Comments Thread For: Bob Arum Rages At 'Disgraceful' Scores For Josh Taylor-Jack Catterall II

[Smash]

catterall gets legit robbed in glasgow
catterall gets a legit decision win in england
bob gets on the stage in england to complain about officials there & says he wont bring US guys to england
LOL
well what about bringing the US guys to scotland then

[Roberto Vasquez]

Taylor didn't come close to landing even half that number in power punches.

Never, ever take the punch stats. Always check it out yourself by going over the round. You'll be shocked at how bad those stats are.

I believe the official stats (this is their job!) over fans of the other fighter. Reminds me of the first Wilder/Fury fight when people couldn't believe there was only 13 punches in it. Fury made Wilder miss badly a few times and that was all it took for people to believe that Wilder hardly ever landed.

And I never go over a fight and count the punches. You'd have to be very emotionally invested to do that.

[Sid-Knee]

I believe the official stats (this is their job!) over fans of the other fighter. Reminds me of the first Wilder/Fury fight when people couldn't believe there was only 13 punches in it. Fury made Wilder miss badly a few times and that was all it took for people to believe that Wilder hardly ever landed.

And I never go over a fight and count the punches. You'd have to be very emotionally invested to do that.

When you get "Official" stats and they look way off to what you've just watched, it's best to fact check and see if what you're thinking is correct. After doing so a good few times to see if they were legit in the past, i came to the absolute conclusion that they were about as official as the draw in the first Lewis/Holyfield fight. They're bullshlt. It has nothing to do with who you're going for. It's about seeing if one of the arguments for close fights is legit or not. Trust me, it isn't.

You believe Wilder missed badly a few times? If a few times means all night in your world, then i agree. He definitely missed a few times. He missed a few times to a degree i've never seen before.

[joesaiditstrue]

LOL Bob knows Josh got his ass kicked, he's fortunate to walk out of there with a SD, I had that **** 117-111 for Catterall, Josh didn't do ****

[MulaKO]

The Bobfather is getting old and fast
He couldn’t be wronger on this one

[Roberto Vasquez]

When you get "Official" stats and they look way off to what you've just watched, it's best to fact check and see if what you're thinking is correct. After doing so a good few times to see if they were legit in the past, i came to the absolute conclusion that they were about as official as the draw in the first Lewis/Holyfield fight. They're bullshlt. It has nothing to do with who you're going for. It's about seeing if one of the arguments for close fights is legit or not. Trust me, it isn't.

You believe Wilder missed badly a few times? If a few times means all night in your world, then i agree. He definitely missed a few times. He missed a few times to a degree i've never seen before.

Well what are your genuine punch figures then?? If they are wrong you need to show your figures. I do doubt that people would be paying huge amounts of money for Compubox's services if they are wrong. Why aren't they paying for your services instead??

You are missing the point with Wilder - it doesn't matter if he missed 100 times - If he landed 100 other times. You demonstrated my point precisely there. Making a fighter miss doesn't get you points by itself - but fans think it does because it looks good.

[Sid-Knee]

Well what are your genuine punch figures then?? If they are wrong you need to show your figures. I do doubt that people would be paying huge amounts of money for Compubox's services if they are wrong. Why aren't they paying for your services instead??

You are missing the point with Wilder - it doesn't matter if he missed 100 times - If he landed 100 other times. You demonstrated my point precisely there. Making a fighter miss doesn't get you points by itself - but fans think it does because it looks good.

The first 3 rounds, these are the overall punch stats they put out...

RD 1) Taylor 6, Catterall 10.
RD 2) Taylor 12, Catterall 11.
RD 3) Taylor 11, Catterall 11.

The actual punch stats are...

RD 1) Taylor 2, Catterall 10.
RD 2) Taylor 4, Catterall 13.
RD 3) Taylor 5, Catterall 12.

Taylor's numbers are pumped up, whereas Catterall's numbers in 2 of those rounds are dropped.

This was DAZN too where Catterall is their guy. If you want them where they're grotesque and absolutely corrupt, you want to look at TopRank. They're the worst. The guy they want to win has their numbers increased. The guy they want to lose has theirs decreased. PBC and GoldenBoy do the same. But TopRank is by far the absolute worse.

Where Wilder is concerned, do you really think he landed with every other shot he threw? Wilder didn't come close to landing 100 over the 12 rounds. He threw about 3 to 400 shots too. I've thrown away my numbers. But i can redo some of the rounds if you want just to show the hilarity of it.

[Sparktrek]

I know Bob has to protect his fighter but that was a ridiculous rant. You can argue that Taylor won a round or two more than the official scores but to say he won was laughable. I scored it 117-111 with no favorite going in.

[Roberto Vasquez]

The first 3 rounds, these are the overall punch stats they put out...

RD 1) Taylor 6, Catterall 10.
RD 2) Taylor 12, Catterall 11.
RD 3) Taylor 11, Catterall 11.

The actual punch stats are...

RD 1) Taylor 2, Catterall 10.
RD 2) Taylor 4, Catterall 13.
RD 3) Taylor 5, Catterall 12.

Taylor's numbers are pumped up, whereas Catterall's numbers in 2 of those rounds are dropped.

This was DAZN too where Catterall is their guy. If you want them where they're grotesque and absolutely corrupt, you want to look at TopRank. They're the worst. The guy they want to win has their numbers increased. The guy they want to lose has theirs decreased. PBC and GoldenBoy do the same. But TopRank is by far the absolute worse.

Where Wilder is concerned, do you really think he landed with every other shot he threw? Wilder didn't come close to landing 100 over the 12 rounds. He threw about 3 to 400 shots too. I've thrown away my numbers. But i can redo some of the rounds if you want just to show the hilarity of it.

Ok I will check this out soon. But already looks su****ious - you support Catterall and you clearly took punches off Taylor and then added punches on to Catteral! I would believe it more if you showed some punch stats from fights where you had to change the punch stats so that your guy clearly lost. It seems like your punch stats always support the guy you want to win...

Also given that Compubox figures don't even effect the result - seems unlikely they anyone would pay to alter them! When has a promoter ever talked about compubox figures?- it happens but very very rarely.

I actually just watched first round of Wilder/Fury 1 at half speed and it's pretty clear they didn't count a lot of both fighter's punches. Even watching the first minute Wilder lands about 4 punches (and they gave him 4 for the entire round). So I think it's just what they define as a punch that is confusing you. They probably have a house definition. By "any punch that lands" I had it about 11/10 to Fury (they had it 6/4 to Fury). Seems legit to me. I would have (just) given that round to Fury. He was actually quite poor at distance but good when the fighters got close which surprised me tbh. Wilder was way better at a distance - the actual boxing part

Also it felt like I was wasting my life doing this. Why or how you would do it is beyond me. To be 100% accurate I would have kept replaying certain parts. Because it's not always clear from certain angles (e.g. behind a fighter) if a punch lands or misses.

[Sid-Knee]

Ok I will check this out soon. But already looks su****ious - you support Catterall and you clearly took punches off Taylor and then added punches on to Catteral! I would believe it more if you showed some punch stats from fights where you had to change the punch stats so that your guy clearly lost. It seems like your punch stats always support the guy you want to win...

Also given that Compubox figures don't even effect the result - seems unlikely they anyone would pay to alter them! When has a promoter ever talked about compubox figures?- it happens but very very rarely.

I actually just watched first round of Wilder/Fury 1 at half speed and it's pretty clear they didn't count a lot of both fighter's punches. Even watching the first minute Wilder lands about 4 punches (and they gave him 4 for the entire round). So I think it's just what they define as a punch that is confusing you. They probably have a house definition. By "any punch that lands" I had it about 11/10 to Fury (they had it 6/4 to Fury). Seems legit to me. I would have (just) given that round to Fury. He was actually quite poor at distance but good when the fighters got close which surprised me tbh. Wilder was way better at a distance - the actual boxing part

Also it felt like I was wasting my life doing this. Why or how you would do it is beyond me. To be 100% accurate I would have kept replaying certain parts. Because it's not always clear from certain angles (e.g. behind a fighter) if a punch lands or misses.

It has nothing to do with who i do or don't support. You can check yourself and see if you want. I'm always honest when it comes to counting landed punches from both.

Punches landed should be those that land with the fist part, no inside of the glove. They have to be an actual punch, not a touch or a flick. I do that for both of them.

These stats are to convince the viewers that they didn't just see a robbery. The same way you listen to TopRank commentary on Sky and hear propaganda like no other from that Christine woman. She's always setting the scene for the eventual robbery. It's disgusting.