Printable View
12 th could make a case for a 10-8 round Saunders was out of it at 1 point before the ref stopped the action. So what round did Saunders dominate ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Point out a big round jr had as well then? To make it fair likeQuote:
Originally Posted by g3org3
Eubank didn't win .
The End.
One judge thought he did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al
I was thinking about split decisions last night. If one judge thinks you have won its unfair that you get a loss.
Calzaghe-Hopkins was a SD. Who won?Quote:
Originally Posted by rossOne judge thought he did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al
I was thinking about split decisions last night. If one judge thinks you have won its unfair that you get a loss.
Eubank didn't need to crawl around on the floor looking for respite. Hopkins didn't finish the fight knocking Calzaghe all over the shop. Hopkins was fighting in front of his countrymen in his country.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterCalzaghe-Hopkins was a SD. Who won?Quote:
Originally Posted by rossOne judge thought he did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al
I was thinking about split decisions last night. If one judge thinks you have won its unfair that you get a loss.
It was a close fight but the result is a Eubank loss.
10-8 round? Come on. The 12th round of Hopkins-Kovalev should have been a 10-6 then. I've watched the fight twice and didn't notice Billy Joe ever turned into a defensless drunk.Quote:
Originally Posted by g3org312 th could make a case for a 10-8 round Saunders was out of it at 1 point before the ref stopped the action. So what round did Saunders dominate ?Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterPoint out a big round jr had as well then? To make it fair likeQuote:
Originally Posted by g3org3
I don't think there was many "dominate" rounds. If "dominate" means one was wiping the floor with the other.
I scored the 12th 10-9 but u could make a point for 10-8 had bjs hurt twice. All I'm saying is it was a close fight I feel eubank won and I didn't see 1 single round Saunders looked good in, every round he won was a close round he just edge his rounds but eubank took his rounds clearly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster10-8 round? Come on. The 12th round of Hopkins-Kovalev should have been a 10-6 then. I've watched the fight twice and didn't notice Billy Joe ever turned into a defensless drunk.Quote:
Originally Posted by g3org312 th could make a case for a 10-8 round Saunders was out of it at 1 point before the ref stopped the action. So what round did Saunders dominate ?Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterPoint out a big round jr had as well then? To make it fair likeQuote:
Originally Posted by g3org3
I don't think there was many "dominate" rounds. If "dominate" means one was wiping the floor with the other.
That didn't matter to the judge that scored it for Hopkins. So by your rationale it's unfair that Hopkins lost to Calzaghe. You set the criteria not me. Fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by rossEubank didn't need to crawl around on the floor looking for respite. Hopkins didn't finish the fight knocking Calzaghe all over the shop. Hopkins was fighting in front of his countrymen in his country.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterCalzaghe-Hopkins was a SD. Who won?Quote:
Originally Posted by rossOne judge thought he did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al
I was thinking about split decisions last night. If one judge thinks you have won its unfair that you get a loss.
I agree it was a close fight. On second viewing I could give Eubank a draw. I didn't think either fighter was ever in serious trouble though.Quote:
Originally Posted by g3org3I scored the 12th 10-9 but u could make a point for 10-8 had bjs hurt twice. All I'm saying is it was a close fight I feel eubank won and I didn't see 1 single round Saunders looked good in, every round he won was a close round he just edge his rounds but eubank took his rounds clearly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster10-8 round? Come on. The 12th round of Hopkins-Kovalev should have been a 10-6 then. I've watched the fight twice and didn't notice Billy Joe ever turned into a defensless drunk.Quote:
Originally Posted by g3org312 th could make a case for a 10-8 round Saunders was out of it at 1 point before the ref stopped the action. So what round did Saunders dominate ?Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterPoint out a big round jr had as well then? To make it fair likeQuote:
Originally Posted by g3org3
I don't think there was many "dominate" rounds. If "dominate" means one was wiping the floor with the other.
What Eubank can take from this is he has all the natural tools, attributes and ability to improve with experience. He hurt Saunders frequently, no one else has but thats not saying much as Saunders hasn't done much himself yet. He took some flush shots and was never really hurt. Saunders is fooling himself he had Cjris on wobbly legs in the second.
Eubank can get better. He's gone from fighting journeymen to fighting the defending British, Commonwealth and European champ and one judge had him a winner.
Saunders will also benefit from this. Hopefully he wins the WBO and hopefully Warren sniffs the big money rematch before Saunders fucks it up by losing to someone else and we get a rematch. Chrishas more room for improvement. If he had started putting the punches together and the pressure 5 rounds earlier I believe there would be no debate now because Saunders would have been stopped.
Don't forget this was a fitter, better prepared fighter than those mythical, amazing, british, undefeated fighters faced;D
What I'm saying is Eubank actually looked like he was winning. Hopkins didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterThat didn't matter to the judge that scored it for Hopkins. So by your rationale it's unfair that Hopkins lost to Calzaghe. You set the criteria not me. Fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by rossEubank didn't need to crawl around on the floor looking for respite. Hopkins didn't finish the fight knocking Calzaghe all over the shop. Hopkins was fighting in front of his countrymen in his country.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterCalzaghe-Hopkins was a SD. Who won?Quote:
Originally Posted by rossOne judge thought he did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al
I was thinking about split decisions last night. If one judge thinks you have won its unfair that you get a loss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ross
So what were his tactics and reasons then for not putting pressure on him earlier ?
Im not sure. I was frustrated watching those first few rounds. I think he thought he would take him out easy. Saunders was very cautious. Its credit to Eubank that he adapted and chased Saunders down and had him rattling all over the shop nearly stopping him in the 12th when all the experts logic said Eubanks stamina would be shit and Saunders would be top notch because some british level fighters extended him.;DQuote:
Originally Posted by Dark Lord AlQuote:
Originally Posted by ross
So what were his tactics and reasons then for not putting pressure on him earlier ?
Eubank will learn now to just let the punches go and work rather than try and load up.
Lol yea I seen that interview were Saunders says he wobbled eubank in the 2nd. I don't know how he managed to keep a straight face chatting that pishQuote:
Originally Posted by ross