you disagree with how I have defined the scoring criteria? What do you believe is more important or do you believe that they are all equally important?

[-Kev-]

Many times in boxing, the up and coming B-side fighter beats the proven A-side, #1 ranked veteran. Some of these upsets have been terrible KO's, some of them were close upsets.

Not many sports are like boxing, where you kind of have a choice in who you go up against. For example, NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, etc, have schedules. If you lose in the Super Bowl, the loser can't just ask for a rematch for the championship, and the champion grants them that rematch, and the NFL allows it. For the rematch to happen for the championship, both teams would have to make it to the Super Bowl again the following year, or some other year, who knows when.

Anyway, because of boxing's nature, you have a choice in who you fight. Granted, the other fighter has to agree. Lomachenko chose to fight Lopez, the up and coming kid in boxing. He could have gone up to 147 and called out Pacquiao for a big money fight, win or lose, and no one would have cared if Lomachenko lost because he would have to go up 2 weights classes. But Lomachenko chose to fight Lopez, who also looked way better and tougher than the featherfisted Haney (and still does look better now) who some fans claim Lomachenko ducked for some reason. The guy barely got past Linares, no one is scared of him.

Point is, Lopez needs to do the right thing and give Lomachenko a rematch because Lomachenko gave him the opportunity. It's the right thing to do. It is an unwritten rule, it does not matter if there is no rematch clause. It is the "prizefighter" thing to do. The top guy, veteran guy, gives you a fight when you ask for it...you win...he asks for a rematch, you give him the rematch. That is the gentleman/prizefighter thing to do. Teofimo Lopez is acting like a child instead of a gentleman/fighter. The fighter in Lomachenko made him fight you because he has pride and you were calling him out like crazy. Now he calls you out for a rematch, have some pride and fight him.