Thread: Opinions on fights that confuse you

Originally Posted by Althugz

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Jones Jr/ Tarver 1, thought Jones won by a couple of rounds.
.

Me too! When I finally got round to watching that fight after all the talk of Tarver getting robbed, I just didn't see it.

Jones was far more effective in my eyes. Tarvers little flurries didn't do much but make the crowd a little noisier.

Jones' body shots were menacing!

Originally Posted by C-Lo

Foreman vs Briggs (1997): Was I the only one that thought George got robbed?

Far from it, there was quite an outcry, but sometimes two wrongs do make a right, eh Axel?

I am always confused with the goings on in boxing.

DLH V Trinidad still has me puzzled, a clear winner DLH loses on decision and having viewed the fight many times still cannot give Tito any rounds from 2-9? Round 1 was anyone's guess. I gave it to DLH anyway and scored the fight 117-111

DLH V Mosley 2 again was a great effort by DLH not rewarded, he lost the first fight by a MD yet Mosley clearly won that fight, he loses the second fight by UD in which he clearly beats Mosley?? WTF?

There are many others, Steele stops the Taylor V Chavez fight with 3 seconds to go?

The Whitaker draw with Chavez? Why no rematch? Whitaker clearly won that fight.

Duran...No Mas? did he really have the s hits?

Navarro scorecard 120-108 v Cristian Mijares WTF happened there?

Some great ones there Thirdman! That Navarro scorecard still has me scratching my head.

The recent Martinez/ Cintron fight still has me confused! Martinez should have won twice, the KO & then on the cards but only managed a draw

Originally Posted by THE THIRD MAN

There are many others, Steele stops the Taylor V Chavez fight with 3 seconds to go?

Because Taylor was gone, he had swallowed a pint and a half of his own blood (according to his own trainer, Lou Duva) and had a broken eye orbital.

Sure he could of won, even if he had taken another Chavez right hand, but Steele's sole responsibility is that of protecting the fighters, he is not the timekeeper, and he made his (right) call.

Duran...No Mas? did he really have the s hits?

My theory is that Duran was not properly focused and was simply fustrated with Leonard's tactics and justified walking away because in his opinion; Leonard was not fighting.

I suspect soon after the bout, Duran realized his error and tried to dig himself out of the hole he had created....

Originally Posted by Britkid

Originally Posted by THE THIRD MAN

There are many others, Steele stops the Taylor V Chavez fight with 3 seconds to go?

The Whitaker draw with Chavez? Why no rematch? Whitaker clearly won that fight.

Because Taylor was gone, he had swallowed a pint and a half of his own blood (according to his own trainer, Lou Duva) and had a broken eye orbital.

Sure he could of won, even if he had taken another Chavez right hand, but Steele's sole responsibility is that of protecting the fighters, he is not the timekeeper, and he made his (right) call.

Duran...No Mas? did he really have the s hits?

My theory is that Duran was not properly focused and was simply fustrated with Leonard's tactics and justified walking away because in his opinion; Leonard was not fighting.

I suspect soon after the bout, Duran realized his error and tried to dig himself out of the hole he had created....

The Taylor one is valid, those injuries are bad and i think Steele should be forgiven for that one, The Duran No Mas is interesting in that the fight was judged to be close on the scorecards at the time of his quitting, it's all still puzzling as he quits half way through the fight? Frustration, the s hits or his condition simply gave way, what ever the reason it's still one of the biggest mysteries in boxing history.

Originally Posted by OumaFan

Not even so much official decisions that you see as bad, everybody's got to have some contrarian opinions on certain fights, these are, among others, mine.

Mosley-De La Hoya II- I actually agreed with the decision but I could see how people might think Oscar won, its this insistence by some that he was robbed that confuses me. He at best won a close decision. Shane was clearly landing the harder punches and Oscar, as usual, got too much credit for flurries that didn't really land

Bernard Hopkins-Jermain Taylor II- I think Hopkins clearly won this fight.
A lot of people seem not to. The first fight is more debatable, Bernard clearly waited too long although its not like Taylor was doing much. But the second fight is almost to the point of not even being debatable to me, Bernard clearly won a majority of the rounds.

JMM-Barrera-I've been a fan of Barrera's for a long long time but he clearly lost this fight IMO. If I remember correctly I wasn't really able to post on Saddo's around this fight so I remember being shocked by how close people thought it was or that some people thought he won. I just don't see it.

Anyway, thoughts?

How did Hopkins win against Taylor the second time? Taylor was landing too many more solid punches.

Mosley-ODLH II- it was close...ish, but Oscar was landing so much more, despite Mosley landing the harder punches he was landing half as often. I wasn't given Oscar credit for missed flurries but some of those punches got through, it wasn't liek when he fought Mayweather.

Marquez-Barrera: Marquez won a close fight, how could you score it otherwise, it was like they were both shadow boxing in the mirror, Barrera deserved a knockdown in the fight and was ahead in the first half of the fight.

Originally Posted by Taeth

Originally Posted by OumaFan

Not even so much official decisions that you see as bad, everybody's got to have some contrarian opinions on certain fights, these are, among others, mine.

Mosley-De La Hoya II- I actually agreed with the decision but I could see how people might think Oscar won, its this insistence by some that he was robbed that confuses me. He at best won a close decision. Shane was clearly landing the harder punches and Oscar, as usual, got too much credit for flurries that didn't really land

Bernard Hopkins-Jermain Taylor II- I think Hopkins clearly won this fight.
A lot of people seem not to. The first fight is more debatable, Bernard clearly waited too long although its not like Taylor was doing much. But the second fight is almost to the point of not even being debatable to me, Bernard clearly won a majority of the rounds.

JMM-Barrera-I've been a fan of Barrera's for a long long time but he clearly lost this fight IMO. If I remember correctly I wasn't really able to post on Saddo's around this fight so I remember being shocked by how close people thought it was or that some people thought he won. I just don't see it.

Anyway, thoughts?

How did Hopkins win against Taylor the second time? Taylor was landing too many more solid punches.

Mosley-ODLH II- it was close...ish, but Oscar was landing so much more, despite Mosley landing the harder punches he was landing half as often. I wasn't given Oscar credit for missed flurries but some of those punches got through, it wasn't liek when he fought Mayweather.

Marquez-Barrera: Marquez won a close fight, how could you score it otherwise, it was like they were both shadow boxing in the mirror, Barrera deserved a knockdown in the fight and was ahead in the first half of the fight.

I don't know, if you argue Taylor won through activity, ok but that's not how I score fights, clean punches? Hell no, Bernard landed the cleaner shots.

I thought Shane landed the cleaner, harder punches. I won't spend a lot of time debating it as I'm not gonna argue that Oscar couldn't have gotten the nod, it was a close fight, I just was always baffled by robbery talk.

Barrera-Marquez I've only seen once and I don't remember my exact scorecard but it depends on what you think is close, I definitely had Marquez winning by more than a point or two, he was just doing more effective work most of the rounds.

Here are a few that always confuse and sometimes aggravate me.

Ali - Frazier II
Ali - Norton III
Foreman - Schultz
Foreman - Briggs
Not on the same level but Burton vs Augustus
Dale Brown - Oneill Bell
Holyfield - Valuev
De La Hoya - Trinidad as well as Mosley II
Hagler - Leonard

Originally Posted by C-Lo

Mosley/De La Hoya II: I actually thought Oscar won the fight. I wasn't disappointed with the outcome but I thought Oscar did enough to get the nod.

JMM/Barrera: I thought Marquez won the fight hands down. Barrera made it very competitive. If the knockdown counted, I still had Marquez up about 2 points.

Barrera/Morales I: Barrera won that fight but on the other hand I thought he lost the 2nd match-up between the two. So I guess it evened out in the end. The third fight was an obvious win for Barrera.

Hopkins/Taylor: I'm with Bilbo. Hopkins didn't do much until late in the fights. Taylor's activity won those fights clearly IMO.

Some other fights I'll throw in there:

Foreman vs Briggs (1997): Was I the only one that thought George got robbed?

Holyfield vs Lewis II (1999): Lewis did get robbed the first time but I also think that Holyfield won the fight the second time around.

I thought Foreman won 8 of the 12 rounds. Sad way for him to go out, but the fact probably everyone including Briggs realized it was a message for George to quit from the boxing establishment.

Thought Lewis won the second one though it was close, not like the first one which was a clear cut win for Lewis.

Originally Posted by The Fightfan

Here are a few that always confuse and sometimes aggravate me.

Ali - Frazier II
Ali - Norton III
Foreman - Schultz
Foreman - Briggs
Not on the same level but Burton vs Augustus
Dale Brown - Oneill Bell
Holyfield - Valuev
De La Hoya - Trinidad as well as Mosley II
Hagler - Leonard

I didn't give Foreman a round in the Schultz fight. That was awful. But Schultz did get another shot at a title so it was no foul there. Saw Valuev-Holyfield on youtube. Thought Holy clearly outboxed the giant. De La Hoya versus Trinidad was pure stupidity on Oscars part the way he ran the last three rounds.

Originally Posted by Lyle

I thought both Lewis-Holyfield fights were scored wrong #1 was Lewis all day #2 was Evander....I'm sorry he got jobbed in that fight, just as bad as Lennox did in the first fight. But why no rubber match?!?!?!

I think Rocky Juarez lost vs Zahir Raheem and he was waaaay down on my card vs Barrios who's corner (amazingly) knew the drill with Juarez when he fights in Houston, only Jorge punched himself out.

Yeah on Lewis Holyfield I. It was not even close. Totally bizarre that one. II I thought was very close, maybe a slight edge to Holy, but it was nowhere near as bad as I.

Originally Posted by THE THIRD MAN

Originally Posted by Britkid

Originally Posted by THE THIRD MAN

There are many others, Steele stops the Taylor V Chavez fight with 3 seconds to go?

The Whitaker draw with Chavez? Why no rematch? Whitaker clearly won that fight.

Because Taylor was gone, he had swallowed a pint and a half of his own blood (according to his own trainer, Lou Duva) and had a broken eye orbital.

Sure he could of won, even if he had taken another Chavez right hand, but Steele's sole responsibility is that of protecting the fighters, he is not the timekeeper, and he made his (right) call.

Duran...No Mas? did he really have the s hits?

My theory is that Duran was not properly focused and was simply fustrated with Leonard's tactics and justified walking away because in his opinion; Leonard was not fighting.

I suspect soon after the bout, Duran realized his error and tried to dig himself out of the hole he had created....

The Taylor one is valid, those injuries are bad and i think Steele should be forgiven for that one, The Duran No Mas is interesting in that the fight was judged to be close on the scorecards at the time of his quitting, it's all still puzzling as he quits half way through the fight? Frustration, the s hits or his condition simply gave way, what ever the reason it's still one of the biggest mysteries in boxing history.

Third Man, I agree with your original point on Taylor-Chavez. Steele has a history of making questionable quick decisions.