Tweet
A bit late as I only just saw the fight on week delay, but I can't see the controversy.
There were a couple of the early rounds I'd like to look at again as I was fetching myself a beer while they were on, but even if they tipped over to Quartey's ledger my card would still be 96-95 Forrest, so it makes no odds. (as it stands I had Forrest the 98-93 winner).
I will concede that watching it after knowing the result may have caused me to give close rounds (and there were MANY close rounds) Forrest's way in an effort to understand how the judges delivered an unpopular verdict.
But hearing the wide margins on the punchstats percentages in isolation creates a different impression. Yes, Quartey was more accurate but Forrest was far busier... the actual difference between the two was 17 more landed punches by Ike, or less than two a round. In terms of power punches then it was 134-119 in Vernon's favour.
Besides, you can't judge a fight on what compubox says... we're talking about BOXING matches, not just "hit each other" matches. Who controlled the pace of the fight, who had the better boxing strategy, who had the better ring generalship, etc.?
Forrest has been criticised for what is regarded as a negative performance, but I just saw his insistence on not getting involved as a clever use of his physical gifts. He's the one with the height and reach advantage, so why not stand off and let that work for him? Was Quartey pressing the action, or was Forrest leading him around the ring?
Sure, Forrest was looking to steal the rounds, and a lot of his punches were arm punches. But considering the drastic drop off in Quartey's workrate (again, another factor that just regurgitating compubox won't tell you) I'm surprised they had any complaint. I certainly had Forrest in control and winning rounds 6-8 straight with little difficulty, while Ike seemed to be out of ideas.
There were a couple of the early rounds I'd like to look at again as I was fetching myself a beer while they were on, but even if they tipped over to Quartey's ledger my card would still be 96-95 Forrest, so it makes no odds. (as it stands I had Forrest the 98-93 winner).
I will concede that watching it after knowing the result may have caused me to give close rounds (and there were MANY close rounds) Forrest's way in an effort to understand how the judges delivered an unpopular verdict.
But hearing the wide margins on the punchstats percentages in isolation creates a different impression. Yes, Quartey was more accurate but Forrest was far busier... the actual difference between the two was 17 more landed punches by Ike, or less than two a round. In terms of power punches then it was 134-119 in Vernon's favour.
Besides, you can't judge a fight on what compubox says... we're talking about BOXING matches, not just "hit each other" matches. Who controlled the pace of the fight, who had the better boxing strategy, who had the better ring generalship, etc.?
Forrest has been criticised for what is regarded as a negative performance, but I just saw his insistence on not getting involved as a clever use of his physical gifts. He's the one with the height and reach advantage, so why not stand off and let that work for him? Was Quartey pressing the action, or was Forrest leading him around the ring?
Sure, Forrest was looking to steal the rounds, and a lot of his punches were arm punches. But considering the drastic drop off in Quartey's workrate (again, another factor that just regurgitating compubox won't tell you) I'm surprised they had any complaint. I certainly had Forrest in control and winning rounds 6-8 straight with little difficulty, while Ike seemed to be out of ideas.
Comment