Katie Taylor vs. Amanda Serrano : How many rounds did you give Katie Taylor with her sorry-ass punching technique?

[1hourRun]

One thing I notice about you is you consistenly pick losers. You did this with Wilder too, you lose and are wrong ---> a lot. I originally picked Serrano to win, but Taylor clearly won the fight.

Stop ******** your money and losing.

Hey War Room, tell me how many rounds you gave Katie, cause I been pulling these chumps cards and handing L's since page 1.

By the way, who called the 'Takeover' over Bumachenko? Andy Ruiz over A.J, Oleksandr to school Joshua? Jack Catterall over the 'Tart-Tomato' Josh Taylor?

[War Room]

Hey War Room, tell me how many rounds you gave Katie, cause I been pulling these chumps cards and handing L's since page 1.

By the way, who called the 'Takeover' over Bumachenko? Andy Ruiz over A.J, Oleksandr to school Joshua? Jack Catterall over the 'Tart-Tomato' Josh Taylor?

You don't hand out nothing but oyster crackers in the soup line.

I scored it up to the 6th or whatever round Serrano had Taylor hurt in an quit scoring after that. My wife and I were having a few drinks because hey like history and enjoying the show so I can't give you an accurate scorecard, but Serrano lost and lost clearly. It obviously wasn't a blow out, Serrano had her moments, but she got outhustled, was too slow in the opening rounds getting countered, and I think those shoes fucked her over. Taylor finished like a champion and Serrano was getting out hustled and dinged up in the last stretch of rounds.

I had picked Teo and Usyk, check my posts, so if you picked them ---> those are good picks and even degenerates are going to win eventually. But Ruiz, come on kid, you ain't foolin nobody and all of these dogs makes it look like you pick dogs a lot and feedin the window. If you're picking dogs on the reg, at the end of the year you're in the red.

[Ricardi]

No doubt, of the two, Serrano is the puncher. Taylor needs to get in and get the hell out. She didn't do that in the 4th and 5th and it nearly ended her evening early.

Yes, it's true, Taylor punches like a girl, so does Shields but it turns out you can still win if you land enough weak punches.

I thought Serrano won as well but there were enough close rounds that I could easily have scored for Taylor to give her the win.

This is fair and a non biased way to look at it

[billeau2]

This is Katie Taylor's work from round 2, as you can see this is crap : Taylor hits Amanda on the crown of her head, back of the head, neck, or barely makes any contact ; a lot of Katies shots were blocked. To be fair to Taylor, she lands the best punch of the round @ 1.10 but the majority of her punches are not clean and sloppy.

In real time, these grazing shots with the input of commentators that make mistakes calling the scraping blows hard strikes, convinces the untrained eye.

Compare this to Amanda's consistent steady clean-work, you cant give Taylor round 2.

I got the Amanda winning rounds : 2,4-5-6-10, round 5 is a 10-8. I have not studied rounds 3 in detail but you can also give Amanda a couple swing rounds.

Stop telling me that Katie Taylor beat Amanda Serrano, your a dumbass and should be embarrassed for your low-level of boxing knowledge.

Now get the F-OUT of my thread!

Heres the problem: while other sports, like fencing for example, long ago realized that the hand is quicker than the eye, and that subtlety is the mark of a professional, instituted scoring systems that compensate for this, corrupt boxing gives not two shiats. I first realized this problem years back.. when i was fighting martial arts, i was teaching a group and I would never win a bout... I was trained to make the opponent just miss and catch them which I did but inevitably it translated as the opponent getting a point.

No one can possibly see when a fighter just avoids a blow... especially not old azz men with glasses and with corrupt agendas. So yes, Amanda does not get hit clean but Katie "can't lose a decision" Taylor remains the judges favorite. Yeah it sucks... I hate scoring in boxing and really never take it seriously when a fight is close.

[1hourRun]

Heres the problem: while other sports, like fencing for example, long ago realized that the hand is quicker than the eye, and that subtlety is the mark of a professional, instituted scoring systems that compensate for this, corrupt boxing gives not two shiats. I first realized this problem years back.. when i was fighting martial arts, i was teaching a group and I would never win a bout... I was trained to make the opponent just miss and catch them which I did but inevitably it translated as the opponent getting a point.

No one can possibly see when a fighter just avoids a blow... especially not old azz men with glasses and with corrupt agendas. So yes, Amanda does not get hit clean but Katie "can't lose a decision" Taylor remains the judges favorite. Yeah it sucks... I hate scoring in boxing and really never take it seriously when a fight is close.

These ignorant-inexperienced and dishonest judges robbed my boy billeau2. I was trained in Aikido as a young-boy but I got my ass kicked because it sucks, I should of boxed in that fight -- which was the first martial-art that I ever learned, but NOOO, I wanted to look cool.

But later when I was a teen my elder brother introduced me to his boss who worked security, he was a master Kickboxer and coached on the weekends. He took me to a tournament in Venice Beach, I thought it was pretty cool and wished that I could become the next 'Bloodsport' , but I never had enough training to compete at the high-level.

But anyways back to Katie Taylor vs. Amanda Serrano.



I cant make this stuff up, look at how Katie pulls the first left-hook in this gif, its as if she has mastered the ability to create an illusion that her punch lands!

Katie's deceiving method of winning decision's, should be called 'Forgery' : I noticed that, her evasive-tactics combined with rapid ineffective-offense creates the illusion of effective-effort. Like you noted, eyes are meant to be tricked ; and I guess that is a art-form in itself.

Katie Taylor should be renamed 'Lady-Houdini' for all the times she escapes and vanishes with her belts.

[Robbie Barrett]

This is Katie Taylor's work from round 2, as you can see this is crap : Taylor hits Amanda on the crown of her head, back of the head, neck, or barely makes any contact ; a lot of Katies shots were blocked. To be fair to Taylor, she lands the best punch of the round @ 1.10 but the majority of her punches are not clean and sloppy.

In real time, these grazing shots with the input of commentators that make mistakes calling the scraping blows hard strikes, convinces the untrained eye.

Compare this to Amanda's consistent steady clean-work, you cant give Taylor round 2.

I got the Amanda winning rounds : 2,4-5-6-10, round 5 is a 10-8. I have not studied rounds 3 in detail but you can also give Amanda a couple swing rounds.

Stop telling me that Katie Taylor beat Amanda Serrano, your a dumbass and should be embarrassed for your low-level of boxing knowledge.

Now get the F-OUT of my thread!

Just watched round 2 and Serrano lands nothing apart from a couple of body shots in a clinch. Also noticed you left some of Taylors landed shots out.

Clear Taylor round. Not even debateable.

[Robbie Barrett]

Notice how thread started posted no landed serrano shots? Because there was none.

[Rockybigblower]

This is Katie Taylor's work from round 2, as you can see this is crap : Taylor hits Amanda on the crown of her head, back of the head, neck, or barely makes any contact ; a lot of Katies shots were blocked. To be fair to Taylor, she lands the best punch of the round @ 1.10 but the majority of her punches are not clean and sloppy.

In real time, these grazing shots with the input of commentators that make mistakes calling the scraping blows hard strikes, convinces the untrained eye.

Compare this to Amanda's consistent steady clean-work, you cant give Taylor round 2.

I got the Amanda winning rounds : 2,4-5-6-10, round 5 is a 10-8. I have not studied rounds 3 in detail but you can also give Amanda a couple swing rounds.

Stop telling me that Katie Taylor beat Amanda Serrano, your a dumbass and should be embarrassed for your low-level of boxing knowledge.

Now get the F-OUT of my thread!

According to Dazn and Matchroom protocol....I gave the fight to Katie 11 rounds to 5 with 3 even.

68108919c7350dc8fd35d5130f694824.gif

[1hourRun]

Just watched round 2 and Serrano lands nothing apart from a couple of body shots in a clinch. Also noticed you left some of Taylors landed shots out.

Clear Taylor round. Not even debateable.

Notice how thread started posted no landed serrano shots? Because there was none.

Poor fella.

Now Robbie Barrett, you challenged me before about a particular instance in Wilder vs. Ortiz I, that everyone seemed to miss ( but me ). I'm referring to round 2, in which 'The Bronze-Bum' was not credited a knockdown when Wilder dropped Luis Ortiz with a JAB, by referee David Fields @ 1:42.

You remember that you ended up conceding to my argument when the hard evidence was presented -- as is the case in this topic.

I went through the trouble of making these gifs of some of Amanda Serrano's offense in round 2, which clearly refute your argument and failure to recognize and acknowledge Amanda's work.

Give me clean well-timed accurate punches over Taylor's wild-sloppy-ass-glancing-wrist-punches, slaps and illegal blows all day. Anyone is free to compare the clips from round 2 posted in previous pages of this thread, of Katie Taylor's amateur and crude weak punches ( that missed the legal-target-area ) to Amanda Serrano's accurate punches ; the knowledgeable boxing fan that abides by the established rules of scoring will prefer Amanda's skillful accurate and clean work as oppose to all the sloppy crap from Taylor that dont even count.

'' Clear Taylor round. Not even debateable. '' -- Robbie Barrett.

[Robbie Barrett]

Poor fella.

Now Robbie Barrett, you challenged me before about a particular instance in Wilder vs. Ortiz I, that everyone seemed to miss ( but me ). I'm referring to round 2, in which 'The Bronze-Bum' was not credited a knockdown when Wilder dropped Luis Ortiz with a JAB, by referee David Fields @ 1:42.

You remember that you ended up conceding to my argument when the hard evidence was presented -- as is the case in this topic.

I went through the trouble of making these gifs of some of Amanda Serrano's offense in round 2, which clearly refute your argument and failure to recognize and acknowledge Amanda's work.

Give me clean well-timed accurate punches over Taylor's wild-sloppy-ass-glancing-wrist-punches, slaps and illegal blows all day. Anyone is free to compare the clips from round 2 posted in previous pages of this thread, of Katie Taylor's amateur and crude weak punches ( that missed the legal-target-area ) to Amanda Serrano's accurate punches ; the knowledgeable boxing fan that abides by the established rules of scoring will prefer Amanda's skillful accurate and clean work as oppose to all the sloppy crap from Taylor that dont even count.

'' Clear Taylor round. Not even debateable. '' -- Robbie Barrett.

Literally nothing land apart from the shots in the clinch which i said. You went through round 2 and these are all you could find. Thanks for proving my argument.