Comments Thread For: Lomachenko Says He Scored Haney Fight 8-4 In His Favor After Watching Replay

[BoZz]

just like he thought he beat teofimo, this clown is an emotional wreck..go back to Ukraine you coward, defend your people

[crimsonfalcon07]

Just gonna remind people that "to be the champ you must beat the champ" refers to the fact that the champ retains the belt on the case of a tie. Doesn't mean that you have to beat the champ on wide decisions, etc. Plenty of champs, even HOFers won a title on the strength of a close fight or even a split decision. That sort of thinking is what forces the thought that rounds have to be scored 10-9 when they're close, even though the rules specifically say that even rounds should be scored 10-10.

Also going to mention that close fights are the ones for which judges exist. If it's not a close fight, the decision is just a formality. The whole point of having judges is to have a theoretically unbiased set of observers who can make the right call in close fights. Being a close fight doesn't mean it can't be a robbery. Those are the fights that it's most important for judges to get right.

Regardless of what you think of the outcome, saying things like "it can't be a robbery because it was a close fight" or "move on" just means you don't care about corruption. It would be literally trivial to have the option for video review of controversial calls (like the Rolly "knockdown" or stoppage in the Barroso fight), and to put controversial decisions to a randomly chosen panel of judges to review. They don't do this because it's in their benefit to keep boxing corrupt.

Rounds are supposed to be scored 10 to the winner, 9 to the loser, with changes for dominant rounds, knockdowns, or point deductions. If there isn't a clear winner, the rules say it should be scored even. Swing rounds are a fallacy. Saying "it was razor close", "it could have gone either way" etc, just means you don't really know how to score, and that your opinion is, by definition, not expert, and helps enable bad judging.

[IronDanHamza]

Just gonna remind people that "to be the champ you must beat the champ" refers to the fact that the champ retains the belt on the case of a tie. Doesn't mean that you have to beat the champ on wide decisions, etc. Plenty of champs, even HOFers won a title on the strength of a close fight or even a split decision. That sort of thinking is what forces the thought that rounds have to be scored 10-9 when they're close, even though the rules specifically say that even rounds should be scored 10-10.

Also going to mention that close fights are the ones for which judges exist. If it's not a close fight, the decision is just a formality. The whole point of having judges is to have a theoretically unbiased set of observers who can make the right call in close fights. Being a close fight doesn't mean it can't be a robbery. Those are the fights that it's most important for judges to get right.

Regardless of what you think of the outcome, saying things like "it can't be a robbery because it was a close fight" or "move on" just means you don't care about corruption. It would be literally trivial to have the option for video review of controversial calls (like the Rolly "knockdown" or stoppage in the Barroso fight), and to put controversial decisions to a randomly chosen panel of judges to review. They don't do this because it's in their benefit to keep boxing corrupt.

Rounds are supposed to be scored 10 to the winner, 9 to the loser, with changes for dominant rounds, knockdowns, or point deductions. If there isn't a clear winner, the rules say it should be scored even. Swing rounds are a fallacy. Saying "it was razor close", "it could have gone either way" etc, just means you don't really know how to score, and that your opinion is, by definition, not expert, and helps enable bad judging.

Just nonsense on all fronts, really.

Swing rounds are a thing, almost every fight has them. If a round is close and competitive, to the point that it could be scored to either fighter, it's a swing round. That's not a difficult concept to understand.

It's why we have 3 judges, not just one. And it's why all 3 judges could potentially have a different score to the other in the case of a close/swing round.

And, for what it's worth, this fight had a whole lot of them.

[YOU WILL LOSE]

Just gonna remind people that "to be the champ you must beat the champ" refers to the fact that the champ retains the belt on the case of a tie. Doesn't mean that you have to beat the champ on wide decisions, etc. Plenty of champs, even HOFers won a title on the strength of a close fight or even a split decision. That sort of thinking is what forces the thought that rounds have to be scored 10-9 when they're close, even though the rules specifically say that even rounds should be scored 10-10.

Also going to mention that close fights are the ones for which judges exist. If it's not a close fight, the decision is just a formality. The whole point of having judges is to have a theoretically unbiased set of observers who can make the right call in close fights. Being a close fight doesn't mean it can't be a robbery. Those are the fights that it's most important for judges to get right.

Regardless of what you think of the outcome, saying things like "it can't be a robbery because it was a close fight" or "move on" just means you don't care about corruption. It would be literally trivial to have the option for video review of controversial calls (like the Rolly "knockdown" or stoppage in the Barroso fight), and to put controversial decisions to a randomly chosen panel of judges to review. They don't do this because it's in their benefit to keep boxing corrupt.

Rounds are supposed to be scored 10 to the winner, 9 to the loser, with changes for dominant rounds, knockdowns, or point deductions. If there isn't a clear winner, the rules say it should be scored even. Swing rounds are a fallacy. Saying "it was razor close", "it could have gone either way" etc, just means you don't really know how to score, and that your opinion is, by definition, not expert, and helps enable bad judging.

exactly,

most people will watch that, get disgusted and walk away never to return. the people who stick around will rationalize it, argue about the score, pretend they are being neutral to the other side, but never will they identify corruption. while the novices can easily see ite

listen to mood of the crowd for loma/haney at the end of the fight. pure excitement. . coming off the sham ending to garcia/tank, the ppl in attendence sounded legitimately happy to havn a good fight.a special performance from an older fighter. how quickly that turned into disgust, never seen a switch like that

[crimsonfalcon07]

Just nonsense on all fronts, really.

Swing rounds are a thing, almost every fight has them. If a round is close and competitive, to the point that it could be scored to either fighter, it's a swing round. That's not a difficult concept to understand.

It's why we have 3 judges, not just one. And it's why all 3 judges could potentially have a different score to the other in the case of a close/swing round.

And, for what it's worth, this fight had a whole lot of them.

That's literally the rules. But way to demonstrate that you don't understand them, and probably have never even read them. People like you are why the judges are free to make corrupt and bad decisions with no repercussions. What do the rules say about swing rounds? Oh yeah, they don't say anything about it because you're not supposed to give a close or even round to your favorite fighter, and there's no such thing as a swing round except for biased fans.

[Lance98]

Loma lost, so he should stop crying along with his mentally deranged fanbase.

[IronDanHamza]

That's literally the rules. But way to demonstrate that you don't understand them, and probably have never even read them. People like you are why the judges are free to make corrupt and bad decisions with no repercussions. What do the rules say about swing rounds? Oh yeah, they don't say anything about it because you're not supposed to give a close or even round to your favorite fighter, and there's no such thing as a swing round except for biased fans.

No, it seems it's you who isn't understanding something that's very simple. Or, you're being purposely pedantic. One or the other.

The rules don't cite swing rounds under that specific terminology, no. They state the winner of the round get's 10 points and the loser gets 9.

But the winner of the round can be debatable, can't it? Hence why in the instance of a close round, either man could be given the round. Therefore if a round is competitive to the point it's arguable who's won it, either fighter could be awarded it. It isn't cut and dry, hence why 3 judges can score a round different to one another. That's why there are 3 judges. To get a result that is as fair as possible.

What are you even arguing here? That there are not rounds that could be scored either way in a Boxing match? The argument you are trying to make is absurd.

[buddyr]

The same dude that said the judges were bribed in the Teo fight and it was a robbery? But the judges weren’t bribed against Ortiz when they scored it 117-111 & 116-112 huh. I scored the Haney-Loma fight a draw but this dude is just a sore loser

he's a bich

[4truth]

Because the fight was close doesn't mean the deck wasn't stacked. If 75% of those observing the fight thought Loma won, the odds of all 3 judges going against that majority is about 27-1.

[JonDP]

Loma is right. Just rewatched myself and scored it 7- 5 for Loma. He won that fight 100%. Most of Haney's body punches were blocked or glancing shots but he got full credit by the completely biased american judges.