Nathan Cleverly-Badou Jack - Excellent fight! (Floyd undercard).

[Fenster]

Good call getting the excuses in early. It ignores history, that Jack is more likely to get a win taken from him than gifted to him. If history matters.

Excuses?

The very fact Jack is the home fighter on his promotion is a benefit. Fact. I would have made the exact same point had Cleverly been at home.

Ignoring history?

I made a case for the probability of a fight producing closer scorecards than most will think. Reason? The favourite (Jack 4/11) has a "history" of disputed decisions and debatable scorecards. Whether or not you believe he was "robbed" or not is utterly irrelevant, my point is about official scorecards not opinion. Nothing has been ignored.

[Ron Swanson]

Good call getting the excuses in early. It ignores history, that Jack is more likely to get a win taken from him than gifted to him. If history matters.

Excuses?

The very fact Jack is the home fighter on his promotion is a benefit. Fact. I would have made the exact same point had Cleverly been at home.

Ignoring history?

I made a case for the probability of a fight producing closer scorecards than most will think. Reason? The favourite (Jack 4/11) has a "history" of disputed decisions and debatable scorecards. Whether or not you believe he was "robbed" or not is utterly irrelevant, my point is about official scorecards not opinion. Nothing has been ignored.

And I didn't debate that he has a history of close fights. His history is that he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt from the judges. But go ahead and plant that seed of if Cleverly can get a fair shake. How many wins has Cleverly had taken from him?

[Fenster]

Good call getting the excuses in early. It ignores history, that Jack is more likely to get a win taken from him than gifted to him. If history matters.

Excuses?

The very fact Jack is the home fighter on his promotion is a benefit. Fact. I would have made the exact same point had Cleverly been at home.

Ignoring history?

I made a case for the probability of a fight producing closer scorecards than most will think. Reason? The favourite (Jack 4/11) has a "history" of disputed decisions and debatable scorecards. Whether or not you believe he was "robbed" or not is utterly irrelevant, my point is about official scorecards not opinion. Nothing has been ignored.

And I didn't debate that he has a history of close fights. His history is that he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt from the judges. But go ahead and plant that seed of if Cleverly can get a fair shake. How many wins has Cleverly had taken from him?

Jesus! You are seriously paranoid mate. I couldn't care less about Cleverly.

In a close fight with two contrasting styles the winner will virtually always be determined by the style we prefer, it's our natural bias, which is no different for "neutral" judges either.

Therefore, "fair shake" means the scoring goes Cleverly's way. I was making a case for his slack defense-high volume style. It will depend on the preference of the judges whether or not they favour that style over Jack's more slicker-economical-precise shooting. That's all I meant.

No conspiracy. No corruption. No excuses.