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

[ColdBlooded]

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.

Case in point: Dave Moretti. Did an excellent job scoring the first half of the fight, giving Loma 2, 3, and 6. Then inexplicably started giving clear Loma rounds in the second half to Haney. Odd...

[Sosay]

Yeah, I had you down 5-1 after 6 but no complaints as 7-8 rds were close. Thing about boxing, you don't get to score your fights.

[crimsonfalcon07]

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.

The rules state that if the round is too close to be called that it is scored even. Swing rounds aren't a thing. If it's so close that it could go either way, the judges are supposed to score it even. That's not being pedantic, just pointing out what should be abundantly clear. People like you pushing for fake things like swing rounds aid and abet corruption by enabling judges to use even rounds to support the fighter they were paid to have win. Swing rounds aren't in the rules. Even rounds are. That's just one thing that could be easily fixed to reduce corrupt decisions. Why are you arguing for something that's not even in the ruleset? You might as well argue that the favored fighter should be allowed to use low blows or kicks.

[IronDanHamza]

The rules state that if the round is too close to be called that it is scored even. Swing rounds aren't a thing. If it's so close that it could go either way, the judges are supposed to score it even. That's not being pedantic, just pointing out what should be abundantly clear. People like you pushing for fake things like swing rounds aid and abet corruption by enabling judges to use even rounds to support the fighter they were paid to have win. Swing rounds aren't in the rules. Even rounds are. That's just one thing that could be easily fixed to reduce corrupt decisions. Why are you arguing for something that's not even in the ruleset? You might as well argue that the favored fighter should be allowed to use low blows or kicks.

Who said anything about “too close to call” ? You’ve just inserted that terminology in there yourself.

What are you saying here? That it’s either one fighter won the round or it’s a draw? There can’t be a round where one judge scores it for one guy and the other scores it the other way? Is that actually what you are trying to argue here?

If there’s a round in a boxing match, where both fighters have an argument for winning it, then that is by definition a swing round. What that means is, it could be scored for either man, and thus meaning, one judge might score it for Fighter A and an another for Fighter B.

It’s the literal reason we have three judges as opposed to one.

[crimsonfalcon07]

Who said anything about “too close to call” ? You’ve just inserted that terminology in there yourself.

What are you saying here? That it’s either one fighter won the round or it’s a draw? There can’t be a round where one judge scores it for one guy and the other scores it the other way? Is that actually what you are trying to argue here?

If there’s a round in a boxing match, where both fighters have an argument for winning it, then that is by definition a swing round. What that means is, it could be scored for either man, and thus meaning, one judge might score it for Fighter A and an another for Fighter B.

It’s the literal reason we have three judges as opposed to one.

Wow, your reading comprehension is terrible.

No. Swing rounds don't exist in the rules. They're a made up thing by fans who don't know how to score. There's no need for judges to force a 10-9 round if it's close. If it's wide enough to call one way or the other, then it becomes more obvious when a judge gets it wrong, which is why there's 3 judges. That's ALSO why boxing should have the ability to have controversial decisions reviewed by a larger panel of randomly chosen judges as I said earlier, but I digress.

If the educated observer can't choose which fighter the round should go to, the round is definitionally too close to call, and should be scored even. The rules permit (and require) that, but judges use the lack of accountability to score even rounds for their preferred fighter (which they shouldn't even have, again by definition).

The difference here is that the stuff I'm talking about is all defined in the rules. What you're talking about is made up things that don't exist in the rules, and practically speaking provide the cover for corruption. You think people would be complaining if the razor close rounds in this fight had been scored even? There might still be differences in judging, but it would likely not be 9 to 10 of 12 rounds.

Even rounds are also more reflective of what happens in close fights. Under the current "10-9 must" interpretation, a closely contested round is generally the exact same scoring as a dominant round. But the ACTUAL ruleset says that's not how it's supposed to be scored. 10-8 and 10-10 rounds should be way more common. If a fighter clearly dominates a round, that's a different thing than a fighter winning a close round, or both fighters giving as good as they get.

I don't know why you're arguing for a bad interpretation of the rules that's been abundantly proven to result in frequent controversial decisions, when the rules permit (and require) better scoring.

[IronDanHamza]

Wow, your reading comprehension is terrible.

No. Swing rounds don't exist in the rules. They're a made up thing by fans who don't know how to score. There's no need for judges to force a 10-9 round if it's close. If it's wide enough to call one way or the other, then it becomes more obvious when a judge gets it wrong, which is why there's 3 judges. That's ALSO why boxing should have the ability to have controversial decisions reviewed by a larger panel of randomly chosen judges as I said earlier, but I digress.

If the educated observer can't choose which fighter the round should go to, the round is definitionally too close to call, and should be scored even. The rules permit (and require) that, but judges use the lack of accountability to score even rounds for their preferred fighter (which they shouldn't even have, again by definition).

The difference here is that the stuff I'm talking about is all defined in the rules. What you're talking about is made up things that don't exist in the rules, and practically speaking provide the cover for corruption. You think people would be complaining if the razor close rounds in this fight had been scored even? There might still be differences in judging, but it would likely not be 9 to 10 of 12 rounds.

Even rounds are also more reflective of what happens in close fights. Under the current "10-9 must" interpretation, a closely contested round is generally the exact same scoring as a dominant round. But the ACTUAL ruleset says that's not how it's supposed to be scored. 10-8 and 10-10 rounds should be way more common. If a fighter clearly dominates a round, that's a different thing than a fighter winning a close round, or both fighters giving as good as they get.

I don't know why you're arguing for a bad interpretation of the rules that's been abundantly proven to result in frequent controversial decisions, when the rules permit (and require) better scoring.

It’s not “10-9” must, it’s “10 point must” meaning one fighter has to get 10.

…..Right so what are you arguing here? Are you arguing that in the case of a round that it’s debatable who’s won it, that the only option is to to score it 10-10?

[jmrf4435]

My exact cards

8-4 Loma

Haney was landing elbow body shots that were doing no damage. You knew they did nothing because they didn't stop Loma from coming jnside and landing combinations

Easy fight to score Loma schooled him

[paulf]

Anywhere from 8-4 Loma to 8-4 Haney is a good card.

Loma was dominant 2 rounds. Maybe you could argue 3.

Even with the cards all stacked in his favor, things didn't go Loma's way.

Stop cryin and go beat up Kambosis.