Article about Jim Watt's scoring of Pascal-Bute

[Freedom]

At the same time, the HBO crew were VERY biased in favor of Pascal.

Lederman's scorecard was way too wide, the fight was much closer. Kellerman was going on about how Bute wasn't throwing, while ignoring the fact that Pascal wasn't throwing much either.

[Beanz]

The guy who wrote the article is clearly an imbecile himself though. He gave Bute 2 rounds. I thought that Pascal won and thought that he would but he certainly did not score a 10 rounds to 2 shut out. It was a fairly close fight. I don't see what your problem is really. If Watt had it 115-114 to Bute that is hardly the worst score card ever as some people are calling it. I don't think Bute won but the early rounds could have went either way so uncommitted and lack lustre was the performance from both men. Then in the last three rounds Pascal literally stood there and got punched for huge sections of each round even boasting after how he enjoyed the pain of being punched in the head because "..that's boxing baby". What a bell end. You all obviously hate Jim Watt because he doesn't sound like David Niven or Howard Cosell. The American commentators on every single boxing match I have watched in the last ten years are at least a million times worse and far more grating. So embarrassing, uneducated and crass are their performances that pets hurl themselves out of 15th floor windows and birds purposefully fly into the engines of Boeing 747's to avoid hearing any more.

[bzkfn]

The guy who wrote the article is clearly an imbecile himself though. He gave Bute 2 rounds. I thought that Pascal won and thought that he would but he certainly did not score a 10 rounds to 2 shut out. It was a fairly close fight. I don't see what your problem is really. If Watt had it 115-114 to Bute that is hardly the worst score card ever as some people are calling it. I don't think Bute won but the early rounds could have went either way so uncommitted and lack lustre was the performance from both men. Then in the last three rounds Pascal literally stood there and got punched for huge sections of each round even boasting after how he enjoyed the pain of being punched in the head because "..that's boxing baby". What a bell end. You all obviously hate Jim Watt because he doesn't sound like David Niven or Howard Cosell. The American commentators on every single boxing match I have watched in the last ten years are at least a million times worse and far more grating. So embarrassing, uneducated and crass are their performances that pets hurl themselves out of 15th floor windows and birds purposefully fly into the engines of Boeing 747's to avoid hearing any more.

C'mon @Greenbeanz, you have to watch that again if you thought that was close. I had it 8 rounds to 4 in favour of Pascal. I was being kind of generous to Bute as well.

As for why I don't like Jim Watt, I'm sick of listening to him prattle on when he doesn't seem to see what is actually going on in the ring. He gives an opinion and Sky pundits treat it like it's gospel when he couldn't be more wrong. I've also seen him give a bad scorecard at halfway and upon finding out Harold Lederman has a separate scorecard he evens his up. Watt is awful. Glenn McCrory, Barry McGuigan & Richie Woodhall all do a better job in the co-commentator slot.

[Fenster]

Does anyone think if they had to call a fight and score it at the same time without any influence they wouldn't make themselves look like a cunt?

Every single week on this forum there are people that see fights different. Everyone thinks their scorecard is perfect. If you are forced to submit scores by the round you are gonna get some strange results. That's the reason for so much "poor" judging.

[powerpuncher]

Does anyone think if they had to call a fight and score it at the same time without any influence they wouldn't make themselves look like a cunt?

Every single week on this forum there are people that see fights different. Everyone thinks their scorecard is perfect.

most fights have a range where scores are acceptable. for example, there is no way to score the fight a win for bute in a shutout. there were obvious rounds that he lost that it would be impossible to score for him. i would also say the same for the other side. bute clearly won the 12th round and there is no way that a judge should give it to pascal. this is because there is common sense in judging fights. certain rounds are just obvious to anybody who knows anything about boxing.

certain rounds are close or at least semi close and i can see how you could score it for either fighter. the problem comes when you intentionally score every semi close round for the same fighter because of bias or influence even when the other fighter probably did better.

so for this fight, there is a range of scores which are acceptable and scoring 6 or more rounds for bute is unacceptable.

[Fenster]

Does anyone think if they had to call a fight and score it at the same time without any influence they wouldn't make themselves look like a cunt?

Every single week on this forum there are people that see fights different. Everyone thinks their scorecard is perfect.

most fights have a range where scores are acceptable. for example, there is no way to score the fight a win for bute in a shutout. there were obvious rounds that he lost that it would be impossible to score for him. i would also say the same for the other side. bute clearly won the 12th round and there is no way that a judge should give it to pascal. this is because there is common sense in judging fights. certain rounds are just obvious to anybody who knows anything about boxing.

certain rounds are close or at least semi close and i can see how you could score it for either fighter. the problem comes when you intentionally score every semi close round for the same fighter because of bias or influence even when the other fighter probably did better.

so for this fight, there is a range of scores which are acceptable and scoring 6 or more rounds for bute is unacceptable.

That is the problem though. If you acknowledge that a particular round is "close" you have to accept the possibility it can be scored either way. Therefore there's nothing wrong with scoring all the close rounds for one fighter. When you have to submit a score on a round by round basis there's the possibilty the "dominant" fighter comes out losing.

There are literally dozens and dozens of fights every year where you can make a case for either fighter depending on who was "favoured" by close rounds.

If the majority of people scored Pascal the winner then Pascal is the winner (IMO). But it's understandable without corruption or incompetence that people can find a different winner with a bunch of uncompetitive rounds with not a lot happening.

[powerpuncher]

Does anyone think if they had to call a fight and score it at the same time without any influence they wouldn't make themselves look like a cunt?

Every single week on this forum there are people that see fights different. Everyone thinks their scorecard is perfect.

most fights have a range where scores are acceptable. for example, there is no way to score the fight a win for bute in a shutout. there were obvious rounds that he lost that it would be impossible to score for him. i would also say the same for the other side. bute clearly won the 12th round and there is no way that a judge should give it to pascal. this is because there is common sense in judging fights. certain rounds are just obvious to anybody who knows anything about boxing.

certain rounds are close or at least semi close and i can see how you could score it for either fighter. the problem comes when you intentionally score every semi close round for the same fighter because of bias or influence even when the other fighter probably did better.

so for this fight, there is a range of scores which are acceptable and scoring 6 or more rounds for bute is unacceptable.

That is the problem though. If you acknowledge that a particular round is "close" you have to accept the possibility it can be scored either way. Therefore there's nothing wrong with scoring all the close rounds for one fighter. When you have to submit a score on a round by round basis there's the possibilty the "dominant" fighter comes out losing.

There are literally dozens and dozens of fights every year where you can make a case for either fighter depending on who was "favoured" by close rounds.

If the majority of people scored Pascal the winner then Pascal is the winner (IMO). But it's understandable without corruption or incompetence that people can find a different winner with a bunch of uncompetitive rounds with not a lot happening.

while i agree with your point altogether, i dont agree with it relating to the pascal-bute fight. i have scored fights in the past a draw or even for the fighter that i thought should have lost. this is pretty uncommon but it has happened. as i already stated though, some rounds cannot be disputed. so in the case of this fight, there werent more than 5 close rounds that could be given to bute (and that is being generous). the question is, at what point is a round a sure win for a fighter? obviously its up for the judges to decide, but if they cant do it competently then they shouldnt be judging.

for example, lets take the martinez-chavez jr fight. it was clear that martinez was winning every round other than the last round. the only explanation that somebody could give in order to give chavez any of those rounds is that he came forward and was the aggressor. but if you watched the fight, that didnt matter because it was extremely ineffective and he obviously wasnt landing and was getting hit. so, if your reasoning for giving a round to a certain fighter is so basic and ridiculous, then you shouldnt be judging a fight. again, just like in the bute-pascal fight. pascal may have threw only in spurts, but he threw a few a round and landed while bute threw a punch once every 30 seconds which were usually ineffective.

my point is that you could always point to something to say that a certain fighter won the round but thats not how a round should be judged. it should be judged on who actually did better, not on anything else.

[Beanz]

The guy who wrote the article is clearly an imbecile himself though. He gave Bute 2 rounds. I thought that Pascal won and thought that he would but he certainly did not score a 10 rounds to 2 shut out. It was a fairly close fight. I don't see what your problem is really. If Watt had it 115-114 to Bute that is hardly the worst score card ever as some people are calling it. I don't think Bute won but the early rounds could have went either way so uncommitted and lack lustre was the performance from both men. Then in the last three rounds Pascal literally stood there and got punched for huge sections of each round even boasting after how he enjoyed the pain of being punched in the head because "..that's boxing baby". What a bell end. You all obviously hate Jim Watt because he doesn't sound like David Niven or Howard Cosell. The American commentators on every single boxing match I have watched in the last ten years are at least a million times worse and far more grating. So embarrassing, uneducated and crass are their performances that pets hurl themselves out of 15th floor windows and birds purposefully fly into the engines of Boeing 747's to avoid hearing any more.

C'mon @Greenbeanz , you have to watch that again if you thought that was close. I had it 8 rounds to 4 in favour of Pascal. I was being kind of generous to Bute as well.

As for why I don't like Jim Watt, I'm sick of listening to him prattle on when he doesn't seem to see what is actually going on in the ring. He gives an opinion and Sky pundits treat it like it's gospel when he couldn't be more wrong. I've also seen him give a bad scorecard at halfway and upon finding out Harold Lederman has a separate scorecard he evens his up. Watt is awful. Glenn McCrory, Barry McGuigan & Richie Woodhall all do a better job in the co-commentator slot.

Pascal was rubbish. It was a truly terrible performance by both boxers but there is no way Pascal dominated anything by fighting for ten seconds in a round. If you seriously think I would put myself through watching that again you are sadly mistaken. Bute may have been worse but I truly believe there was no huge chasm dividing the two.

[bzkfn]

Pascal was rubbish. It was a truly terrible performance by both boxers but there is no way Pascal dominated anything by fighting for ten seconds in a round. If you seriously think I would put myself through watching that again you are sadly mistaken. Bute may have been worse but I truly believe there was no huge chasm dividing the two.

There were numerous 10 second bursts in the round and Bute was doing nothing but fainting and throwing single shots. Pascal wobbled him a few times as well. I thought it was pretty clear cut.

And if you're not gunna agree with me anymore then you can no longer be my alt.

[Gandalf]

At the same time, the HBO crew were VERY biased in favor of Pascal.

Lederman's scorecard was way too wide, the fight was much closer. Kellerman was going on about how Bute wasn't throwing, while ignoring the fact that Pascal wasn't throwing much either.

HBO was off form all evening and again. Housefighter gets a draw he doesn't deserve and Lederman's card all wacko, then the main event and everything going to Pascal and Roy Jones getting a Mickey role for the HBO cameras. Clearly we know who they want to win. Not close early on, but Lederman was trying his hardest not to give Bute his rounds. I had the fight about 7-5 Pascal in the end. Quite close considering how Pascal gassed. Again.

Then calls for a rematch. Please, dear god no. Let Bute find some confidence first.