Comments Thread For: Saturday's Scorecard Result Deserves Commendation

[DondiNeverLeft]

Porter is no hype job and Brook isn't one of the greatest

Simply put, it was easy to render a fair decision because neither are superstars. Just two good fighters that had a good fight. No pressure to lean one way or another.

[trendsetta22]

Lol the fight was poor, porter looked like an amateur and brook looked like a pro thats it.

[lane99]

Very few people agree with you...

I'm aware of that. Although 33% of the official judges agree with me. And the ones who didn't have been wrong often enough.

More to the point, the closest we have to an objective standard supports my conclusion, regardless of how many people's subjective opinion differs from mine. Porter outlanded and outthrew Brook almost every round in the first half of the fight. Add this to Porter's workrate in the first half and it completely prevented Brook from reaching the goal line on ANY of the judging criteria for most of the first six rounds.

[gmc_rfc_06]

I'm aware of that. Although 33% of the official judges agree with me. And the ones who didn't have been wrong often enough.

More to the point, the closest we have to an objective standard supports my conclusion, regardless of how many people's subjective opinion differs from mine. Porter outlanded and outthrew Brook almost every round in the first half of the fight. Add this to Porter's workrate in the first half and it completely prevented Brook from reaching the goal line on ANY of the judging criteria for most of the first six rounds.

Brook landed all the good punches. That's the main thing.

Sorry, but Porters rabbit punches and taps from the clinch are not effective punches....how many good shots did Porter land over the 12 rounds, honestly? About 5? He was schooled.

[Wicky]

...33% of the official judges agree with me....

Or, one person. Right?

More to the point, the closest we have to an objective standard supports my conclusion, regardless of how many people's subjective opinion differs from mine. Porter outlanded and outthrew Brook almost every round in the first half of the fight. Add this to Porter's workrate in the first half and it completely prevented Brook from reaching the goal line on ANY of the judging criteria for most of the first six rounds.

Quantity of punches is one criteria. Quality, who has the last word in exchanges, who appears in control, general ring generalship, etc, etc., are all relevant criteria too. The vast majority of professional post-fight analysis agree that Brook took control,with crisper, cleaner, dominant and more effective work. Porter was flailing around like a total amateur. He through more illegal blows than legal ones. His game plan fell apart when he realised Brook was more durable than anticipated and he had very little else to offer.

[SlySlickSmooth]

114-114 was a bum card. There is always 1 judge that is watching a different fight.

That 114-114 card was the British judge. Probably not trying to make it seem like he wanted to rob Porter.

[lane99]

Majority Rules or Majority Fools?

...The vast majority of professional post-fight analysis agree...

It's not made clear from your comments whether you number yourself among the "professional" analysts. If so, then I suggest you and your colleagues are no more accurate and precise in your post-fight analysis than you were in your pre-fight analysis.

[Wicky]

It's not made clear from your comments whether you number yourself among the "professional" analysts. If so, then I suggest you and your colleagues are no more accurate and precise in your post-fight analysis than you were in your pre-fight analysis.

My pre-fight analysis was that Brook would win a hard fight. He did. You feel differently. I understand, but the fact that the vast majority of pundits agree mean you should question your motives & judging criteria. I know people have complained about holding, but Brook had to work with what was in front of him. Porter repeatedly charged in head first, rubbed his head into the cut he gave Brook with head butt, rabbit punched and tried to make it messy. Brook held because of what Porter was doing which is why most pundits believe Brook was the better man.

Trust me, a cleaner fight at further distance would have suited Brook much more than Porter and probably resulted in a KO. Brook's good inside with solid short hooks, but he's much better & slicker at range. You'll see in the next few fights how slick he can be.

[hillbilly]

The guy you are responding to clearly trolling. Don't give that clowns comments too much thought.

What is remarkable to me is that fitz includes in the bad decisions pacquiao Marquez 3. That was a majority decision for pacquiao. Press row had that 57 for Marquez, 51 for pacquiao and 36 a draw. I was on the floor for that fight and I had pacquiao winning. However, a draw or a majority decision for Marquez were all acceptable. Clearly, a large group of knowledgeable fans saw that in each of those categories. The second fight is much more debatable and is really the fight people thought Marquez won.

To compare that to Abril v. Rios or even Bradley vs. pacquiao is a joke. To even compare the 2d fight to either of these is a joke. So either fitz screwed up on the fight he meant to id or is showing ridiculous bias or horrible ability to judge fights. But it is hard for me to take any of this seriously given that line. My god, the Abril/rios fight and pacquiao/Bradley fights were travesties. To compare any of the pacquiao/Marquez fights to those is a real head scratcher. Not sure you would find many boxing scribes that would agree.