Fight Score - Loma Vs Haney - 880 Entries

[garfios]

Which should make the fact that Usyk won every one of his titles on the road even more worthy of respect. Crazy to me that people aren't willing to give him any credit.

Usyk is a heck of a fighter, and I think lomachenko got the end of the stick. Yes, haney did a good body work, but didn't slow down lomachenko, has no apparent effect on him. My question to him would be, why did he take the 12-round off?

[crimsonfalcon07]

You know what the word "close" means, right?

If the fight was close then it means that there's a possibility either man won I.e This fight.

If there's an argument for either man winning then it's not a robbery, is it?

No, close does not mean that either guy won the fight. You can have a close fight that's still got a clear winner. But the fact that people like you can think that means that the rules are obtuse enough to permit corruption.

The biggest issues with boxing scoring are all on display with this fight.

First, even rounds are supposed to be scored even.

Close rounds are scored 10-9 to the winner. Very dominant rounds are scored 10-8. Knockdowns take a point away from the fighter who got knocked down. Ditto point deductions. Being dominated for a whole round and then landing one good punch that happens to catch your opponent off balance shouldn't just give you a 10-8. And close rounds shouldn't be scored the same as dominant rounds. That's all specified in the rules, as well as the criteria of effective aggression, ring generalship, defense, and hard clean shots. What's not in the rules? The notion that close rounds should be scored for the champion, or that the challenger needs to "take the belts away from the champ."

And it should be clear that the rules are being kept obtuse for a reason, that's not got anything to do with fairness or getting the decisions right.

Close doesn't mean that it's ok to award the win to either fighter. If that's the case, it should be a tie. Close means it was competitive but one person won. And getting the decision wrong absolutely can still be a robbery.

[ColdBlooded]

Usyk is a heck of a fighter, and I think lomachenko got the end of the stick. Yes, haney did a good body work, but didn't slow down lomachenko, has no apparent effect on him. My question to him would be, why did he take the 12-round off?

I would argue his problem in the 12th wasn't that he was too passive, it's that he rushed forward into punching range without getting off first.

[4truth]

Given that a high percentage of the rest of boxing watching world had Loma winning, the odds that every single judge would have Haney winning are very long odds. You can believe that the deck wasn't stacked if you like but you are probably wrong.

[crimsonfalcon07]

Usyk is a heck of a fighter, and I think lomachenko got the end of the stick. Yes, haney did a good body work, but didn't slow down lomachenko, has no apparent effect on him. My question to him would be, why did he take the 12-round off?

Yeah, taking rounds off is a really bad habit for him. He's always his own worst enemy. Same thing with why he thought he could just screw around for 7 rounds against Lopez. I give him a pass against Salido because that was his second pro fight and he ate 50+ low blows. But the Haney and Lopez fights he really didn't do himself any favors. Felt like if he had stepped on the gas he might have stopped Haney.

I'm beginning to think that the most reasonable solution might be to overturn the decision to a draw or NC. Haney retains the belts, but doesn't have the extremely questionable win, and more incentive to fight the rematch.

But I am starting to think that Loma taking his foot off the gas in 12 might mean he has lost a step. At this point I would expect Tank and Shakur both to be favorites against him.

[Smash]

it was a close fight & close fights can go either way but i knew as did many others which way this fight would go decision wise when it finished, so does that actually mean it was a close fight lol

[IronDanHamza]

No, close does not mean that either guy won the fight. You can have a close fight that's still got a clear winner. But the fact that people like you can think that means that the rules are obtuse enough to permit corruption.

The biggest issues with boxing scoring are all on display with this fight.

First, even rounds are supposed to be scored even.

Close rounds are scored 10-9 to the winner. Very dominant rounds are scored 10-8. Knockdowns take a point away from the fighter who got knocked down. Ditto point deductions. Being dominated for a whole round and then landing one good punch that happens to catch your opponent off balance shouldn't just give you a 10-8. And close rounds shouldn't be scored the same as dominant rounds. That's all specified in the rules, as well as the criteria of effective aggression, ring generalship, defense, and hard clean shots. What's not in the rules? The notion that close rounds should be scored for the champion, or that the challenger needs to "take the belts away from the champ."

And it should be clear that the rules are being kept obtuse for a reason, that's not got anything to do with fairness or getting the decisions right.

Close doesn't mean that it's ok to award the win to either fighter. If that's the case, it should be a tie. Close means it was competitive but one person won. And getting the decision wrong absolutely can still be a robbery.

If the fights clear then it's not close.

I think the word you're looking for is competitive.

A fight can't be close and also clear.

Are you the same guy who was trying to argue that swing rounds don't exist? I can't remember.

[IronDanHamza]

The problem is that there is no argument for Haney winning because there aren't 7 rounds that can be reasonably scored for him.

So you are telling me that you can't reasonably score rounds;

1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 12 for Haney?

I'll leave out 8 and 9, that could also be reasonably scored for Haney. There's 7 without those rounds.

You're actually telling me that Loma clearly won those rounds?

[IronDanHamza]

Close fight doesn’t only mean the other fighter could have won. Why are you making up definitions for boxing?

A close fight can also be a clear win. i.e. the saying “close but clear win”.

Lomachenko was robbed. Most people agree with that. I get your boy Haney lost and you’re mad at that, so you’ve been working overtime defending him for weeks now.

I'm not making up definitions I'm citing the actual definition of the word.

Not a fan of Haney, actually dislike him as a fighter and a person. Loma, I like. So your weird cope mechanisms you people try and go with isn't going to work here unfortunately.

Most people don't agree with that. Have you seen the media scores? The data from this thread itself literally supports the contrary.

You're making assertions that I don't think you quite understand.

[crimsonfalcon07]

If the fights clear then it's not close.

I think the word you're looking for is competitive.

A fight can't be close and also clear.

Are you the same guy who was trying to argue that swing rounds don't exist? I can't remember.

You're the same guy who doesn't actually know the rules and makes things up that aren't in them to fit his own interpretation. But thanks for proving that to everyone again.

Show me where there's a definition of close fight in anything that's even remotely related to the rules that has anything to do with your nonsense.

Oh wait, that would require you to actually educate yourself about the topic, so you can't be bothered because that might interfere with your ability to spread made up nonsense.

This is one of the dumbest takes yet. Like, a race that has one person come in a thousandth ahead isn't close with a clear winner?