B-Hop Vs Jean Pascal Spoilers.

I missed a few of the early rounds because i fell asleep. But i trust my fellow boxing fans on here, because there knowledgeable and know how to score fights. So Jean Pacal scored 2 knockdowns early on and possibly won the first 4 rounds. So add that up and you have a total of 6 points for Jean Pascal.

But after the 4th round i don't think there really was a close round except 12th round, but B-Hop still clearly won that round, so that makes it 114-112 for B-HOP.

B-Hop was constantly the aggressor after the 4th round, he landed the better punches and threw more punches. Jean Pascal looked winded and only threw single shots here and there on the back foot. He made a better effort in the 12th round but what about the other 7 rounds ?

Im sorry but B-Hop was robbed just like George Foreman was against Shannon Briggs, how the hell can you rob legends like this who fought there heart out against young champion almost half his age ?

Honestly boxing pisses me off at times, B-Hop is a true legend and one of the best fighters of all time end of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

I missed a few of the early rounds because i fell asleep. But i trust my fellow boxing fans on here, because there knowledgeable and know how to score fights. So Jean Pacal scored 2 knockdowns early on and possibly won the first 4 rounds. So add that up and you have a total of 6 points for Jean Pascal.

But after the 4th round i don't think there really was a close round except 12th round, but B-Hop still clearly won that round, so that makes it 114-112 for B-HOP.

B-Hop was constantly the aggressor after the 4th round, he landed the better punches and threw more punches. Jean Pascal looked winded and only threw single shots here and there on the back foot. He made a better effort in the 12th round but what about the other 7 rounds ?

Im sorry but B-Hop was robbed just like George Foreman was against Shannon Briggs, how the hell can you rob legends like this who fought there heart out against young champion almost half his age ?

Honestly boxing pisses me off at times, B-Hop is a true legend and one of the best fighters of all time end of.

---

I'm not sure about calling it a robbery until I have watched it again. I'm guessing the jusges gave Pascal the first 4, and two by 10-8 so Hopkins is 6 points down. That means he needs to win every round until the 10th just to break even.

Then if you say he wins the 11th, he's only one round up. It all goes to the 12th and I can see a case for giving that to Pascal, certainly it wouldnt be a terrible decision to give him it.

That would make it a draw, which it seems is what two of the judges had.

So I'm reluctant to say he was robbed. A robbery would be him losing a unanimous decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

I missed a few of the early rounds because i fell asleep. But i trust my fellow boxing fans on here, because there knowledgeable and know how to score fights. So Jean Pacal scored 2 knockdowns early on and possibly won the first 4 rounds. So add that up and you have a total of 6 points for Jean Pascal.

But after the 4th round i don't think there really was a close round except 12th round, but B-Hop still clearly won that round, so that makes it 114-112 for B-HOP.

B-Hop was constantly the aggressor after the 4th round, he landed the better punches and threw more punches. Jean Pascal looked winded and only threw single shots here and there on the back foot. He made a better effort in the 12th round but what about the other 7 rounds ?

Im sorry but B-Hop was robbed just like George Foreman was against Shannon Briggs, how the hell can you rob legends like this who fought there heart out against young champion almost half his age ?

Honestly boxing pisses me off at times, B-Hop is a true legend and one of the best fighters of all time end of.

---

I'm not sure about calling it a robbery until I have watched it again. I'm guessing the jusges gave Pascal the first 4, and two by 10-8 so Hopkins is 6 points down. That means he needs to win every round until the 10th just to break even.

Then if you say he wins the 11th, he's only one round up. It all goes to the 12th and I can see a case for giving that to Pascal, certainly it wouldnt be a terrible decision to give him it.

That would make it a draw, which it seems is what two of the judges had.

So I'm reluctant to say he was robbed. A robbery would be him losing a unanimous decision.

---

I didn't think any of the rounds were close after the 4th round, and even though Jean Pascal made more of an effort in the 12th round, B-Hop still won the round. You can't win a fight going on the backfoot for the next 7 rounds doing sod all. Which is what Jean Pascal basically done.

As i said in the other thread, mathematically it wasn't a wide win. But in rounds won 8 rounds to 4 it was, and plus the rounds were easy to score. B-Hop was for certain robbed, and wasn't one of the knockdown's disputed ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

I missed a few of the early rounds because i fell asleep. But i trust my fellow boxing fans on here, because there knowledgeable and know how to score fights. So Jean Pacal scored 2 knockdowns early on and possibly won the first 4 rounds. So add that up and you have a total of 6 points for Jean Pascal.

But after the 4th round i don't think there really was a close round except 12th round, but B-Hop still clearly won that round, so that makes it 114-112 for B-HOP.

B-Hop was constantly the aggressor after the 4th round, he landed the better punches and threw more punches. Jean Pascal looked winded and only threw single shots here and there on the back foot. He made a better effort in the 12th round but what about the other 7 rounds ?

Im sorry but B-Hop was robbed just like George Foreman was against Shannon Briggs, how the hell can you rob legends like this who fought there heart out against young champion almost half his age ?

Honestly boxing pisses me off at times, B-Hop is a true legend and one of the best fighters of all time end of.

---

I'm not sure about calling it a robbery until I have watched it again. I'm guessing the jusges gave Pascal the first 4, and two by 10-8 so Hopkins is 6 points down. That means he needs to win every round until the 10th just to break even.

Then if you say he wins the 11th, he's only one round up. It all goes to the 12th and I can see a case for giving that to Pascal, certainly it wouldnt be a terrible decision to give him it.

That would make it a draw, which it seems is what two of the judges had.

So I'm reluctant to say he was robbed. A robbery would be him losing a unanimous decision.

---

I didn't think any of the rounds were close after the 4th round, and even though Jean Pascal made more of an effort in the 12th round, B-Hop still won the round. You can't win a fight going on the backfoot for the next 7 rounds doing sod all. Which is what Jean Pascal basically done.

As i said in the other thread, mathematically it wasn't a wide win. But in rounds won 8 rounds to 4 it was, and plus the rounds were easy to score. B-Hop was for certain robbed, and wasn't one of the knockdown's disputed ?

---

Well two of the judges must have scored it 7-5 which is hardly a robbery. If they gave him the last round, which isn't that bad a call imo then its a draw.

It's really not a robbery, Santa Cruz Casamayor was a robbery. This was a very close fight that even you think Hopkins took by a single round. If two of the judges thought it was a draw it's not really a robbery.

I think Hopkins deserved the nod, but emotions aside I dont think this was any more controversial than Dirrell Froch.

I felt Hopkins was a clear winner, he dominated Pascal and deserved the win. The knockdowns were obviously a massive factor, I didn't see the 2nd one again but regarding the first one I didn't feel Hopkins actually needed to go down. He was hit with a shot that was borderline back of the head and went down to try and get Pascal a point off or at least an early warning.

Aside from the knockdowns Pascal didn't do a great deal, Hopkins swept the last 6 at least IMO, possibly the last 7. I'd like to see a rematch as I actually enjoyed the fight, I'm just disappointed Hopkins wasn't given the decision as to perform like that at his age and after looking so poor in his last few fights was amazing

Hopkins deserved the win, but a relatively close fight because of the KD's. Hopkins clearly won the majority of the rounds though. I was supporting Pascal, but he just wouldn't throw. He had no output whatsover from the 5th onwards. You cannot win a round by throwing 2 flashy punches whilst being outworked the rest of the time. That is why Calzaghe clearly beat Hopkins IMO and that is why Hopkins won here. He simply outworked his man and if the other man isn't throwing anything back, then it makes it a relatively easy round to score.

I just read the fightnews brief summary and they felt Pascal had a good round 5. I can't remember to be honest, but maybe that was a swing round. I will watch again tomorrow.

Hopkins definitely won most of the rounds, but the judges did indeed give him most of the rounds. Those knockdowns really put him in a hole though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

I just read the fightnews brief summary and they felt Pascal had a good round 5. I can't remember to be honest, but maybe that was a swing round. I will watch again tomorrow.

Hopkins definitely won most of the rounds, but the judges did indeed give him most of the rounds. Those knockdowns really put him in a hole though.

---

Im pretty tired so maybe i'll sleep on it, and view it tomorrow and make a better judgement. But i really thought B-Hop swept 8 rounds clearly.

It wasn't really a great fight by any means, it was just a lot better than expected.

I had Hopkins winning by 10-11 points with a lot of 10-8 rounds and a 10-7 in the seventh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OumaFan

It wasn't really a great fight by any means, it was just a lot better than expected.

I had Hopkins winning by 10-11 points with a lot of 10-8 rounds and a 10-7 in the seventh.

---

haha this is a hornfinger or millicraps parody right :D

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Full disclosure, I'm not sure I've ever scored a fight against Hopkins. Plus he's like 52 years old, come on. I had the 12th 10-9 Hopkins, Pascal earned some respect there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OumaFan

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Full disclosure, I'm not sure I've ever scored a fight against Hopkins. Plus he's like 52 years old, come on. I had the 12th 10-9 Hopkins, Pascal earned some respect there.

---

Hahah I know completely what you mean.. I've been a sucker for Hopkins for years rlly, was completely choked he didn't get the nod in this.. He's freaking ancient and just beat a French Canadian half his age in his backyard. The knockdowns were hurtin to, weren't nearly as telling as any number of shots Hopkins landed on that punk ass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

I missed a few of the early rounds because i fell asleep. But i trust my fellow boxing fans on here, because there knowledgeable and know how to score fights. So Jean Pacal scored 2 knockdowns early on and possibly won the first 4 rounds. So add that up and you have a total of 6 points for Jean Pascal.

But after the 4th round i don't think there really was a close round except 12th round, but B-Hop still clearly won that round, so that makes it 114-112 for B-HOP.

B-Hop was constantly the aggressor after the 4th round, he landed the better punches and threw more punches. Jean Pascal looked winded and only threw single shots here and there on the back foot. He made a better effort in the 12th round but what about the other 7 rounds ?

Im sorry but B-Hop was robbed just like George Foreman was against Shannon Briggs, how the hell can you rob legends like this who fought there heart out against young champion almost half his age ?

Honestly boxing pisses me off at times, B-Hop is a true legend and one of the best fighters of all time end of.

---

Bernard won the 4th round and every single round afterwards making it 115-111 on my card.

Bernard won the fight for sure.

I was even counting him out after the second knockdown as finally getting old.

Remarkable comeback victory and Bernard was ROBBED of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hulk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

I missed a few of the early rounds because i fell asleep. But i trust my fellow boxing fans on here, because there knowledgeable and know how to score fights. So Jean Pacal scored 2 knockdowns early on and possibly won the first 4 rounds. So add that up and you have a total of 6 points for Jean Pascal.

But after the 4th round i don't think there really was a close round except 12th round, but B-Hop still clearly won that round, so that makes it 114-112 for B-HOP.

B-Hop was constantly the aggressor after the 4th round, he landed the better punches and threw more punches. Jean Pascal looked winded and only threw single shots here and there on the back foot. He made a better effort in the 12th round but what about the other 7 rounds ?

Im sorry but B-Hop was robbed just like George Foreman was against Shannon Briggs, how the hell can you rob legends like this who fought there heart out against young champion almost half his age ?

Honestly boxing pisses me off at times, B-Hop is a true legend and one of the best fighters of all time end of.

---

Bernard won the 4th round and every single round afterwards making it 115-111 on my card.

Bernard won the fight for sure.

I was even counting him out after the second knockdown as finally getting old.

Remarkable comeback victory and Bernard was ROBBED of.

---

I didn't see the fight as I was out on my works christmas party but I'm sickened by what I'm hearing, I had quite a bit of money on a Hopkins pts win at 3/1. I could kill judges from time to time.

just watched it - i had Hopkins maybe 1 or 2 ahead so i guess you can't argue argue with a draw.

Knew what happened before i watched so was stunned to hear he had been knocked down twice - though after seeing them they were pretty tame and neither hurt him at all. Off balance for first too.

If had stayed up for just one woul have made all the difference

Going in I though BHop would have a forced retirement. Not a big BHop fan. After the 3rd round BHop controlled the fight(that 1st knockdown was clearly behind the head). After 5 BHop won every round in my opinion. He took the explosiveness away from Pascal and lead him to deep waters he was obviously not capable of. I clearly thought BHop won. On Pascal's conditions in Pascal's backyard BHop got a draw. I think that is a certain victory for BHop.

I missed it all as was partying. Controversy aside, was it a good fight?

Not often you see Hop down twice! You just can't keep that man down though!

The knockdowns don't bother me too much that he won just about every moment after them and didn't get credit is the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 0james0

I missed it all as was partying. Controversy aside, was it a good fight?

Not often you see Hop down twice! You just can't keep that man down though!

---

I don't think they were really clean knockdowns. First was borderline behind the head/ear. Second was better, but still a little scrappy. More of a balance thing.

It was an interesting fight though.

I havn't seen the fight yet, but it sounds really like B-hop was hard done by...

Mainly in the respect that he obviously lost because the 2 knockdowns really put him behind on points, but to come back from that and dominate almost the entire rest of the fight to be a draw in score on 2 people's cards, that guy has got to deserve the win more than someone who got lucky for 2 or 3 rounds at the start of the fight...

Even though when it goes the full 12 rounds, points are everything, if you ignore the scoring, I doesn't sound like anyone would argue with the fact Hopkins clearly won the fight......

But every boxer knows, do everything you possibly can to keep it out of the judges hands, because anything can happen from that point.. And it's all out of your control... Sounds like Hopkins tried to do that, and Pascal rested on his 2 knockdowns...
So from that perspective alone, I support the word "robbery"..

But in a close fight where 1 or 2 points max separate the fighters, it's kinda fair it going either way.... But definitely sounds like Hopkins deserved it more..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dizaster

I havn't seen the fight yet, but it sounds really like B-hop was hard done by...

Mainly in the respect that he obviously lost because the 2 knockdowns really put him behind on points, but to come back from that and dominate almost the entire rest of the fight to be a draw in score on 2 people's cards, that guy has got to deserve the win more than someone who got lucky for 2 or 3 rounds at the start of the fight...

Even though when it goes the full 12 rounds, points are everything, if you ignore the scoring, I doesn't sound like anyone would argue with the fact Hopkins clearly won the fight......

But every boxer knows, do everything you possibly can to keep it out of the judges hands, because anything can happen from that point.. And it's all out of your control... Sounds like Hopkins tried to do that, and Pascal rested on his 2 knockdowns...
So from that perspective alone, I support the word "robbery"..

But in a close fight where 1 or 2 points max separate the fighters, it's kinda fair it going either way.... But definitely sounds like Hopkins deserved it more..

---

Yeah he did deserve it more, but it's getting carried away to call it a robbery imo. When you get putdown twice, on foreign soil, in your opponent's backyward it's always going to be an uphill struggle.

The scores of the judges, two draws and one win for Hopkins testify to how close he came to pulling it off.

I thought he won, he is without doubt the moral winner, but to call it a robbery is overstating.

A drawn fight that was a robbery was the first Funeka Guzman fight. Guzman dominated by Funeka and somehow scraped a draw. I thought the Ortiz Peterson drawn was more controversial also. Both Funeka and Ortiz more clearly won that Hopkins imo.

Take away the knockdowns however and Hopkins DID dominate virtually every round. But losing two 10-8 rounds is such a big obstacle to overcome overseas for any fighter.

I just watched it and it was a very easy fight to score, in my mind B-Hop was robbed. Yes he was floored twice, the 1st knockdown being borederline rabbit shot. But he still won 9 rounds quite easily IMO.

1 Pascal 10-8
2 Pascal 10-9
3 Pascal 10-8
4 Hopkins 10-9
5 Hopkins 10-9
6 Hopkins 10-9
7 Hopkins 10-9
8 Hopkins 10-9
9 Hopkins 10-9
10 Hopkins 10-9
11 Hopkins 10-9
12 Hopkins 10-9

115-111 B-Hop

It seems like the contested round is round 10.

Boxing - Schaefer demands rematch


Apparently the Belgium judge gave the 10th round even when it was clearly a Hopkins round. Golden Boy saying they will sue if Pascal tries to dodge a rematch.........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

I just watched it and it was a very easy fight to score, in my mind B-Hop was robbed. Yes he was floored twice, the 1st knockdown being borederline rabbit shot. But he still won 9 rounds quite easily IMO.

1 Pascal 10-8
2 Pascal 10-9
3 Pascal 10-8
4 Hopkins 10-9
5 Hopkins 10-9
6 Hopkins 10-9
7 Hopkins 10-9
8 Hopkins 10-9
9 Hopkins 10-9
10 Hopkins 10-9
11 Hopkins 10-9
12 Hopkins 10-9

115-111 B-Hop

---

I haven't watched it again yet although may well agree with your scores. I've seen a few people say Pascal won the 5th, and maybe edged the 12th though which would level it up. No doubt Hopkins was the moral winner. Pascal must be feeling pretty bad today, being humiliated by a 45 year old man.

frst 4 rounds pascal won both the 1st and 3rd fair dues...rounds 2 and 4 where close...the first knockdown has case to dispute, if the ref counts that then he should have counted when pascal went down..but anyway hopkins won every round after the 4th....i would goes as far as to say pascal gave up by rounds 6-7, he looked gassed and confusseed aswell as totally beat at the final bell.....both him and his corner seemed to take in that hopkins won the fight, even after it was called a draw they seemed to still think pascal lost it took 10mins to sink in they still keep the belt...........b-hop was robbed

I also had Hopkins winning every round after the 3rd. I also had Hopkins winning the 1st very clearly until he was dropped by the hit behind the head. If that hadn't occurred Hopkins would have won 10 out of 12 rounds. Overall B-Hop won 9 out of 12 clearly.

So no way was this fight close, only close because of the scoring system of boxing. When 1 guy gets outboxed for 9 out of 12 rounds, no way is that close. From punch output to punch landed to ring generalship and to sheer dominance and will, it was 1 sided in favor of Hopkins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

I also had Hopkins winning every round after the 3rd. I also had Hopkins winning the 1st very clearly until he was dropped by the hit behind the head. If that hadn't occurred Hopkins would have won 10 out of 12 rounds. Overall B-Hop won 9 out of 12 clearly.

So no way was this fight close, only close because of the scoring system of boxing. When 1 guy gets outboxed for 9 out of 12 rounds, no way is that close. From punch output to punch landed to ring generalship and to sheer dominance and will, it was 1 sided in favor of Hopkins.

---

Totally agree that's the reason i had JMM winning vs Manny Pacquiao in there 1st fight. Because despite the bad start he still won 8 rounds clearly vs Manny Pacquiao, and i don't see how you cannot win a fight winning almost 3 quarters of the 12 rounds, and in B-Hop's case he actually did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

I also had Hopkins winning every round after the 3rd. I also had Hopkins winning the 1st very clearly until he was dropped by the hit behind the head. If that hadn't occurred Hopkins would have won 10 out of 12 rounds. Overall B-Hop won 9 out of 12 clearly.

So no way was this fight close, only close because of the scoring system of boxing. When 1 guy gets outboxed for 9 out of 12 rounds, no way is that close. From punch output to punch landed to ring generalship and to sheer dominance and will, it was 1 sided in favor of Hopkins.

---

Totally agree that's the reason i had JMM winning vs Manny Pacquiao in there 1st fight. Because despite the bad start he still won 8 rounds clearly vs Manny Pacquiao, and i don't see how you cannot win a fight winning almost 3 quarters of the 12 rounds, and in B-Hop's case he actually did.

---

I agree with what you say, but judges arn't able to have an 'in hindsight' retrospective look back over the whole fight. They score each round idependently and total up the scores.
Maybe the scoring system isn't perfect but it's probably the best method we have. In theory knocking an opponent to the floor twice should count more than winning a round by points although again it's hard to score in practice, some knockouts are flash knockdowns, sometimes a fight can get battered without going down.

There are a lot of vagaries in boxing scoring, just like there are in any judging, or voting systems.

Hopefully they will order a rematch, and it will take place in America this time. Not sure pascal will want it much though. He looked a mentally beaten man by the end.

Massively impressive performance by Hopkins to come back the way he did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

I also had Hopkins winning every round after the 3rd. I also had Hopkins winning the 1st very clearly until he was dropped by the hit behind the head. If that hadn't occurred Hopkins would have won 10 out of 12 rounds. Overall B-Hop won 9 out of 12 clearly.

So no way was this fight close, only close because of the scoring system of boxing. When 1 guy gets outboxed for 9 out of 12 rounds, no way is that close. From punch output to punch landed to ring generalship and to sheer dominance and will, it was 1 sided in favor of Hopkins.

---

Totally agree that's the reason i had JMM winning vs Manny Pacquiao in there 1st fight. Because despite the bad start he still won 8 rounds clearly vs Manny Pacquiao, and i don't see how you cannot win a fight winning almost 3 quarters of the 12 rounds, and in B-Hop's case he actually did.

---

I agree with what you say, but judges arn't able to have an 'in hindsight' retrospective look back over the whole fight. They score each round idependently and total up the scores.
Maybe the scoring system isn't perfect but it's probably the best method we have. In theory knocking an opponent to the floor twice should count more than winning a round by points although again it's hard to score in practice, some knockouts are flash knockdowns, sometimes a fight can get battered without going down.

There are a lot of vagaries in boxing scoring, just like there are in any judging, or voting systems.

Hopefully they will order a rematch, and it will take place in America this time. Not sure pascal will want it much though. He looked a mentally beaten man by the end.

Massively impressive performance by Hopkins to come back the way he did.

---

I think the worse thing is that the 1st knockdown, wasn't even a legit knockdown. Yet the ref ruled a very similar incident a slip in the 5th round, and B-Hop may of got credited with a knockdown in the 11th round if it was in the USA.

Daniel Van de "im a f***wad" Viele is a freakin moron, at least he's being called out on his blindness for once. Usually judges get to come up with whatever freakin score they like and its fine, judges should be able to justify their scorecards and I'd like to see him justify giving the 10th to pascal.

the time has come for judges to pay a price for bad scoring.....esp those who keep doing it, get rid of them and enforce to the rest that if you cause a major injustice that you'll be investicated for the crime, huge fines, lifetime ban's and threat of prison.....people risk there life when they fight, what right has a moron got to play chicken with anothers life just because he's a fan of the other boxer so scores it that way..............ok i'm going to far with the punishments but i'm sure you get my point....to many of these judges get away with it and to top it of you see them at another world titile fight a few weeks later

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

I just watched it and it was a very easy fight to score, in my mind B-Hop was robbed. Yes he was floored twice, the 1st knockdown being borederline rabbit shot. But he still won 9 rounds quite easily IMO.

1 Pascal 10-8
2 Pascal 10-9
3 Pascal 10-8
4 Hopkins 10-9
5 Hopkins 10-9
6 Hopkins 10-9
7 Hopkins 10-9
8 Hopkins 10-9
9 Hopkins 10-9
10 Hopkins 10-9
11 Hopkins 10-9
12 Hopkins 10-9

115-111 B-Hop

---

I haven't watched it again yet although may well agree with your scores. I've seen a few people say Pascal won the 5th, and maybe edged the 12th though which would level it up. No doubt Hopkins was the moral winner. Pascal must be feeling pretty bad today, being humiliated by a 45 year old man.

---

I haven't rewatched it either, but imagine I would have something like that too. I was supporting Pascal, but he just wouldn't do anything and allowed himself to be outworked by someone old enough to be his dad. It was a lame showing. I had never realised Pascal's stamina was quite so shit. Bit of a Judah thing going on.

Since Miles just responded. I sure wonder if the 2 judges that scored the fight a draw were Jews?:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by armin

Daniel Van de "im a f***wad" Viele is a freakin moron, at least he's being called out on his blindness for once. Usually judges get to come up with whatever freakin score they like and its fine, judges should be able to justify their scorecards and I'd like to see him justify giving the 10th to pascal.

---

He didn't give the 10th to Pascal he scored it 10-10. He also scored the first round 10-9 to Pascal so clearly credited Hopkins for winning the round barring the knockdown.

Hopkins is lucky Van De Wiele helped him get the draw.

Just rewatched the first round so far and it was a clear hit to the back of the head imo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

Since Miles just responded. I sure wonder if the 2 judges that scored the fight a draw were Jews?:p

---

Hahaha, how on earth would I know? They might have been, but I am not one for suggesting that Jews are behind all the bad decisions in boxing. So, yeah, they might not have been too Jews. I just think the two judges were simply incompetent or else were displaying elements of corruption. Just not doing a good enough job all in all. And all need a good banning for about several billion years. Or a two week trip to Israel. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by armin

Daniel Van de "im a f***wad" Viele is a freakin moron, at least he's being called out on his blindness for once. Usually judges get to come up with whatever freakin score they like and its fine, judges should be able to justify their scorecards and I'd like to see him justify giving the 10th to pascal.

---

He didn't give the 10th to Pascal he scored it 10-10. He also scored the first round 10-9 to Pascal so clearly credited Hopkins for winning the round barring the knockdown.

Hopkins is lucky Van De Wiele helped him get the draw.

---

hahahaha you crack me up fenster.........b-hop won....think of it like this...in a rugby match a team scored 2 early trys...total 14points...the other team gets 6 conversions each being 3 points...total 18points....who wins the game???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

It seems like the contested round is round 10.

Boxing - Schaefer demands rematch


Apparently the Belgium judge gave the 10th round even when it was clearly a Hopkins round. Golden Boy saying they will sue if Pascal tries to dodge a rematch.........

---

After watching it again it was a bit closer than I originally thought. I could possibly see a 10-10 round. Hopkins starting to clearly land the counter right but he also started taking some punches at the end of the round and didn't through a single meaningful punch in the last minute or so. Pascal landed a solid uppercut early and a good left hook-right hand to end the round.


[QUOTE=armin;929607]Daniel Van de "im a f***wad" Viele is a freakin moron, at least he's being called out on his blindness for once. Usually judges get to come up with whatever freakin score they like and its fine, judges should be able to justify their scorecards and I'd like to see him justify giving the 10th to pascal.

I agree 100 percent. I think us the fans should be entitled to look at the total scoresheet after the end of the fight. Not a week later when it is shown on a replay.



What an excellent fight that was for the 45 year old man. I have not been a big fan of B-Hop as of late but he should have gotten the victory last night. My biggest beef with the score's in the fight game are the knockdown's. B-Hop was finding his rythym in the third round then bam he get's knocked down. Immediate loss of a point and loss of the round. I think this is becoming a bit to common nowadays. If this was the same scoring system they used in the seventies Earnie Shavers would have about five or six more wins by getting so far ahead on the scorecards. My belief is the judges should start taking into consideration of who was winning the round and not exclude the fighter who was knocked down into lossing the round so easily. Knockdowns should not be an immediate point deduction especially with a flash or questionable knockdown like there was last night in the first round. B-Hop should have been awarded the victory but what can I say that's boxing.

And what a great job that referee did last night he called it the way he seen it in the first round and you can't argue with that. He let the fighter's fight on the inside didn't step in every time an arm was tied up.I would like to see this guy ref a bit more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NUCLEAR BULL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by armin

Daniel Van de "im a f***wad" Viele is a freakin moron, at least he's being called out on his blindness for once. Usually judges get to come up with whatever freakin score they like and its fine, judges should be able to justify their scorecards and I'd like to see him justify giving the 10th to pascal.

---

He didn't give the 10th to Pascal he scored it 10-10. He also scored the first round 10-9 to Pascal so clearly credited Hopkins for winning the round barring the knockdown.

Hopkins is lucky Van De Wiele helped him get the draw.

---

hahahaha you crack me up fenster.........b-hop won....think of it like this...in a rugby match a team scored 2 early trys...total 14points...the other team gets 6 conversions each being 3 points...total 18points....who wins the game???

---

I never said Hopkins didn't win. I'm merely pointing out that the "blind, corrupt, incompetent" judge actually SAVED Hopkins by scoring the 1st round 10-9. I've not seen one single fan score the 1st round anything other than 10-8 for Pascal.

You can't have it both ways. The ref is a cunt.. oh apart from the bit where he clearly favoured Hopkins ;)

This isnt a robbery. Pascal winning would have been a robbery but he didnt. I had it 7-5 in rounds to Bhop so 113-113. Both knockdowns were legitimate imo but even if you dispute that, they were called knockdowns so you have to count them in your scoring.

I scored rounds 5 and 12 for Pascal because I thought he landed the harder more damaging punches in those rounds. Both those rounds were very close and could go either way, I happened to lean to Pascal. I think 113-113, 114-112 BHop and 115-111 Bhop are all fair scores.