How the hell were those scores so close?!!!

[bojangles1987]

I can see having Karass ahead, but I think you are giving him to much credit as many of those rounds were close enough that there is some doubt.

4 isn't all that far from 5 with 1 even to be honest, so I don't get what your big point is or how 2 rounds different is atrocious.

Scoring is subjective which is why there are always scores all over the map.

4 is the limit, if you're giving Berto too much credit. That 5th round would be atrocious, because it's just not possible without bias.

[Weebler I]

I gave Berto 3 rounds tops.

Shame on those trying to defend horrible judging, boxing fans? doesn't seem like it.

[bojangles1987]

You say it's reasonable to give Berto 4 rounds, but complain that it was not close at all.

Keep in mind Soto finished him in the 12th, so that round isn't scored. Also keep in mind that Berto won the 11th round 10-8 on most scorecards. Add in 3 more rounds for Berto (according to you), and your score at the end of 11 is ...

105-103 Soto.

even if you only gave Berto 3 rounds, your score is 106-102 for Soto. Your score is not much of a blowout as you thought right?

Enough with the conspiracy theories. You people still haven't answered my question that if the fix was in, why did the ref stop the fight and ruin everyone's plan?

No, 4 rounds is not reasonable, it's giving Berto too much credit. I said 3 is what he probably deserved, 4 if you give him too much credit.

You're acting like we're saying Haymon had everyone involved in his pocket. No, he clearly had the judges influenced to score for Berto. Considering all the questionable decisions and robberies his fighters have been involved in, it's not crazy. It's a clear pattern.

[The Gambler1981]

4 is the limit, if you're giving Berto too much credit. That 5th round would be atrocious, because it's just not possible without bias.

Like I said I don't agree with your assessment of the rounds at least in terms of how wide the difference was in several of them.

Having Karass ahead going into the final rounds is fine, and having Berto up by any margin is too much but having the fight up for grabs is perfectly reasonable albeit unpopular.

[M0NZ0N]

No, 4 rounds is not reasonable, it's giving Berto too much credit. I said 3 is what he probably deserved, 4 if you give him too much credit.

You're acting like we're saying Haymon had everyone involved in his pocket. No, he clearly had the judges influenced to score for Berto. Considering all the questionable decisions and robberies his fighters have been involved in, it's not crazy. It's a clear pattern.

Even if you have 3 for Berto, it's not a blowout on your scorecard. Period. Your own score proved my point.

And serious, if you think Haymon wanted to fix the fight, he wouldn't involve the most influential person other than the 2 boxers themselves? He's an *******, sure, but he's not ****** enough to not even bother to include the ref. Put yourself in his shoes. You spend money on the judges, but NOT the ref? Ridiculous.

[bojangles1987]

Even if you have 3 for Berto, it's not a blowout on your scorecard. Period. Your own score proved my point.

And serious, if you think Haymon wanted to fix the fight, he wouldn't involve the most influential person other than the 2 boxers themselves? He's an *******, sure, but he's not ****** enough to not even bother to include the ref.

So you think it's a complete coincidence that Haymon's fighters get so many fortuitous shakes from the judges?

[HeroBando]

So you think it's a complete coincidence that Haymon's fighters get so many fortuitous shakes from the judges?

There's gotta be some impropriety, but it doesn't mean that money is changing hands. Like, Haymon had a lock on HBO boxing without paying anyone off, directly. They probably get a lot of work on Haymon cards and get treated royally, and more of that to come if they keep him happy

[joesaiditstrue]

I saw Karass winning and I think that the judges that had it a draw and for Berto were wrong but....




For a start there is actually quite a simple explanation for the bad judging of a fight such as that the judges are not of a high quality. Like anything in life some people are better at their respective jobs than others at that same job. Perhaps the judges in question here were just not that competent. Another point related to that is that there is always going to be bias involved, however unconscious, and that bias seems to consistently be a bias in favour of the 'name' fighter. It is easy to see how that works, a judge just needs to be focusing too much on the work of the 'name' fighter and not enough on the opponent. Is that really so hard for lots of boxing fans to actually understand?

Now to the main reason for my post. You talk about mental ******ation but lets go through the reasoning, or the lack thereof, that runs to your conclusion. First of all you have no evidence for these judges being bought nor any other by Al Haymon, therefore your claim has almost zero merit. Secondly why would all these countless fighters bother to get into the ring against Al Hayman fighters if they knew that the judges were being bribed to favour the Haymon fighter? Now that would be a sign of mental ******ation.

No, it would be a sign of somebody wanting a paycheck. Many Haymon fighters get controversial decisions. Williams, Alexander, Broner, to name a few in recent memory

[handwraps]

berto won maybe 2 rounds if you are treating every round equal. it's clearly corruption. he was getting beat to a pulp. its not possible 3 out of 3 people miss that.

yeah i only gave him 3 rounds. The judges are suspect. Im glad he got koed.

[thuggery]

I gave Berto two rounds, the Haymon judges were about to rob him. The scores were absolutely disgusting. Good thing that scum got laid out.