-
-
pretty much.
Not always focused on punching would probably be fairer wording to them but yeah, it's corruption in code.
I think what people fail to understand often in boxing is the fact that boxing starts corrupt as **** and to get here boxing had to fight a whole lot of people who were invested in corrupt aspects of the sport.
Take for example video replay. We never needed video to have more eyes on fights calling fowls. That just requires more refs around the ring sat at different perspectives so stage blocking and the such becomes impossible. We never did that because the industry itself fights to be corrupt.
Things that seem obvious today required not just rules but a man of influence to normalize those rules. For example, up until Champion Tom Spring made it illegal for the crowd to rush the ring and pummel one of the boxers it was perfecting fine for a pugilist to win through crowd interference. The guys who were counting on their gang having their back fought the change.
As far as judging goes, well, everything about it has always lead to arguments. It's difficult to say whether judges have always been more interested in keeping open an avenue for their own prospects or if they honestly feel the need for personal bias in the sport to give a fair and honest assessment.
If Rocky Marciano and Floyd Mayweather were both scoring a fight....with Ward as the third. Would you be shocked by Marciano judging for a puncher while Mayweather judges for a boxer and Ward scores a draw? I wouldn't, Rocky doesn't even know boxing. Money can hardly punch, and Ward's a good mix of abilities.
I would expect characters like Marciano, Mayweather, and Ward to argue more often than agree.Comment
-
I hardly ever share a scorecard because when watching a fight I'm trying to figure out what the judges would score. So my scorecard wouldn't really be reflective of what I saw so much as what I assume the judges pointed for. Which can be vastly different.
Which is why you never see me crying over a decision. I don't honestly run into many where I can't see their point of view.
Muddies the waters and bad decisions could be worded as allows for multiple perspectives and paths to victory.
Take Wilder-Fury for example. Fury's ahead on punch count and defense, Wilder owned the harder punches, the posture or generalship, and the aggression. I see both sides of that coin just fine.
I see where Robert Tapper is coming from. Far as hit and don't get hit back goes, Tyson did better
I see where Alejandro Rochin is coming from. Far as hit me I hit you back harder goes, Wilder did better
I can see where Phil Edwards comes from when he claims both men had success but neither man was able to run away with the fight.
According to compubox Fury outlanded Wilder by 7 punches over the course of the fight. On punch count alone he did win but if Alejandro favors power then on power alone Tyson lost. Say Phil is just a well rounded sport who wants to see the best man win. 7 punches ahead while being kd twice is a fair as **** draw.
What we ended up with is like the fairest draw I've ever seen while fans on both sides embarrass themselves crying over their personal cards instead of even attempting to make sense of the official scores.
So yeah....I don't actually score fights myself I try my best to guess what the judges scores will be.
You don't ever see my crying over judgement because I don't really ever see anything that is indefensible. Which, is either a symptom of corruption or a symptom of allowing the judges free range of thought. Probably a bit of both. Most things are a mix of elements.Comment
-
Yeah I had Fury-Wilder a draw, as the logic imo that outlanding someone 8-6 on average in the first few rounds, but the other guy often lands the best shot or shots, then it makes sense that those opening 6 rounds in that fight were even and I scored them that way.
I had Fury outboxing Wilder over the last 6 pretty much the whole time, but he also got dropped twice so a draw was fair and the right call imo...also, a 13 punch margin (not 7 just for the record) over the course of 12 rounds is hardly anything at all...one punch per round, and when you are the bigger puncher it is easy to imagine having an even fight in that scenario, especially when you have two KDs.
My 2 cents is that trying to rationalize some judges' cards, when it is quite clear imo that some fights, unfortunately way too many, are scored corruptly or with bias (hometown bias etc)...well imo trying to rationalize judges' cards in that case just kind of silly, no offense intended.
As I've said I think most fights are pretty easy to score...and a lot of 12 rounders do have many close rounds...I do feel that some fighters (BJS comes to mind) have a knack for winning close rounds and can turn a pick em round into a round you have to give them.
But my 2 cents is that 95% of fights have a clear winner and a clear loser...Fury Wilder imo was one of the 5%... both GGG-Canelo fights were clear to GGG...Ward-Kov 1 was clear to Kov...think 5-2 for Kov was pretty clearly the right score before the stoppage in fight 2.
So yeah I just would respectfully disagree that fights don't generally have a clear winner and loser, and I think the criteria for judging is clear enough as far as helping to designate who the better man is/was.Comment
-
Yeah I'm not sure why some people are trying to be snarky about it lol.
If you have a big punch margin at the end of the fight, generally speaking you are almost certainly winning a lion's share of the rounds on punch count...and in general most guys punch about as hard as each other...so all that being said, if one guy has a big punch edge at the end of the fight, it makes sense to think that he almost always won the fight.
Surprised that needed to be said/explained on a boxing forum, but here we are
lol
Comment
-
In your opinion who won the Angulo-Quillin fights.Yeah I'm not sure why some people are trying to be snarky about it lol.
If you have a big punch margin at the end of the fight, generally speaking you are almost certainly winning a lion's share of the rounds on punch count...and in general most guys punch about as hard as each other...so all that being said, if one guy has a big punch edge at the end of the fight, it makes sense to think that he almost always won the fight.
Surprised that needed to be said/explained on a boxing forum, but here we are lol
That fights a clear example of one fighter landing more on another fighter but the lesser landing fighters punches were more effective and damaging.
Who won that fight in your opinion?Comment
-
If I wanted to watch two never-was bums fight I would start an argument between Robbie Barrett and aboutfkntime
Nah but in all seriousness I haven't seen that fight...I will try and give it a watch sometime...I wonder if I would end up having the punch stats as wide as I saw them on compubox...sometimes I think they get them really really wrong - Horn-Pac comes first to mind.Comment
Tweet
Comment