Article about Jim Watt's scoring of Pascal-Bute

[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.

[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.

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.

I don't think Martinez-Chavez jr is a good comparison for this fight.

Martinez wasn't just the far superior fighter against Chavez he threw over 900 punches. Chavez jr threw around 400. So that's 500 more punches than his opponent. That's a hell of a lot of extra stuff to catch a judges eye.

Pascal-Bute both threw just over 400 punches. They had completely different styles of throwing but an almost identical output.

So... what if you didn't think Pascal's spurts were very impressive or accurate? All of a sudden you have a man missing with his "spurts" against a man landing consistent, albeit ineffective, shots.

Remember... I'm not arguing against Pascal winning just saying I can understand why people saw a close fight.

[powerpuncher]

arguing for a close fight on the scorecards is fine but arguing for bute winning is not IMO. again, you may say that pascals flurries werent that effective but a competent judge couldnt say that bute was being more effective in a majority of the rounds.

[beenKOed]

You can twist it, spin it, look at it from top to bottom, come at it from a hundred different angles and it still comes down to this, Bute did not do enough to win the fight.
A rematch is a joke, can anyone get inside of Bute's mind and say with certainty he will fight differently next time?
The one thing I know with certainty, I don't want to watch Pascal and Bute attempt to put on another big show for Canada.
The fight was such a flop, with Bute doing so poorly, I have almost started feeling sorry for Beanflicker.