Devon Alexander run off opponents

[Anton LaVey]

Devon's next fight is once again in his backyard in St. Louis, so Maidana has to KO him to get the win.

[Anton LaVey]

Kotelnik won seven clear rounds, which without knockdowns means he won, without debate. There's no legit way to score that fight for Alexander. Same with Matthysse, he won at least 5, with which the knockdown gives him the win, and there's no legit way to score 6 or more rounds for Alexander. So no debate, Alexander lost both.

And my bad on Kotelnik-Maidana, I don't know why I thought Maidana got the decision.

The Kotelnik "loss" to Alexander was criminal, and the Matthysse "loss" almost as bad.

[D4thincarnation]

Devon's next fight is once again in his backyard in St. Louis, so Maidana has to KO him to get the win.

If Maidana does KO it will probably go down as a draw.

[bojangles1987]

If Maidana does KO it will probably go down as a draw.

The ref will say it was a headbutt like the Martinez-Cintron fight.

[turkas]

Jesus, people on here really need to learn the difference between a close decision not going the way you scored it and a robbery. An argument can be made for either fighter winning both of the fights, thus not a robbery. In fact the arguments have been made by several boxing experts who had Alexander winning those fights or for him losing them. Hell, Harold Lederman made the argument during the entire fight against Kotelnik for Alexander winning it.

Judging in boxing is subjective, meaning it's up to the individual judge. There is no fact or absolute correct way to score a fight, rather criteria that help guide scoring. Different judges like different things, that's just how it is. Yes, judges get it wrong sometimes (i.e. robberies), but usually it's just a difference of opinion. It's all perspective, you don't have to like it, but that's how it is.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Jesus, people on here really need to learn the difference between a close decision not going the way you scored it and a robbery. An argument can be made for either fighter winning both of the fights, thus not a robbery. In fact the arguments have been made by several boxing experts who had Alexander winning those fights or for him losing them. Hell, Harold Lederman made the argument during the entire fight against Kotelnik for Alexander winning it.

Judging in boxing is subjective, meaning it's up to the individual judge. There is no fact or absolute correct way to score a fight, rather criteria that help guide scoring. Different judges like different things, that's just how it is. Yes, judges get it wrong sometimes (i.e. robberies), but usually it's just a difference of opinion. It's all perspective, you don't have to like it, but that's how it is.

The fact that you referenced Harold Lederman immediately kills your credibility.

[bojangles1987]

Jesus, people on here really need to learn the difference between a close decision not going the way you scored it and a robbery. An argument can be made for either fighter winning both of the fights, thus not a robbery. In fact the arguments have been made by several boxing experts who had Alexander winning those fights or for him losing them. Hell, Harold Lederman made the argument during the entire fight against Kotelnik for Alexander winning it.

Judging in boxing is subjective, meaning it's up to the individual judge. There is no fact or absolute correct way to score a fight, rather criteria that help guide scoring. Different judges like different things, that's just how it is. Yes, judges get it wrong sometimes (i.e. robberies), but usually it's just a difference of opinion. It's all perspective, you don't have to like it, but that's how it is.

Lederman's scorecard for that fight was the worst I've ever seen from him. There is no argument for Alexander winning more than 5 rounds in either fight, which means he had no argument for winning, and when a guy that has no argument for winning wins, a robbery was involved.

[El.Naranjito707]

When you keep losing fights, you have to fight good fighters to stay relevant.

And not "win" hometown decisions.

[turkas]

The fact that you referenced Harold Lederman immediately kills your credibility.

This right here show you know nothing about the science of judging fights. The only people who discredit Lederman are internet tough guy fools who know little about boxing.

He is a knowledgeable man, who would run circles around anyone on here when it comes to knowledge of the sweet science.

Lederman's scorecard for that fight was the worst I've ever seen from him. There is no argument for Alexander winning more than 5 rounds in either fight, which means he had no argument for winning, and when a guy that has no argument for winning wins, a robbery was involved.

I think your missing the point, just because you don't believe the argument doesn't mean one can't be made. Lederman made an educated argument for why Devon was winning the fight, thus one could be made for Devon winning.

Now, like any educated argument you don't have to believe it. Like I said different judges like different things, thus the differences in scoring amongst professional judges.

I really think people on here should study the science of scoring a fight because it's clear most of you don't get it, let alone understand the difference between judging a fight ring side and judging a fight at home.

[bojangles1987]

This right here show you know nothing about the science of judging fights. The only people who discredit Lederman are internet tough guy fools who know little about boxing.

He is a knowledgeable man, who would run circles around anyone on here when it comes to knowledge of the sweet science.



I think your missing the point, just because you don't believe the argument doesn't mean one can't be made. Lederman made an educated argument for why Devon was winning the fight, thus one could be made for Devon winning.

Now, like any educated argument you don't have to believe it. Like I said different judges like different things, thus the differences in scoring amongst professional judges.

I really think people on here should study the science of scoring a fight because it's clear most of you don't get it, let alone understand the difference between judging a fight ring side and judging a fight at home.

His only argument for absurdly scoring so many rounds for Alexander was that Alexander was a lot more punches. Throwing a lot of punches doesn't win a fight, and no credible judge would ever say a guy is winning because he is throwing more punches. Defending Lederman's scorecard for that fight is wrong.

There is no argument for scoring Kotelnik-Alexander for Alexander.