Fight Score - Loma Vs Haney - 880 Entries

[Smash]

I have no idea. Nor does anyone.

Surely thats 100% false

I would say with 100% certainty that with those stats canelo would win that fight

[crimsonfalcon07]

I gave Loma round 2, but it's not a clear round for him.

Barely any of them were.

But I mean, you're arguing either way rounds don't exist whilst also telling me a out of 3 of the judges, they scored a round differently from one another

I'm saying that by your own logic, you should be giving 2 to Loma. You're the one saying that if all 3 judges think a fighter won a round that should count as good evidence that said fighter won that round. So it's even internally inconsistent for you to be arguing for round 2 of all rounds.

And that's on top of you not knowing the rules of boxing OR the definition of 'close' in the dictionary. Nothing you've claimed actually supports your position. I'm honestly impressed you've managed to be wrong on so many different levels.

[Smash]

Neither fighter won 7 clear definitive rounds therefore it wasn't a robbery.

.

ok so it wasnt a win then either

[Zaroku]

I think in close fights the boxers should fights three more rounds and play chess in between rounds !!!

[IronDanHamza]

I'm saying that by your own logic, you should be giving 2 to Loma. You're the one saying that if all 3 judges think a fighter won a round that should count as good evidence that said fighter won that round. So it's even internally inconsistent for you to be arguing for round 2 of all rounds.

And that's on top of you not knowing the rules of boxing OR the definition of 'close' in the dictionary. Nothing you've claimed actually supports your position. I'm honestly impressed you've managed to be wrong on so many different levels.

I did give Round 2 to Loma.

At what point did I say if all 3 judges score the round for a fighter that that's good evidence that fighter won the round? I didn't say that at any point.

How do you go about justifying the position that there can't be either way rounds in a boxing match when you just said one of the rounds you citied, were split between the judges?

You know that usually means, right? When the round is split between the judges?

[IronDanHamza]

ok so it wasnt a win then either

What wasn't a win?

[IronDanHamza]

Surely thats 100% false

I would say with 100% certainty that with those stats canelo would win that fight

No, you objectively can't say that with 100% certainty.

[Smash]

What wasn't a win?

a win for haney

if he didnt win 7 clear rounds it wasnt a win for him

[Smash]

No, you objectively can't say that with 100% certainty.

its a banker or to use another term slam dunk

[crimsonfalcon07]

I did give Round 2 to Loma.

At what point did I say if all 3 judges score the round for a fighter that that's good evidence that fighter won the round? I didn't say that at any point.

How do you go about justifying the position that there can't be either way rounds in a boxing match when you just said one of the rounds you citied, were split between the judges?

You know that usually means, right? When the round is split between the judges?

It means that at least one of the judges was getting it wrong. They've all got their own formulas for arriving at the decision that they were paid to reach. What, do you think the judges are infallible and incorruptible?

Not to mention, none of the judges would agree that the round they scored one way "could have easily gone to the other fighter.". The fighter that gets the 10 needs to be the winner of the round in the judge's mind. If it could go either way, that's the literal definition of an even round, and is supposed to be scored that way.

Judges getting it wrong doesn't mean that there's not a correct winner to the round or the fight. That logic suggests that the Tony Weeks, Adelaide Byrd, Dave Moretti, etc are just as objective and valid as anyone else, and that's clearly false.