Worst scorecard ever?

[OCPancho]

Yep! That was disgusting. Sillyman trying to setup a mexican clash with Chavez meant that Whitaker got shafted real bad.


Not a fan of even rounds either. I think there was an Ali fight where a judge had 14 of 15 rounds even. How is that even possible?

What's funny is Lou Duva called it before the fight.
Khadaffy Sulaiman rigged that fight so bad.

I don't mind even rounds.
But, freaking 2 rounds out of 3 even for 15 rounds?
14 out of 15 is just super dumb.

[Dempsey-Louis]

Fùck off. Idiots like you are poison to Boxing. You wanted Hagler to win and he got his shít kicked in. Get over it, it's been a 100 years.

Go watch round 9 again, thats called War. You're being a revisionist that is getting doubts. You know Hagler lost now you're making excuses it wasn't a brawl, pathetic!

You win the fight by winning rounds. Leonard won the rounds and kicked Haglers áss with a bad eye and a THREE YEAR LAYOFF!!! The beating the champ is all mythos created by butthurt cheerleaders.

Hagler was one dimensional, Leonard was multi-dimensional. He knew when to box and when to brawl. Hagler wasn't that good. Beating up on smaller fighters coming up doesn't make you great. Winky is another one and its almost like he never existed.

Don't curse at me that's not necessary -- IMO you don't win a fight by winning rounds you win a boxing match.

BTW you did an excellent job on scoring that boxing match, I concur, from what I remember your scoring seems right on, I remember thinking that night that the scoring should have been a UD for Leonard not a SD. That third judge was reaching for something that wasn't there.

That night half the audience was booing the decision with the other half cheering it; I started booing halfway through the 12th round.

I will check out round 9 again, truth is I never bothered to watch that fight again because it was so boring. But if a fight did break out in the 9th then what about the other 11 rounds.

I blame Hagler more than I blame Leonard, for that dismal display, once he realized he was being so thoroughly out boxed he should have changed the rhythm of the fight and forced a brawl, he should have realized he had nothing to lose, but he didn't, instead he was content with following Leonard around and being out boxed.

I was not a fan of either; (In fact at the time I was a Mustafa Hamsho fan and often found myself rooting against Hagler). Hagler was worse than being one dimensional that night he was dismal; he followed a superior boxer around the ring and never took the risk of trying to win the fight.

As far as getting over it, it's not Hagler's loss I am complaining about, it is the state of the game I hate; many fighters today entered the ring never intending to win the fight, content with lasting out the rounds and waiting for three fat wannabees (judges) to tell them they won.

Yes I am poison to 'boxing' I am a 'fight' fan. I wish they never went to judges and kept with ND fights it would have forced fighters to fight.

Boxing should be a technique (a martial art) used to win a prize fight, not an end in itself. I don't understand why we even call them 'boxers' we don't call golfers 'swingers.' Prize fighting is the only game where we identify the participants by the technique they display, no other game does that.

I am not a revisionist I am a traditionalist. Under the dynamics of the day Leonard certainly won the 'fight,' I just hate the nature of the game today.

Really you don't have to call me an idiot, if I wasn't around you wouldn't have anyone to tell they're wrong.

P.S. in 1892 (Sullivan vs. Corbett) prize fighting was illegal in Louisiana so the fight was billed as a "boxing exhibition to the finish." LOL, What the hell is that suppose to mean? It made the anti prize fight reformers pull their hair out.

[McNulty]

Don't curse at me that's not necessary -- IMO you don't win a fight by winning rounds you win a boxing match.

BTW you did an excellent job on scoring that boxing match, I concur, from what I remember your scoring seems right on, I remember thinking that night that the scoring should have been a UD for Leonard not a SD. That third judge was reaching for something that wasn't there.

That night half the audience was booing the decision with the other half cheering it; I started booing halfway through the 12th round.

I will check out round 9 again, truth is I never bothered to watch that fight again because it was so boring. But if a fight did break out in the 9th then what about the other 11 rounds.

I blame Hagler more than I blame Leonard, for that dismal display, once he realized he was being so thoroughly out boxed he should have changed the rhythm of the fight and forced a brawl, he should have realized he had nothing to lose, but he didn't, instead he was content with following Leonard around and being out boxed.

I was not a fan of either; (In fact at the time I was a Mustafa Hamsho fan and often found myself rooting against Hagler). Hagler was worse than being one dimensional that night he was dismal; he followed a superior boxer around the ring and never took the risk of trying to win the fight.

As far as getting over it, it's not Hagler's loss I am complaining about, it is the state of the game I hate; many fighters today entered the ring never intending to win the fight, content with lasting out the rounds and waiting for three fat wannabees (judges) to tell them they won.

Yes I am poison to 'boxing' I am a 'fight' fan. I wish they never went to judges and kept with ND fights it would have forced fighters to fight.

Boxing should be a technique (a martial art) used to win a prize fight, not an end in itself. I don't understand why we even call them 'boxers' we don't call golfers 'swingers.' Prize fighting is the only game where we identify the participants by the technique they display, no other game does that.

I am not a revisionist I am a traditionalist. Under the dynamics of the day Leonard certainly won the 'fight,' I just hate the nature of the game today.

Really you don't have to call me an idiot, if I wasn't around you wouldn't have anyone to tell they're wrong.

P.S. in 1892 (Sullivan vs. Corbett) prize fighting was illegal in Louisiana so the fight was billed as a "boxing exhibition to the finish." LOL, What the hell is that suppose to mean? It made the anti prize fight reformers pull their hair out.

You win a Boxing match by winning more rounds than the other guy. Your personal definition has ramifications that are toxic. You got to beat the champ, fùck off! I can't believe I'm arguing on this low of a level. I don't have time for your revisionist dogwank. This is lunacy!

Son, this is 2018. A lot of things from over 100 years ago doesn't meake sense. Hell, shít from the 70's don't make a lot of sense now. Something isn't right with you.

You haven't watched the fight since it happened and you're trying to tell whoever this, that, and the other about it? You're fùcking out of your mind! I've watched this fight almost 30x since it happened.

Don't bother me again with nonsense. I'm not going to let a low level contributer wind me up.

[Bundana]

I wish they never went to judges and kept with ND fights it would have forced fighters to fight.

Are you saying that, back in the old days, boxers fought harder in the ND bouts, than in the fights that would go to an official decision (if they went the full distance)?

[BattlingNelson]

You win a Boxing match by winning more rounds than the other guy. Your personal definition has ramifications that are toxic. You got to beat the champ, fùck off! I can't believe I'm arguing on this low of a level. I don't have time for your revisionist dogwank. This is lunacy!

Son, this is 2018. A lot of things from over 100 years ago doesn't meake sense. Hell, shít from the 70's don't make a lot of sense now. Something isn't right with you.

You haven't watched the fight since it happened and you're trying to tell whoever this, that, and the other about it? You're fùcking out of your mind! I've watched this fight almost 30x since it happened.

Don't bother me again with nonsense. I'm not going to let a low level contributer wind me up.

Dude. Take your filthy mouth to other sections than this.

[Dempsey-Louis]

Are you saying that, back in the old days, boxers fought harder in the ND bouts, than in the fights that would go to an official decision (if they went the full distance)?

That I am not really sure I would want to defend. -- I realize it is easy to wax poetically about the past as I am doing, and that the reality was often quite different. I just get frustrated with the judging being so important. Take the Canelo-GGG fight, it ended up a draw which I think was correct, but often a fight like that ends up with a winner and a loser and it's usually by a single point or so and to me that just seems unfair.

Today a fighter losing a single fight can watch a zero fall off his next paycheck and that happens just because some judge didn't like his particular style of fighting.

Back in day there wasn't so much pressure on a fighter to stay undefeated, great fighters could have multiple losses and still be considered great, today two loses in a row and TV walks away from you.

But no, you are correct my suggestion of a quick fix to the problem with ND fights isn't really realistic, I'm just spit-balling the current situation.

But thinking about your question directly it could be two fold. If the fight is set where the challenger must KO the champion to take his title (which they use to do way back) that just might make the challenger fight harder, but it also gives the champion cause to stall.

When you look at the records of some of the real old timers you see all those NWS decisions (which were ND fights) and it makes you wonder if they didn't serve as some kind of 'exhibition fights' where the champion just kept busy picking up some extra money between his 'real bouts.'

Na, I was just ranting about starting a ND movement, nothing is going to change, TV and the casinos would never let it happen.

What about championship fights all "being to the finish"? (Again I'm just spit-balling; the first ring related death would put and end to that idea fast.)

P.S. Have you guys ever chewed out the implications of using a five point must system instead of the 10 point must? It opens the door for some more interesting scoring. A great fight to re-score under the five point must is the Rosario-Camacho fight. You give Camacho all those close rounds a 5-4 score and then give Rosario a 5-3 score for the rounds where is had Camacho hurt and reeling (but no knockdowns) and you get a different outcome, I believe.

[McNulty]

Dude. Take your filthy mouth to other sections than this.

What are you me Mum? Fùck you and fùck your stupid áss thread. You're just like the rest of these peasants --- a cheerleading slobber knob that DYSAB. Hagler lost because he was B-Level. 118-110 wasn't a bad score, mine was 117-112 with the even 9th.

[Anthony342]

That I am not really sure I would want to defend. -- I realize it is easy to wax poetically about the past as I am doing, and that the reality was often quite different. I just get frustrated with the judging being so important. Take the Canelo-GGG fight, it ended up a draw which I think was correct, but often a fight like that ends up with a winner and a loser and it's usually by a single point or so and to me that just seems unfair.

Today a fighter losing a single fight can watch a zero fall off his next paycheck and that happens just because some judge didn't like his particular style of fighting.

Back in day there wasn't so much pressure on a fighter to stay undefeated, great fighters could have multiple losses and still be considered great, today two loses in a row and TV walks away from you.

But no, you are correct my suggestion of a quick fix to the problem with ND fights isn't really realistic, I'm just spit-balling the current situation.

But thinking about your question directly it could be two fold. If the fight is set where the challenger must KO the champion to take his title (which they use to do way back) that just might make the challenger fight harder, but it also gives the champion cause to stall.

When you look at the records of some of the real old timers you see all those NWS decisions (which were ND fights) and it makes you wonder if they didn't serve as some kind of 'exhibition fights' where the champion just kept busy picking up some extra money between his 'real bouts.'

Na, I was just ranting about starting a ND movement, nothing is going to change, TV and the casinos would never let it happen.

What about championship fights all "being to the finish"? (Again I'm just spit-balling; the first ring related death would put and end to that idea fast.)

P.S. Have you guys ever chewed out the implications of using a five point must system instead of the 10 point must? It opens the door for some more interesting scoring. A great fight to re-score under the five point must is the Rosario-Camacho fight. You give Camacho all those close rounds a 5-4 score and then give Rosario a 5-3 score for the rounds where is had Camacho hurt and reeling (but no knockdowns) and you get a different outcome, I believe.

In their early days, the UFC tried having their fights with no time limits. It didn't work out too well for them down the line. Eventually, by the 4th fight card, the tournament final lasted so long, the live pay per view feed cut out and angry fans called their local cable providers demanding their money back, Now if it were on a major network or basic cable, that might have worked out better. But by UFC 5, things got even worse when their first Superfight was their first to have a time limit, this time 30 minutes. The fighters were given an extra 5 minute round with there still being no finish, so it did end up being a draw or what you would call a no decision in boxing. Eventually, those in charge had to add time limits and eventually rounds, although I like how they originally decided fights, rather than how they do them now in MMA, with the same 10 point system boxing uses, although I never see any 10-8 rounds in that sport.

Anyway, originally there would just be one long time limit and either one or two 5 minute overtimes, depending in if it were main event/title fight/tournament final or before the main event and then 3 judges would just hold up placards with the name of one of the 2 fighters written in black marker of which fighter they thought won. It was pure, simple and this way with 3 judges, there was always a winner and no BS draws to have to deal with or points to worry about, just who each of them thought won the overall fight.

I had that fight 115-113 for Leonard, that fight was way close and just saw a replay of it on ESPN over the summer. 118-110 was a ridiculous score. Hagler pretty much have away two of the first five rounds and all of the last five, as he seemed to run out of gas chasing Leonard around the ring for the first seven.

[Dempsey-Louis]

In their early days, the UFC tried having their fights with no time limits. It didn't work out too well for them down the line. Eventually, by the 4th fight card, the tournament final lasted so long, the live pay per view feed cut out and angry fans called their local cable providers demanding their money back, Now if it were on a major network or basic cable, that might have worked out better. But by UFC 5, things got even worse when their first Superfight was their first to have a time limit, this time 30 minutes. The fighters were given an extra 5 minute round with there still being no finish, so it did end up being a draw or what you would call a no decision in boxing. Eventually, those in charge had to add time limits and eventually rounds, although I like how they originally decided fights, rather than how they do them now in MMA, with the same 10 point system boxing uses, although I never see any 10-8 rounds in that sport.

Anyway, originally there would just be one long time limit and either one or two 5 minute overtimes, depending in if it were main event/title fight/tournament final or before the main event and then 3 judges would just hold up placards with the name of one of the 2 fighters written in black marker of which fighter they thought won. It was pure, simple and this way with 3 judges, there was always a winner and no BS draws to have to deal with or points to worry about, just who each of them thought won the overall fight.

I had that fight 115-113 for Leonard, that fight was way close and just saw a replay of it on ESPN over the summer. 118-110 was a ridiculous score. Hagler pretty much have away two of the first five rounds and all of the last five, as he seemed to run out of gas chasing Leonard around the ring for the first seven.

I know little to nothing about that sport but what I am wondering is if the referee is in a position of authority to force the combatants to fight (as with prize fighting)?

Also you can see where two MMA fighters might grab on to each other and end up in a stalemate with neither able to move. In high school/college wrestling the referee would have the authority to break the wrestlers and force a restart, I wonder again if an MMA referee has that authority or do they just sit locked into each other.

It's hard to imagine two fighters going at it with unlimited time and no rest period unless they are deliberately refusing to engage.

It is interesting that you are saying that the judges don't have to show any kind of scoring, just announce at the end who they think won. That is sort of like early prize fighting, when using just a referee, he would immediately raise one of the fighters hand as soon as the last bell sounded. He didn't have to keep a score card.

I watched once, very early on and there was some guy named Gracey (maybe) who jumped his opponent and began to strangle him (choke him) the other guy had to quit and it was over, I swear it lasted seconds and I thought well that is it for me and I never watched again. Do they still choke each other?

I am not sure about the Leonard-Hagler scoring I do remember sitting there and thinking Leonard probably won the fight but I just didn't think it was much of a fight. I was much more impressed with Leonard in the first Hearns fight. I thought that was Leonard's best night.

[Dempsey-Louis]

In their early days, the UFC tried having their fights with no time limits. It didn't work out too well for them down the line. Eventually, by the 4th fight card, the tournament final lasted so long, the live pay per view feed cut out and angry fans called their local cable providers demanding their money back, Now if it were on a major network or basic cable, that might have worked out better. But by UFC 5, things got even worse when their first Superfight was their first to have a time limit, this time 30 minutes. The fighters were given an extra 5 minute round with there still being no finish, so it did end up being a draw or what you would call a no decision in boxing. Eventually, those in charge had to add time limits and eventually rounds, although I like how they originally decided fights, rather than how they do them now in MMA, with the same 10 point system boxing uses, although I never see any 10-8 rounds in that sport.

Anyway, originally there would just be one long time limit and either one or two 5 minute overtimes, depending in if it were main event/title fight/tournament final or before the main event and then 3 judges would just hold up placards with the name of one of the 2 fighters written in black marker of which fighter they thought won. It was pure, simple and this way with 3 judges, there was always a winner and no BS draws to have to deal with or points to worry about, just who each of them thought won the overall fight.

I had that fight 115-113 for Leonard, that fight was way close and just saw a replay of it on ESPN over the summer. 118-110 was a ridiculous score. Hagler pretty much have away two of the first five rounds and all of the last five, as he seemed to run out of gas chasing Leonard around the ring for the first seven.

Oh I do want to add there was one moment in that fight I remember, no clue when it was, I never watched the fight again, but Hagler had Leonard trapped against the ropes and Leonard let lose with a great combination and spun Hagler around into the ropes. It was real old school, the kind of move you expect from a LaMotta or Robinson or Armstrong. It was pretty to watch.