HBO`s calling of dawson-johnson II

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sumkalambay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hattonthehammer

Ok if like myself the events earlier in the evening were simply not enough for a die hard you would of stayed up to the very early hours of sunday morning to watch a very dull contest between chad dawson and glen johnson.

What was served up was 10 rounds of very tactical exchanges with 9 & 12 briefly producing the odd moment of excitement to the very bored and frustrated fans in attendance.

At the time of the fight the only way possible for me to make it to 5-5.30am is by listening to very loud music and of course a 6pack of brewskis. In real time it was evidently clear that bad chad was throwing the far cleaner punches through 8 rounds and all bar the odd round or 2 had a comfortable enough lead going into the last 4. At the end of the round glen johnson was clearly told in no uncertain terms to go to work and really rough up chad. He did so and took 3 of the last 4 rounds, still not enough......a very close 115-113 chad dawson or somewhere along those lines right????

Not according to the morons at HBO who led by an over zealous lederman scorecard made it seem as if the fight was a non starter.

Let me make this perfectly clear. If you did indeed in the very words of jim lampley had glen johnson "losing 10-12 rounds" you are either....

A-An unknowlegable dick with no sense of how a boxing contest is scored and therefore just chose to go along with the commentators

B-An actual fight fan who is a borderline retard completely unable to comprehend and break down a fight scenario **cough**(elterriblemorales)**cough**cough**(viole nt demise)**cough**cough**(amat)




ps:i really do have a nasty throat infection at the moment and the discretions above i assure you are genuine ;D;D;D

---

i had dawson winning something like 11-1 /10-2. and i had the sound off.

it's fuking blatantly clear u don't know how to score a fight. ask any other fight fan who's scored the fight. 7-5 was a ridiculous score. it was a one-sided clinic.

---

thank god your the only guy so far to come forward and admit to being a complete retard

Kind of reminds me of the south park harley riders episode, your butters and that doesnt bother you at all does it??

Its really nothing new...the soapbox carnival barking that Lampley and crew ramble off over the newest flavor of the month.I gave Johnson 2 rounds,wished there were more but was a step behind really.

I wasted a perfectly good Shiner bock on the keyboard when Rev. Lampley started going into Dawsons up standing family highground and his resistance to frequent strip clubs...all the while collecting a check from 'Condoms .com' on the back of his trunks through the fight.Hey a guy has to make a buck I suppose,better 'safe' than sorry :-X.Phantom punch Lampley is the worst

I thought the commentary was so biased in favor of Dawson I was getting a little queezy, but Dawson fought pretty much the same fight he had to fight. That's the tagline of David Haye's fight right Hammer? Johnson was much more capable, had Dawson fought any differently it would have been a repeat of the first fight (which I scored for Johnson). Hammer, I don't know how you put together a 115-113 scorecard but it was 118-111 at the very most for Johnson. Round 4, maybe 5 and 11.

I am just thankful I am not the only one who sees the insane bias in HBO's commentating. I thought there was something wrong with me for a while but now I can see I am not alone. I am just waiting for this weekend between Pac and Cotto to see who's nuts will be resting on Lampley's lips.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amat

I thought the commentary was so biased in favor of Dawson I was getting a little queezy, but Dawson fought pretty much the same fight he had to fight. That's the tagline of David Haye's fight right Hammer? Johnson was much more capable, had Dawson fought any differently it would have been a repeat of the first fight (which I scored for Johnson). Hammer, I don't know how you put together a 115-113 scorecard but it was 118-111 at the very most for Johnson. Round 4, maybe 5 and 11.

---

If i wanna score every single round for the guy who`s landed the cleaner punches yet spends 3minutes running which naturally means he`ll be able to land the more convincing shots i would of had dirrell beating froch also.

Johnson came to fight, chad came to win a decision. 2 of the 3 judges and myself took that into account and gave the non active rounds to the guy who was attempting to engage

Even scoring the fight overwhelmingly for Dawson (two judges had it 115-113), Dawson wasn't "dominating" like those nut huggers were going on about. Really it was similar to Dirrell v Froch in a lot of ways. I wonder how those judges would have scored it? Neither fighter really took much damage at all. they both looked fresh as daisies at the end. I think Dawson clearly won, but it wasn't some virtuoso coming out.

Maybe the announcers were instructed by HBO execs to really talk Dawson up if he was in control at all, to try to bolster interest in him for future fights?

Maybe the announcers were instructed by HBO execs to really talk Dawson up if he was in control at all, to try to bolster interest in him for future fights?[/quote]

I do believe this is exactly what is happening with most of the HBO fight's anymore.There really isn't no one on the horizon who is a stellar HBO ticketseller so I do think they are trying to sell whoever and whatever they can to the fans to get some bigger payday's. I mean for real Dawson said he is done fighting the older fighters who have been around forever. Then turns around after the fight and says he wants Hopkins. To me it just seemed a little funny and set-up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hattonthehammer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amat

I thought the commentary was so biased in favor of Dawson I was getting a little queezy, but Dawson fought pretty much the same fight he had to fight. That's the tagline of David Haye's fight right Hammer? Johnson was much more capable, had Dawson fought any differently it would have been a repeat of the first fight (which I scored for Johnson). Hammer, I don't know how you put together a 115-113 scorecard but it was 118-111 at the very most for Johnson. Round 4, maybe 5 and 11.

---

If i wanna score every single round for the guy who`s landed the cleaner punches yet spends 3minutes running which naturally means he`ll be able to land the more convincing shots i would of had dirrell beating froch also.

Johnson came to fight, chad came to win a decision. 2 of the 3 judges and myself took that into account and gave the non active rounds to the guy who was attempting to engage

---

WTF?!?! Yes, please explain to me how "running" naturally means you are going to land the cleaner punching. If that was the case wouldn't 2 fighters be "running" all the time? WTF Hammer, THAT'S HOW YOU SCORE FIGHTS! You land cleaner more effective punches and you win. It's called footwork man, go back and watch their first fight. That's a fight you can actually score for Johnson. What was the difference between the two fights? It wasn't the jab, the combinations, etc it was that when Dawson stopped moving his feet, Johnson was getting inside on him and hurting him with his right hand. Dawson fought brilliantly, it might not have been exciting but it's what he had to do to win the fight. He completely took away Johnson's left hand with the foot movement and just focused on the right hand. It was a very good gameplan that he only got away from a few times in the whole fight. Seriously, that's how you score fights

I'm beginning to think you aren't as smart as I thought you were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hattonthehammer

If i wanna score every single round for the guy who`s landed the cleaner punches yet spends 3minutes running which naturally means he`ll be able to land the more convincing shots i would of had dirrell beating froch also.

Johnson came to fight, chad came to win a decision. 2 of the 3 judges and myself took that into account and gave the non active rounds to the guy who was attempting to engage

---

:LOLATYOU:

This has to be one of the best posts at Saddo's in the boxing talk section. Someone completely demonstrating a lack of understanding of how to score boxing & how it works. I don't know if you've ever boxed competitively hammer, but it is considerably harder to punch cleanly & effectively if you're going backwards at speed. It is much easier to do if you're coming forward as long as you are within range to connect with your opponent (guess what kind of range you're in if you're running back). Btw clean & effective punching is one of the criteria on how to score a round.

This will tell you how it's done, if you don't know how to properly score a fight, there's no point doing a scorecard.

How to Score a Professional Boxing Match: The Four Criteria Judges Use for Scoring a Fight | Suite101.com

As it is, I do agree with you that HBO were on Dawson's dick, as they always are with 'their' guys, although I think I had it 117-112, can't remember exactly as it was such a shit fight. Were you drunk for this one as well as the Haye fight?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hattonthehammer

Ok if like myself the events earlier in the evening were simply not enough for a die hard you would of stayed up to the very early hours of sunday morning to watch a very dull contest between chad dawson and glen johnson.

What was served up was 10 rounds of very tactical exchanges with 9 & 12 briefly producing the odd moment of excitement to the very bored and frustrated fans in attendance.

At the time of the fight the only way possible for me to make it to 5-5.30am is by listening to very loud music and of course a 6pack of brewskis. In real time it was evidently clear that bad chad was throwing the far cleaner punches through 8 rounds and all bar the odd round or 2 had a comfortable enough lead going into the last 4. At the end of the round glen johnson was clearly told in no uncertain terms to go to work and really rough up chad. He did so and took 3 of the last 4 rounds, still not enough......a very close 115-113 chad dawson or somewhere along those lines right????

Not according to the morons at HBO who led by an over zealous lederman scorecard made it seem as if the fight was a non starter.

Let me make this perfectly clear. If you did indeed in the very words of jim lampley had glen johnson "losing 10-12 rounds" you are either....

A-An unknowlegable dick with no sense of how a boxing contest is scored and therefore just chose to go along with the commentators

B-An actual fight fan who is a borderline retard completely unable to comprehend and break down a fight scenario **cough**(elterriblemorales)**cough**cough**(viole nt demise)**cough**cough**(amat)




ps:i really do have a nasty throat infection at the moment and the discretions above i assure you are genuine ;D;D;D

---

Stop swallowing so much male reproductive organ and maybe you won't have that problem.

I had it 8 rounds to 4 Dawson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hattonthehammer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amat

I thought the commentary was so biased in favor of Dawson I was getting a little queezy, but Dawson fought pretty much the same fight he had to fight. That's the tagline of David Haye's fight right Hammer? Johnson was much more capable, had Dawson fought any differently it would have been a repeat of the first fight (which I scored for Johnson). Hammer, I don't know how you put together a 115-113 scorecard but it was 118-111 at the very most for Johnson. Round 4, maybe 5 and 11.

---

If i wanna score every single round for the guy who`s landed the cleaner punches yet spends 3minutes running which naturally means he`ll be able to land the more convincing shots i would of had dirrell beating froch also.

Johnson came to fight, chad came to win a decision. 2 of the 3 judges and myself took that into account and gave the non active rounds to the guy who was attempting to engage

---

:vd:

I thought they were biased towards Chad Dawson, but who really cares it wasn't a close fight. Chad Dawson comfortably won by 4 rounds maybe even more, Glen Johnson could not get his gameplan working at all. Chad Dawson fought a smart/professional fight. I thought he was a bit too cautious at times, but he still didn't leave any question marks.

I mean didn't everyone want Chad Dawson to beat Glen Johnson convincingly, and didn't he just do that ? i mean i know Glen Johnson isn't no spring chicken. But he's still an elite fighter, and no one has beaten Glen Johnson that convincingly since probably Bernard Hopkins in 1997, and Glen Johnson probably hadn't hit his peak yet then either.

I'd rather watch paint dry than to see Glen Johnson fight.
(Not that he isn't a nice guy, of course).