Fights you scored in the minority

[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.

[Violent Demise]

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

[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?

[CFH]

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.

[Hulk]

Hopkins vs. Dawson II

Mayorga vs. Spinks

Rocky Balboa vs. Mason Dixon

[Vendettos]

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.

[oakleyno1]

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

[bzkfn]

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.

[bzkfn]

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.

[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

[bzkfn]

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.

[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

[Violent Demise]

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

[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.

[erics44]

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