Tweet
Here's the question first.
Does it bother you when the cards don't match the fight?
Since I already know some people clicked on this with their assumption, the example I will point to is Hamed/Barrera. A highlight of this period is George Foreman on commentary, which is refreshing compared to who would come after him.
When the final bell rang, the judges saw a VERY close win for Barrera. I watched that fight both on the night it happened, and in no situation did I see it close. Barrera nullified almost everything the Prince had coming his way, and had Barrera clearly winning 8 rounds. 9 rounds could be argued.
It's a testament to them that they didn't throw out some way off 119 score for Barrera, because it wasn't THAT wide.
But it got me thinking. What was it exactly that the judges and Lederman saw that led them to believe that it was mostly a 7-5 affair? Hamed was not American, so he didn't have the judges on his side; the judges were all mostly consistent, so what were they seeing?
The most one could attribute is Hamed was the constant aggressor, all the way through Round 12, but with that aggression he was missing punches like crazy.
These kinds of fights, where the scores don't match the fight, are the ones easiest remembered, it seems. That, or wild ones like Gainer/Norwood, but that's a different story.
Does it bother you when the cards don't match the fight?
Since I already know some people clicked on this with their assumption, the example I will point to is Hamed/Barrera. A highlight of this period is George Foreman on commentary, which is refreshing compared to who would come after him.
When the final bell rang, the judges saw a VERY close win for Barrera. I watched that fight both on the night it happened, and in no situation did I see it close. Barrera nullified almost everything the Prince had coming his way, and had Barrera clearly winning 8 rounds. 9 rounds could be argued.
It's a testament to them that they didn't throw out some way off 119 score for Barrera, because it wasn't THAT wide.
But it got me thinking. What was it exactly that the judges and Lederman saw that led them to believe that it was mostly a 7-5 affair? Hamed was not American, so he didn't have the judges on his side; the judges were all mostly consistent, so what were they seeing?
The most one could attribute is Hamed was the constant aggressor, all the way through Round 12, but with that aggression he was missing punches like crazy.
These kinds of fights, where the scores don't match the fight, are the ones easiest remembered, it seems. That, or wild ones like Gainer/Norwood, but that's a different story.