Boxing Media split on the Provodnikov-Algieri fight

[SRR]

It all comes down to how you wanna score it. If you're a fan of face-first aimless swinging then Provodnikov is your man. If you're a fan of boxing, Algieri's your man. We should also stop and put this in perspective. Algieri had fought no one before Provodnikov, Provodnikov just fought Bradley. Yet Algieri was able to outbox Provodnikov after getting caught cold in the first round and losing a large portion of his vision in his right eye, which made him more susceptible to Provodnikov's best punch in the fight - the left hook. This guy was meant to be a stepping stone. He had little experience and was badly hurt early yet he had the presence of mind to come back and completely outbox him. There were close rounds I s'pose in the sense that Provodnikov was clearly landing the more hurtful shots, but he was also being made to miss a lot and countered/pot-shotted consistently round by round. I had it 114-112. First time I've agreed with a judge in a while (let alone 2!). You can argue that Algieri was 'negative' as Jim Watt did, but given the circumstances he fought the best fight he could - can the same be said of Provodnikov? I mean is it really acceptable for a 'champion' to repeat the same mistakes for 12 rounds against an opponent who seemingly couldn't hurt him with his best shots? Does that make him deserving of the win, particularly when he didn't even outland Algieri? I thought it was an absolutely pathetic showing from Provodnikov, and what he said afterwards just confirmed what was obvious in his display as regards his severe limitations. Chasing a guy around the ring and missing more often than not, all the while taking more shots than you land is not controlling a fight to my mind, but clearly I have a different perspective to 54% of the press who would rather see a man stumbling forward into punches all night. On the other hand Algieri showed a lot of promise, a lot of heart and composure after that first round knockdown. Despite having only recently taken up boxing (as I understand from the commentary on the night) he showed more skill than Provodnikov - although that's really not saying much. Glad that for once we got a fair result from the majority of the judges - I mean 117-109? Was that score submitted before the fight started or what? Even Roach was suggesting that Provodnikov needed a KO to win, and I know that is often a precautionary measure from trainers but clearly he felt that it was close even if he thought his fighter was ahead cos' otherwise why bother?