Printable View
I had it a draw, and if Taylor didn't coast the last few rounds he would of won handily imo, easily the more active fighter and his punches had alot more snap than Winky's, basically alot more power.
He was also in better condition, he still looked fresh while Winky was really feeling the presure...he was tired.
What was your scorecard and why?
6-6 in my opinion, Taylor landed the harder shots while Winky fought better Technically, I felt Jermain should have pressed the action more in the later rounds, it seems like he runs out of gas laten (remember both Hopkins fights)Quote:
Originally Posted by The_One77
I had
5 rounds to Taylor
and
7 to Winky
Taylor hit gloves all night execpt about 5 shots
actually alot of those straight right hands went through Winky's guard...
Winky was too slow on the night to earn a win, if anything Taylor should of won because he is the champion.
I had Winky 115-113, a draw was ok but I don't see how Taylor won more than 6 rounds, Winky landed the cleaner punches and more of them.
Taylor should have won. his rights were going through, he was even out jabbing wright at times!.
(HITMAN- 5 SHOTS? WHAT WERE YOU WATCHING, Brazil vs jamaica!)
i had it 116-114 taylor. thats how i scored it. Taylor looked much stronger and better conditioned. Looked far busier too.
115-113 to Wright...
The majority of Taylors shots hit Wrights guard.... Wright was keeping Taylor in the corners and on the ropes a lot of the time and hitting Taylor more.
The judges must have been from the same boxing school as the HBO guys... who kept getting excited it Taylor blasted away at Winky's elbows...
Wright worked more too, always coming forwards the whole fight.
Close fight, I have Taylor the first and a few middle rounds but Wright won it for me.
With Winky's number score first.
1: 10-9
2: 10-9
3: 9-10
4: 10-9
5: 10-9
6: 9-10
7: 9-10
8: 9-10
9: 9-10
10: 10-10
11: 10-9
12: 10-9
So 116-114 to Wright
Sooooooo many of Taylor's shots were hitting Winky's gloves and arms. While Winky through a lot less and damaged less, when he did throw, he generally connected more often and let his punches go in bunches. I believe he done enough for the win although If Taylor had got a win I wouldnt say he had to give Winky a rematch after his antics in the arrangement of the fight and storming off after the decision. The draw should really mandate a rematch though. And I would love ot see that again, was a great fight.
funny how everyone says that Taylor's shots were hitting elbows and arms, since Winky was breathing heavily in the corner and had a frustrated look on his face.
The power was obviously bothering him
So you were the supervisor for Barrera/Juarez!!!! I think you mean 115/114 Wright ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by AC-Cobra
I had it almost the same, except I scored Taylor for the first, and Wright in the tenth, thus I had it 114/114.
exactly, i just don't see how Taylor supposedly got "outclassed" by the arm punching WInkyQuote:
Originally Posted by Britkid
HAHA oops. I guess you could of scored either of those either way. I gave Winky the first as he dictated the pace in my opinion and Taylor looked to struggle with it IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Britkid
Of course it was JT is a big middleweight who's trademark is his power, but does that mean everyone who breathes heavy should lose a fight? He was still boxing and defending well DESPITE the distress JT's power was giving him. No reason we should penalise him for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_One77
I thought it was a draw too. It was a very even fight almost the whole way. Taylor threw more punches but didn't land as many clean ones. A lot of his punches were caught on Wright's gloves or arms. He had more power but it didn't really have much effect on Wright, who kept moving forward the whole fight until some time in the 12th round.
Honestly I expected Taylor to clinch more on the inside than he did. He only initiated a clinch around 2 or 3 times per round, hardly even noticeable. I suppose that Emanuel Steward impressed upon Taylor the need to stay busy the whole way against Wright, who landed a lot of jabs but never seemed to hurt Taylor at all.
A draw seemed like a fair result. Wright was very disappointed but he had no reason to be. Taylor's left eye was swollen shut for the last 2 or 3 rounds or else he might have been able to squeak by with a close win.
It was a good fight, much better than I expected, with few fouls and mostly just good boxing and good sportsmanship. I was really glad to see it since I've been disappointed quite a few times recently. :)
7 rounds to 5 for Ronald Winky Wright
115-113 For Taylor
He was lucky to get the decision over Hopkins but unlucky not to get it here . 2 Wrongs dont make a right tho
Ha, ha [click] for the pun ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by GAME
I thought it could go either way so it's a draw for me. Winky was clearly the more aggressive and confident fighter but Taylor successfully kept him at bay and seemed to deliver more stronger punches, though I thought Taylor should've been more aggressive. I wonder why Winky started dancing around in the last, but crucial, round; that could have cost him the decision.
7-5 for Winky
114-114 ... or 6 rounds - 6 rounds ... A draw!
I had it 7 rounds to 5 for taylor. I gave Taylor 7 of the first ten and Winky the last two.Once again it was hard to tell how effective Jermain was being but he was often simply more active. I'm sure Taylor did hit alot of arms and gloves but when he started to throw Winky's offense halted and he got backed up. Winky needed to be more active and a little less cautious.
Winky landed more, threw less, showed better defence, controlled the pace, forced the fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_One77
On what planet did Taylor win that fight?
Had Winky not pressed the action we would have had another Hopkins-Taylor stand-off.
No, they didn't. Had the crowd not ooh'd and ahh'd everytime Taylor banged the gloves Wright would have gotten that decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_One77
Watch the fight and not just what you want to see. Very few got through the guard and a handful got through without at least a partial block.
Might wanna check the punch stats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionheart Lacy
Winky outjabbed and outlanded Taylor and it wasn't even close.
i had it 115-112 winky.
That was fatigue from forcing the action. Winky was the aggressor. How do you manage to deduce that fatigue = punches going through the guard?Quote:
Originally Posted by The_One77
That's a hell of a stretch.
If boxing was as simple as counting punches, well there would be no need for judges. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Clydey_2_Times
I had it 114/114, I can see how anyone gave it to either fighter 7/5, but that it is, the fight was damn close IMO.
That wasn't my point, BK. No need to be patronising.Quote:
Originally Posted by Britkid
He said that Taylor won the battle of the jabs at times. The punch stats prove otherwise.
Punch stats don't prove who won the fight, but they demonstrate who was more effective in what way.
The punch stats are opinion of someone/people counting punches.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clydey_2_Times
Taylor was the busier fighter.
Wright as always was cute, and made Taylor miss tonnes (literally) of punches.
And this fight was scored over 12 rounds, not one. Wright won his rounds cleaner on my card, but Taylor won just as many IMO, so I can understand the frustrations of the Winky fans, but hey that is 10 point must, and as I stated, I can see a 7/5 fight to either man, but I would struggle to comprehend any bigger advantage... to either fighter. ;)
You can hardly criticise Taylor for fighting a cautious fight, he was throwing punches furiously all night, keeping his hands low the whole time. If anything I thought he was a little reckless at times and I was half expecting to burn himself out. But in no way shape or form was he remotely like the Taylor that fought Hopkins.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clydey_2_Times
And, pray tell, where did I say the fight was scored over one round?Quote:
Originally Posted by Britkid
Over 12 rounds, I had Winky winning it, along with, it appears, the majority of viewers. The punch stats, while hardly conclusive, go some way to demonstrating how much more efficient Winky was. That, of course, is not even taking into account his superior defence, his aggression and controlling the pace of the fight.
No one is criticising him for being cautious and no one is saying that it was the Taylor who fought Hopkins.Quote:
Originally Posted by bilbo
What I'm saying is that Winky should have been given credit for being the aggressor. Also, IF Winky hadn't forced the fight, we would have had another stand-off ala Hopkins-Taylor. There is no way that Taylor would have pressed the action and initiated exchanges like Winky did. Had Winky stood off, Taylor would have too. That's just how he fights.
The punch stats can be interpreted in different ways...Quote:
Originally Posted by Clydey_2_Times
It shows Taylor was busier ;)
Wright without doubt was the better defensive fighter, but Taylor was more aggressive, and IMO he controlled the pace of the fight, with Wright fighting in spurts.
Taylor was the better ring general, seemingly instinctively knowing how to impress the judges, whilst Wright was the better boxer, using his experience to keep the younger fighter in check.
And on top of this, to generalize, American judges (in particular Vegas Judges) tend to reward effective aggressiveness, and Chuck Giampa is a Vegas judge. So from that point of view it can argued Taylor fought a smart fight as well. ;)
As far as aggression goes, it's not even down to opinion. Wright forced the fight from the first bell, beyond dispute. To even suggest that Taylor forced the fight is as mind-boggling as your Holyfield-Lewis 1 scorecard ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Britkid
Also, activity means nothing if you don't land. Economy is more important. Punches landed mean more than punches thrown and missed.
I would strongly disagree with you over the the first sentence of the last paragraph. Boxing in America is generally judged on activity over economy. And although I agree with the last sentence, a judge is only human, and unlike us, do not have the benefit of replays. So Taylor throwing maybe a 100 more punches than Wright, probably has swung it to the draw, over Wright landing more, but throwing less.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clydey_2_Times
Oh, you disagree with the first sentence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Britkid
Then by reason you must have had Sam Soliman beating Winky quite handily.
Basically, you can throw punches all night and barely land and the activity means more than the fighter who lands more and throws less? Think you'll find it hard to justify that one.
I do disagree with the first part, as I feel American judges generally prefer an active fighter over a fight who uses economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clydey_2_Times
But the reason I had Winky beating Soliman, is because like I stated, I agree with your second sentence, the fighter who lands more punches should (with the odd exception) win the round on 10 point must, that is the first rule of judging.
But that said, it is not the only rule in pro boxing, there are other intangibles that a judge may choose award, like effective aggressiveness ;)
Activity does not matter if you don't land. How can you dispute that? Boxing is about landing punches. Throwing and not landing does not score. Generalising American judges' style of scoring is really not a viable argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Britkid
As far as offence goes, economy, punches landed, call it what you will, is more important than activity, irrefutably. If it wasn't, you could just flail away all night and, apparently, win fights.
Pro boxing judging is not as simple as counting punches landed with the correct part of the glove, there are intangibles that need to be recognised.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clydey_2_Times
How would score a round, that fighter (A), outlanding fighter (B), 25 punches to 15, only for fighter (B) to knockdown fighter (A) at the end of the round with his 16th landed punch?
I think you are suggesting; 9/9; but we all know it is going to be scored 10/8...
And generally the same would go if Fighter (A) threw 45 punches, landing 18, whilst fighter (B) threw a 100 punches, landing 15, the American judges generally would be attracted to fighter (B).
We can argue weather that is fair or not, and probably would agree, but I am guessing you are not a pro judge, neither am I, so it is not really going to matter, what we think, we are probably not going to change anything. So we have to deal with reality over idealogy, IMO ;)
We're not arguing about that here, BK. I know the variables.Quote:
Originally Posted by Britkid
We're discussing activity vs economy.