Fights you scored in the minority

Not sure if this has been done before but here goes. Is there any fight where you disagreed with how the majority of fight fans seen the fight.

As an example it could be say the Hagler-Hearns fight were I've seen it described as 1 great round then a round and a half of normal stuff, whereas others claim it was one of the greatest fights of all time. Or could be a fight you scored differently to the majority of fans/media.

I've been slated for this by numerous people on other sites & Here's my pick:

Timothy Bradley beat Manny Pacquiao fair & square. Yes I've watched it back 3 more times & had Bradley winning every time. I cannot see Manny winning that one at all, just because you throw punches that mainly miss don't make it right to give it for "effort". It boggles my mind the uproar it caused coz I don't see what other's have seen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scribbs

Not sure if this has been done before but here goes. Is there any fight where you disagreed with how the majority of fight fans seen the fight.

As an example it could be say the Hagler-Hearns fight were I've seen it described as 1 great round then a round and a half of normal stuff, whereas others claim it was one of the greatest fights of all time. Or could be a fight you scored differently to the majority of fans/media.

I've been slated for this by numerous people on other sites & Here's my pick:

Timothy Bradley beat Manny Pacquiao fair & square. Yes I've watched it back 3 more times & had Bradley winning every time. I cannot see Manny winning that one at all, just because you throw punches that mainly miss don't make it right to give it for "effort". It boggles my mind the uproar it caused coz I don't see what other's have seen.

---

II people were to really pay attention to Pacquiao-Bradley they would see that a case can be made for Bradley winning. Lot of his body work was ignored

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scribbs

Not sure if this has been done before but here goes. Is there any fight where you disagreed with how the majority of fight fans seen the fight.

As an example it could be say the Hagler-Hearns fight were I've seen it described as 1 great round then a round and a half of normal stuff, whereas others claim it was one of the greatest fights of all time. Or could be a fight you scored differently to the majority of fans/media.

I've been slated for this by numerous people on other sites & Here's my pick:

Timothy Bradley beat Manny Pacquiao fair & square. Yes I've watched it back 3 more times & had Bradley winning every time. I cannot see Manny winning that one at all, just because you throw punches that mainly miss don't make it right to give it for "effort". It boggles my mind the uproar it caused coz I don't see what other's have seen.

---

II people were to really pay attention to Pacquiao-Bradley they would see that a case can be made for Bradley winning. Lot of his body work was ignored

---

Any fight you disagree with the common consensus?

Recently? I still think Froch beat Kessler. I also think you could make a case for giving the nod to Pascal over Hopkins in their 2nd fight.

Hopkins vs. Dawson II

Mayorga vs. Spinks

Rocky Balboa vs. Mason Dixon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scribbs

Not sure if this has been done before but here goes. Is there any fight where you disagreed with how the majority of fight fans seen the fight.

As an example it could be say the Hagler-Hearns fight were I've seen it described as 1 great round then a round and a half of normal stuff, whereas others claim it was one of the greatest fights of all time. Or could be a fight you scored differently to the majority of fans/media.

I've been slated for this by numerous people on other sites & Here's my pick:

Timothy Bradley beat Manny Pacquiao fair & square. Yes I've watched it back 3 more times & had Bradley winning every time. I cannot see Manny winning that one at all, just because you throw punches that mainly miss don't make it right to give it for "effort". It boggles my mind the uproar it caused coz I don't see what other's have seen.

---

I gave Kessler the decision over Calzaghe when I watched it, although I'm happy Calzaghe got it because he's my favorite boxer, but it was close.

Cotto I thought drew with Mayweather - I'm not one for scoring punches when they dont land but if you still land 10 more punches than the opponent and he simply avoids and potshots i don't see how that's floyd winning the rounds by being a defensive genuis

I thought the 3rd Pacquiao-Marquez fight was a draw, but I thought Marquez won the 2nd fight clearly.

I believe Froch beat Dirrell.

I had Spinks beating Taylor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scribbs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scribbs

Not sure if this has been done before but here goes. Is there any fight where you disagreed with how the majority of fight fans seen the fight.

As an example it could be say the Hagler-Hearns fight were I've seen it described as 1 great round then a round and a half of normal stuff, whereas others claim it was one of the greatest fights of all time. Or could be a fight you scored differently to the majority of fans/media.

I've been slated for this by numerous people on other sites & Here's my pick:

Timothy Bradley beat Manny Pacquiao fair & square. Yes I've watched it back 3 more times & had Bradley winning every time. I cannot see Manny winning that one at all, just because you throw punches that mainly miss don't make it right to give it for "effort". It boggles my mind the uproar it caused coz I don't see what other's have seen.

---

II people were to really pay attention to Pacquiao-Bradley they would see that a case can be made for Bradley winning. Lot of his body work was ignored

---

Any fight you disagree with the common consensus?

---

VD had Collazo beating Hatton. He has since spent time in rehab.

froch beat kessler by a couple of rounds
pac deserved his win over marquez in the 3rd fight
john simpson beat stephen smith both times
danny williams deserved his win over john macdermot
tyson fury deserved his over macdermot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

froch beat kessler by a couple of rounds
pac deserved his win over marquez in the 3rd fight
john simpson beat stephen smith both times
danny williams deserved his win over john macdermot
tyson fury deserved his over macdermot

---

I had Danny winning both times but IMO, no way did Fury beat Big John.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bzkfn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

froch beat kessler by a couple of rounds
pac deserved his win over marquez in the 3rd fight
john simpson beat stephen smith both times
danny williams deserved his win over john macdermot
tyson fury deserved his over macdermot

---

I had Danny winning both times but IMO, no way did Fury beat Big John.

---

you know i thought the Danny Williams macdermot first fight was similar to the fury macdermot fight in the way that macdermot definately had more big moments but there were far too many rounds where he did nothing at all, something like 6, 7 and 8 he hardly threw a punch, maybe even as little as one or 2 a round

i think it was a case of macdermott landing the big punches and having the big moments and even tho fury didnt land anything of any note really he did out land him

having said that i only watched it the once, if i watched it again i might change my opinion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bzkfn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scribbs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scribbs

Not sure if this has been done before but here goes. Is there any fight where you disagreed with how the majority of fight fans seen the fight.

As an example it could be say the Hagler-Hearns fight were I've seen it described as 1 great round then a round and a half of normal stuff, whereas others claim it was one of the greatest fights of all time. Or could be a fight you scored differently to the majority of fans/media.

I've been slated for this by numerous people on other sites & Here's my pick:

Timothy Bradley beat Manny Pacquiao fair & square. Yes I've watched it back 3 more times & had Bradley winning every time. I cannot see Manny winning that one at all, just because you throw punches that mainly miss don't make it right to give it for "effort". It boggles my mind the uproar it caused coz I don't see what other's have seen.

---

II people were to really pay attention to Pacquiao-Bradley they would see that a case can be made for Bradley winning. Lot of his body work was ignored

---

Any fight you disagree with the common consensus?

---

VD had Collazo beating Hatton. He has since spent time in rehab.

---

I sure did. But that one wasn't even that difficult. Anybody with a brain knew Collazo deserved the win

James Toney vs Sam Peter 1 is one I can think of offhand, I thought Toney outclassed him and got jobbed.

Oscar/Floyd is another... the majority seems to think it was a close fight, or that Oscar could have won if he threw more jabs or something. I think Floyd absolutely took him to school.

One of the main things I find with scoring is that the majority of people

a) score aggressiveness, not EFFECTIVE aggressiveness. How many times have you heard "Fighter A made the fight by coming forward", which is absolute nonsense.

b) have a notion that you have to really dominate the champ to become champ, which is equally stupid.

c) score based on punch totals, and not clean, effective punching (this isn't the amateurs).

^in those ways I differ in my scoring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

James Toney vs Sam Peter 1 is one I can think of offhand, I thought Toney outclassed him and got jobbed.

Oscar/Floyd is another... the majority seems to think it was a close fight, or that Oscar could have won if he threw more jabs or something. I think Floyd absolutely took him to school.

One of the main things I find with scoring is that the majority of people

a) score aggressiveness, not EFFECTIVE aggressiveness. How many times have you heard "Fighter A made the fight by coming forward", which is absolute nonsense.

b) have a notion that you have to really dominate the champ to become champ, which is equally stupid.

c) score based on punch totals, and not clean, effective punching (this isn't the amateurs).

^in those ways I differ in my scoring.

---

i dont think its absolute nonsense, after all its entertainment, i watch boxing for exciting fights

i think the scoring of fights should be modelled around a more entertaining fighter

theres a fight, both landing a similar amount of punches, one is on the run one is chasing him down, the guy who is pushing the fight should get the benefits

obviously this is subjective coz the guy chasing could be doing a windmill or something which is a bit too daft to win the round

froch dirrel both landed a similar amount of punches froch should have won all 12 rounds because dirrell was negative to the extreme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

i dont think its absolute nonsense, after all its entertainment, i watch boxing for exciting fights

i think the scoring of fights should be modelled around a more entertaining fighter

---

I think it's retarded. Any sport is for entertainment, but when you boil it down it's supposed to still be "sport". What sport can you think of where you win by exciting the crowd and being flashy without effectiveness?

To me, that kind of scoring bastardizes the "sweet science", which is supposed to be the art of hitting without getting hit. Coming forward and not landing anything is a waste of energy.

To my knowledge, football fans don't complain because there weren't enough exciting "hail mary" style passes thrown, or enough flashy slam dunks or buzzer-beating half court shots in basketball, or grand slam home runs in extra innings in baseball. The fans of those sports watch for entertainment, sure, but their entertainment comes from enjoying the athletic competition of the sport. All the other stuff is just icing on the cake. Why can't boxing fans be like that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bzkfn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scribbs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scribbs

Not sure if this has been done before but here goes. Is there any fight where you disagreed with how the majority of fight fans seen the fight.

As an example it could be say the Hagler-Hearns fight were I've seen it described as 1 great round then a round and a half of normal stuff, whereas others claim it was one of the greatest fights of all time. Or could be a fight you scored differently to the majority of fans/media.

I've been slated for this by numerous people on other sites & Here's my pick:

Timothy Bradley beat Manny Pacquiao fair & square. Yes I've watched it back 3 more times & had Bradley winning every time. I cannot see Manny winning that one at all, just because you throw punches that mainly miss don't make it right to give it for "effort". It boggles my mind the uproar it caused coz I don't see what other's have seen.

---

II people were to really pay attention to Pacquiao-Bradley they would see that a case can be made for Bradley winning. Lot of his body work was ignored

---

Any fight you disagree with the common consensus?

---

VD had Collazo beating Hatton. He has since spent time in rehab.

---

Collazo did beat Hatton. It was a close fight though.

I scored the first Leonard/Duran fight for Leonard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

To my knowledge, football fans don't complain because there weren't enough exciting "hail mary" style passes thrown, or enough flashy slam dunks or buzzer-beating half court shots in basketball, or grand slam home runs in extra innings in baseball. The fans of those sports watch for entertainment, sure, but their entertainment comes from enjoying the athletic competition of the sport. All the other stuff is just icing on the cake. Why can't boxing fans be like that?

---

yeah but football is constantly changing its rules to make it more exciting

as is rugby and cricket

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bzkfn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scribbs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scribbs

Not sure if this has been done before but here goes. Is there any fight where you disagreed with how the majority of fight fans seen the fight.

As an example it could be say the Hagler-Hearns fight were I've seen it described as 1 great round then a round and a half of normal stuff, whereas others claim it was one of the greatest fights of all time. Or could be a fight you scored differently to the majority of fans/media.

I've been slated for this by numerous people on other sites & Here's my pick:

Timothy Bradley beat Manny Pacquiao fair & square. Yes I've watched it back 3 more times & had Bradley winning every time. I cannot see Manny winning that one at all, just because you throw punches that mainly miss don't make it right to give it for "effort". It boggles my mind the uproar it caused coz I don't see what other's have seen.

---

II people were to really pay attention to Pacquiao-Bradley they would see that a case can be made for Bradley winning. Lot of his body work was ignored

---

Any fight you disagree with the common consensus?

---

VD had Collazo beating Hatton. He has since spent time in rehab.

---

Collazo did beat Hatton. It was a close fight though.

---

i also thought that Hatton was very fortunate to come away with the win against Collazo

Surprised nobody has given me shit about Pacman - Bradley.

Collazo beat Hatton imo.

I hate the aggression wins tag, much like the home town fighter or champ should win in a close fight. And the most annoying is the boxing fans who think it's a crime to score an even round, accusing you of sitting on the fence.

I also had Holyfield up against Lewis in the 2nd fight

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scribbs

Surprised nobody has given me shit about Pacman - Bradley.

---

When I originally watched the fight, I had it I think 8 to 4 for Pacman. But since then, and seeing videos showing that a lot of Pac's stuff wasn't landing, if I went back I'd probably have it a lot closer nad maybe even have Bradley winning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

yeah but football is constantly changing its rules to make it more exciting

as is rugby and cricket

---

Could be haha, my knowledge of those sports is not great haha

McCallum beat Toney twice in their first two fights.
Donaire beat Rigo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scribbs

Surprised nobody has given me shit about Pacman - Bradley.

Collazo beat Hatton imo.

I hate the aggression wins tag, much like the home town fighter or champ should win in a close fight. And the most annoying is the boxing fans who think it's a crime to score an even round, accusing you of sitting on the fence.

I also had Holyfield up against Lewis in the 2nd fight

---

ive only seen the fight once and i was worried at the end

if i could be bothered id watch it again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scribbs

Surprised nobody has given me shit about Pacman - Bradley.

---

When I originally watched the fight, I had it I think 8 to 4 for Pacman. But since then, and seeing videos showing that a lot of Pac's stuff wasn't landing, if I went back I'd probably have it a lot closer nad maybe even have Bradley winning.

---

ive not seen it

i might watch it one day

Hero Graham beat sambu kala bay in their second fight
Gatti beat ward in their first fight

I thought Bradley beat Pacman, i still do, i've watched the fight 3 times and i still cannot make a case for Pacquiao. Pacman simply didn't do enough, he has lost his ring rhythm, his ability to cut off the ring and where were the unusual 'manny' angles and constant pressure in this fight? I was not really surprised Marquez flattened him. Manny is done!

I thought Holyfield won the 2nd Lewis fight, it was a tremendous fight for Holyfield considering the controversy of the the draw and he clearly lost that one. I thought Lewis lumbered around for most of the 2nd fight with no counter to Holyfield's effective jab and he was on target with his left hook..I gave Lewis rounds 2 9, 10 and 11 only. 116-112 Holyfield.

I am in the minority on both counts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE THIRD MAN

I thought Bradley beat Pacman, i still do, i've watched the fight 3 times and i still cannot make a case for Pacquiao. Pacman simply didn't do enough, he has lost his ring rhythm, his ability to cut off the ring and where were the unusual 'manny' angles and constant pressure in this fight? I was not really surprised Marquez flattened him. Manny is done!

I thought Holyfield won the 2nd Lewis fight, it was a tremendous fight for Holyfield considering the controversy of the the draw and he clearly lost that one. I thought Lewis lumbered around for most of the 2nd fight with no counter to Holyfield's effective jab and he was on target with his left hook..I gave Lewis rounds 2 9, 10 and 11 only. 116-112 Holyfield.

I am in the minority on both counts.

---

I had Holyfield winning the 2nd fight as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Hero Graham beat sambu kala bay in their second fight
Gatti beat ward in their first fight

---

Agree. Gatti should of got the win

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

McCallum beat Toney twice in their first two fights.
Donaire beat Rigo

---

No. Just no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Hero Graham beat sambu kala bay in their second fight
Gatti beat ward in their first fight

---

This I will agree with my friend. However, it was close and its just as well it went to Ward as it ensured that we got a great trilogy to witness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scribbs

I also had Holyfield up against Lewis in the 2nd fight

---

ive only seen the fight once and i was worried at the end

if i could be bothered id watch it again

---

I loved Holy, I watched it with my mate the second time around (day after). He knew he was my fave & constantly giving me shit (he knew who had won before watching tape) but agreed with me at the end that Evander had squeeked it. Personally I think it was because Lewis was robbed in the first fight but there's enough who had Lewis ahead & it was close.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scribbs

Surprised nobody has given me shit about Pacman - Bradley.

---

When I originally watched the fight, I had it I think 8 to 4 for Pacman. But since then, and seeing videos showing that a lot of Pac's stuff wasn't landing, if I went back I'd probably have it a lot closer nad maybe even have Bradley winning.

---

ive not seen it

i might watch it one day

---

Just ignore the Pacman cheerleaders from HBO if you do, they were embarrassing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE THIRD MAN

I thought Bradley beat Pacman, i still do, i've watched the fight 3 times and i still cannot make a case for Pacquiao. Pacman simply didn't do enough, he has lost his ring rhythm, his ability to cut off the ring and where were the unusual 'manny' angles and constant pressure in this fight? I was not really surprised Marquez flattened him. Manny is done!

I thought Holyfield won the 2nd Lewis fight, it was a tremendous fight for Holyfield considering the controversy of the the draw and he clearly lost that one. I thought Lewis lumbered around for most of the 2nd fight with no counter to Holyfield's effective jab and he was on target with his left hook..I gave Lewis rounds 2 9, 10 and 11 only. 116-112 Holyfield.

I am in the minority on both counts.

---

We are in the same camp with these. I had Holy 115-113, haven't watched it for a while & cannot remember the rounds won by either fighter. Will have to view it again soon.

Pacman threw lots of one two's but missed lots for me, coming on in the last 3rd of a round to try & steal it. I still cannot get my head around the bollocks that it was the biggest robbery in years if not ever, for some people :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Donaire beat Rigo

---

No. Just no.

---

;D That's the beauty of this thread, going against the consensus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scribbs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scribbs

Surprised nobody has given me shit about Pacman - Bradley.

---

When I originally watched the fight, I had it I think 8 to 4 for Pacman. But since then, and seeing videos showing that a lot of Pac's stuff wasn't landing, if I went back I'd probably have it a lot closer nad maybe even have Bradley winning.

---

ive not seen it

i might watch it one day

---

Just ignore the Pacman cheerleaders from HBO if you do, they were embarrassing

---

yeah mate, watching boxing (or sport in general) is better with commentators but they can be very bias and it can sway the viewers opinion

For sure. Also when the crowd cheers every missed Pacquiao shot like it's a home run hit, and remain silent when Bradley lands effective shots, it's easy to get carried away.

Anyone else think that Audley clearly beat David Price?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bzkfn

Anyone else think that Audley clearly beat David Price?

---

i was suprised at the amount of people who were saying it was one sided

Eubanks beat Watson in their first fight.
I had Chavez beating Taylor and did not need the knock out.
I also had Trinidad beat ODH.