The surprise factor in scoring.

[turbotime]

Not for me. Well, maybe when Roy Jones was fighting and he dominates one round and the guy does marginally better the next round.

I may give him that round out of pity

[Fetta]

I dont care about the surprise factor nor do i care who the favorite was or is. In boxing two guys go in there and box, if one is better than the other than he should be the winner.

Some mention Pac v JMM 3 and that the surprise factor helped but for me JMM was the clear winner and i never took the surprise factor as anything other than made up excuses. I mean how can it be surprise factor when you have two HOF in there. SMH.

[Ray*]

Nah...................................

[bojangles1987]

This sways a lot of people around here.

[boliodogs]

I don't think the surprise factor would have an effect on my scorecard because I am very methodical and carefully score each round as it happens. I think lots of fans and some judges do give more credit than they should to the underdog who does better than expected. The Pac vs. Marquez fight #3 and the Maidana vs Morales fight are two examples of the underdog getting extra credit because of the surprise factor in my opinion. The Hopkins vs. De La Hoya and the Vargas vs. Wright fights are two more examples as you pointed out.

[DoktorSleepless]

After rewatching Macklin vs Sturm recently, it ended up being much closer than I originally thought. It was either a draw or Macklin won by a round. When I saw it live, it seemed more like a wipeout.

Also, I originally thought Martinez vs Macklin was a close fight (it was actually a bit nerve wracking live) and scored it similarly to Ledderman, but it really wasn't close at all. While in the process of making a highlights video and having to closely analyze everything to pick the best parts, I found that Macklin barely landed anything of note. A lot of what I originally thought landed by him, Martinez either blocked or slipped away from. In the end, Macklin barely edged round 4, clearly won round 5, and got 10-9 in round 7 because of the bogus knock down.

[boliodogs]

I guess the same could be said when you go into a fight just caring about YOUR fighter and don't have eyes/care for what the other guy is doing.

I think the scenario you mentioned could be applied to a fight where it's real close. But I didn't see anyone saying "Herrera won" cause he did better than people expected and was the underdog. And that fight vs Alvarado was WAYYYY closer than Rios vs Abril. True story.

The part you said about just caring about your fighter is true of most of us I think. Whenever I score a fight of one of my favorite fighters I try real hard to be fair to the other guy.Even then I am probably subconsciously a little generous to my fighter. Most of us just can't help it.

[Roman Moreno]

After rewatching Macklin vs Sturm recently, it ended up being much closer than I originally thought. It was either a draw or Macklin won by a round. When I saw it live, it seemed more like a wipeout.

Also, I originally thought Martinez vs Macklin was a close fight (it was actually a bit nerve wracking live) and scored it similarly to Ledderman, but it really wasn't close at all. While in the process of making a highlights video and having to closely analyze everything to pick the best parts, I found that Macklin barely landed anything of note. A lot of what I originally thought landed by him, Martinez either blocked or slipped away from. In the end, Macklin barely edged round 4, clearly won round 5, and got 10-9 in round 7 because of the bogus knock down.

Another example I would put is Martinez-Barker...In reality Barker isn't anything above European level. But, the surprise of "how well" he did against Martinez, let people give Barker extra credit for what he actually did in the ring. And, people still would make Barker better than what he really is cuz' of that night.

[Larry the boss]

no i watch the fight and i can clearly see who is winning

[Roman Moreno]

Not for me. Well, maybe when Roy Jones was fighting and he dominates one round and the guy does marginally better the next round.

I may give him that round out of pity

Do you remember how many people complained about the first Jones-Tarver first fight? A lot of people disagreed with that decision. But, in reality Roy won that fight, IMO it was a close but clear victory that gutted out winning the championship rounds. But, people acted like Tarver won because they were surprised how well Tarver did against coming off a great performance against Ruiz.

Do people start giving the close competitive rounds to the underdog because he is doing better than expected? Do people refuse go with the underdog in a round where neither fighter does nothing? And, then when they look at the end of the scorecard they have it a wide decision when it was probably closer. Do people not realizing subconsciously score a fight cuz' of the surprise factor. You even admitting of doing so.