Tweet
Do i need to pull up many more threads? There's loads.
At the time all the Americans were crying robbery.
-
Do i need to pull up many more threads? There's loads.
At the time all the Americans were crying robbery. -
Outrageous and proof of a bias when an American fighter loses. No respected judges or boxing people think that was remotely controversial. Not going by some biased Internet trolls who's scorecards were filled out before the fight.https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/s...d.php?t=470791
Do i need to pull up many more threads? There's loads.
At the time all the Americans were crying robbery.Comment
-
Wait a minute. He says anybody with clear sight and the ability to score a fight, and you bring up Americans??https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/s...d.php?t=470791
Do i need to pull up many more threads? There's loads.
At the time all the Americans were crying robbery.
Comment
-
The Associated Press, Yahoo, and ESPN scored the bout 114-113 for Hopkins.
http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Be...._Joe_CalzagheComment
-
Again not exactly controversial is it? They disagreed by 1 round and nobody kicked up a fuss. Marquez-Bradley is an example of there being scores for Marquez yet nobody said controversial. Mayweather-De La Hoya even "some people" scored it for Oscar.
Mayweather-Castillo is an example of controversial because many believe Castillo was a clear winner and many cards had him up by 2 points and even 4 points.Comment
-
This is why you said "no controversial wins" when you brought up Calzaghe in the first place. You were having a dig. You either didn't know that a lot of people had Hopkins winning or hoped the people you were talking didn't.
Controversial is when the public disagree. They disagreed with Hopkins-Calzaghe. That makes it controversial.
Last edited by Robbie Barrett; 01-05-2018, 05:41 PM.Comment
-
Wrong. Calzaghe-Hopkins was not controversial because some internet trolls say so or because a small amount of media had Hopkins by 1 point live but were fine with Calzaghe. Mayweather-Castillo I was controversial as there was wider cards, more people saying it and still to this day more claiming it.Comment
-
Yes there are those Larry... But lets look at a idea posted by "Big Dunn" in the intial thread on this subject. Dunn made the point that if we go by averages, using a percentage... A fighter who lost no times x 50 bouts is at 100% and a fighter who lost twice x 100 bouts is at 98%. Do I agree with Big Dunn? well its a start at least. A way to compare two numerical measures and derive a value.
Then we can look at things that are not boxing related bit distort the number, things like really bad decisions. There is a way to assign a value to this number, how we do it might be less important than being consistant in applying it to all fighters we are comparing. Lets take Ward and Floyd and say that Ward got one contraversal win against Kovalev the first time, and Mayweather got one against Castillo....purely for the sake of argument.
Now, lets say our fighter that lost twice never got a contraversal victory...there is a way to work that value into the assesment of who has a better record. Then we can start to assign values to all the other things that might matter: weight classes, quality of opposition, etc. All these things can be figured into a formula that can give us perspective on who is better.
My point is if one does not consider the value of all these things you have a false equivalency which may be why you and many others feel this is just a way to slag Mayweather. In other words if I ask you who is better and mention two situations that are essentially equal... its really a loaded question! I am implying that a fighter who fights more is equal to an undefeated fighter who fights less. In fact, there is no way to determine this without looking at other information.
What about Roy Jones, who was essentially undefeated for 2/3rds of his career does that make him better than Joe Calzaghe who fought much less competition wise? Its a similar problem...I can't just say that Jones losing to Tarver and after makes the prime Jones who was undefeated, worse than Calzighe, it makes no sense really.
What about a fighter like Robinson, Moore or Armstrong who had strings of undefeated periods throughout... If I win 100 fights in a row, does my streak cancel out the 50 fight streak of another guy?
And what about divisions? The heavyweights as Jug said...a tougher division to be undefeated within for sure. These are just some examples of why this is a tricky situation to look at with no additional information.Comment
-
You make up your own rules and assumptions there at the end.
Of course. If the consensus scorecard is Castillo 7-5 with a number of 8-4s vs. the consensus 7-5 Calzaghe with more 8-4 Calzaghe's than 6-6 Hopkins it's more controversial. Bottom line is the majority had Castillo over Mayweather whereas the large majority had Calzaghe over Hopkins.
I remember when Mayweather-Castillo I happened and the outrage and believe me Mayweather didn't have a large fan base back then (assuming you weren't a fan yet?) and he didn't have a ton of haters either. People were more inclined to feel stronger about Hopkins-Calzaghe due to the buildup and how established both were at that time.Comment
Comment