Breidis Prescott vs Kevin Mitchell

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gest12645

I agree with Otley on couple things. Commentary was very biased. THe scores were crap also. But I wouldn't say Prescott won. I had it 115-113 Mitchell but 11-1 for Mitchell is crazy

---

Mitchell did what i thought he would...Out box prescott.
Mitchell won this fight thats for sure...And even thou i dont like watt.
How can you say he's biased to british fighters,when he said david haye lost???

he was biased in this fight. I didn't say all the fights he comments

116-112 Mitchell for me, with two rounds I gave Prescott very debatable. No question Kev pissed this fight.

Can Saddo construct a Job Biscuit eh eh filter for the forum please so it doesn't appear in the threads like when we type fuck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tysonbruno

All Mitchell did was run round ring did he really do enough to win?? it was all a bit dodgy to me Ref was on at Breidis from the start basically for nothing Breidis was the one pressing the action he threw loads more punches and also Jim watt was only really comenting on Kevin Mitchell. and the scores were ridiculous maybe i need to watch it again but i wouldn't have been shocked if Prescott had won.

---

Why am I not surprised you can't score a fight ;D

You do realise you have to land punches to score, right?

Prescott threw 400 punches - landed 40. Mitchell threw 300 - landed 100.

---

Look i know it looks like im hating on him but look at it like this many believe Froch beat Dirrell because Dirrell was to negative but he landed more than Mitchell and looked more effective than Mitchell too look at it like this had Prescott stopped chasing and stud in middle of ring then the action would have stopped. FACT.;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tysonbruno

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tysonbruno

All Mitchell did was run round ring did he really do enough to win?? it was all a bit dodgy to me Ref was on at Breidis from the start basically for nothing Breidis was the one pressing the action he threw loads more punches and also Jim watt was only really comenting on Kevin Mitchell. and the scores were ridiculous maybe i need to watch it again but i wouldn't have been shocked if Prescott had won.

---

Why am I not surprised you can't score a fight ;D

You do realise you have to land punches to score, right?

Prescott threw 400 punches - landed 40. Mitchell threw 300 - landed 100.

---

Look i know it looks like im hating on him but look at it like this many believe Froch beat Dirrell because Dirrell was to negative but he landed more than Mitchell and looked more effective than Mitchell too look at it like this had Prescott stopped chasing and stud in middle of ring then the action would have stopped. FACT.;)

---

1. Mitchell landed over 50% more punches than Prescott. And if coming forward winging predictable haymakers, that miss by miles, is looking more effective then yes Prescott looked great. Most, like everyone in the world bar you and Otley, saw the better boxer by miles looking more effective.

2. Had Prescott stood still in the middle of the ring Mitchell would have put him in hospital.

3. It was nothing like Froch-Dirrell. Dirrell out punched Froch but lost because he had the home crowd against him and gave off the aura of a loser - by constantly moaning, holding and diving on the floor. ;)

Just watched the fight.

Mitchell won clearly, I scored it for Mitchell 117-111.

Mitchell gave a couple of rounds to Prescott by being a bit over cautious early on but after four rounds he started finding the target with his left hook and right hand and totally outboxed Prescott.

Mitchell surprised the hell out of me, I had no idea he could box. I knew he could brawl but not box. I underated his durability also, the guy is a hardy cunt. :)

His footwork was spot on, his head movement had Prescott missing all night and his left hook couldn't miss.

Good performance by Mitchell.