Looking back at old controversial fights.... (Updated) Jones vs. Tarver I

[SweetPea]

I assumed it was coming next Barrera had a much easier fight next time round . He emerged unmarked but Erik looked like he had been in a war . No where near as good as the 1st fight . Rematches usually arent but then it picks up again in the decider

Ya you're right, the second fight is often the least eventful one in a trilogy. Not always, but a lot of the time it is.
The first fight was the biggest brawl of the 3 fights, but I actually think their third fight was the best of the 3. That one had great technical boxing and lots of toe-to-toe action. I also think the third fight is the only one that didn't have a controversial decision. Barrera got a close decision, and that was the right decision.

[GAME]

I assumed it was coming next Barrera had a much easier fight next time round . He emerged unmarked but Erik looked like he had been in a war . No where near as good as the 1st fight . Rematches usually arent but then it picks up again in the decider

Ya you're right, the second fight is often the least eventful one in a trilogy. Not always, but a lot of the time it is.
The first fight was the biggest brawl of the 3 fights, but I actually think their third fight was the best of the 3. That one had great technical boxing and lots of toe-to-toe action. I also think the third fight is the only one that didn't have a controversial decision. Barrera got a close decision, and that was the right decision.

Yeah in the 3rd Barrera settled all arguments . It was a good close fight. This how I view the trilogy

1st fight - Amazing . Best fight ive ever seen . Barrera was robbed but it couldnt cloud a great fight

2nd fight - Not as good , havent seen it for a while . From what I remember Barrera just plain outboxed him in a pretty uneventful battle and people werent happy .

3rd fight - Back to war . Both had good spells . Barreras extra class and skills clinched it for him .

I think Morales moved up in weight and Barrera followed him . He didnt need to . The extra pounds suited Erik more but Ironically it was Barrera who seemed more comfortable .

[Bookkeeper]

I assumed it was coming next Barrera had a much easier fight next time round . He emerged unmarked but Erik looked like he had been in a war . No where near as good as the 1st fight . Rematches usually arent but then it picks up again in the decider

Ya you're right, the second fight is often the least eventful one in a trilogy. Not always, but a lot of the time it is.
The first fight was the biggest brawl of the 3 fights, but I actually think their third fight was the best of the 3. That one had great technical boxing and lots of toe-to-toe action. I also think the third fight is the only one that didn't have a controversial decision. Barrera got a close decision, and that was the right decision.

Yeah in the 3rd Barrera settled all arguments . It was a good close fight. This how I view the trilogy

1st fight - Amazing . Best fight ive ever seen . Barrera was robbed but it couldnt cloud a great fight

2nd fight - Not as good , havent seen it for a while . From what I remember Barrera just plain outboxed him in a pretty uneventful battle and people werent happy .

3rd fight - Back to war . Both had good spells . Barreras extra class and skills clinched it for him .

I think Morales moved up in weight and Barrera followed him . He didnt need to . The extra pounds suited Erik more but Ironically it was Barrera who seemed more comfortable .

At least give Morales a victory GAME. 3 was decisive but I thought Morales took 1 and 2. But at least give him something.

[ICB]

I assumed it was coming next Barrera had a much easier fight next time round . He emerged unmarked but Erik looked like he had been in a war . No where near as good as the 1st fight . Rematches usually arent but then it picks up again in the decider

Ya you're right, the second fight is often the least eventful one in a trilogy. Not always, but a lot of the time it is.
The first fight was the biggest brawl of the 3 fights, but I actually think their third fight was the best of the 3. That one had great technical boxing and lots of toe-to-toe action. I also think the third fight is the only one that didn't have a controversial decision. Barrera got a close decision, and that was the right decision.

Yeah in the 3rd Barrera settled all arguments . It was a good close fight. This how I view the trilogy

1st fight - Amazing . Best fight ive ever seen . Barrera was robbed but it couldnt cloud a great fight

2nd fight - Not as good , havent seen it for a while . From what I remember Barrera just plain outboxed him in a pretty uneventful battle and people werent happy .

3rd fight - Back to war . Both had good spells . Barreras extra class and skills clinched it for him .

I think Morales moved up in weight and Barrera followed him . He didnt need to . The extra pounds suited Erik more but Ironically it was Barrera who seemed more comfortable .

At least give Morales a victory GAME. 3 was decisive but I thought Morales took 1 and 2. But at least give him something.

i agree game i normally like your post and we normally agree i know your big fan on mab but i think your bit biased mate

[GAME]

I assumed it was coming next Barrera had a much easier fight next time round . He emerged unmarked but Erik looked like he had been in a war . No where near as good as the 1st fight . Rematches usually arent but then it picks up again in the decider

Ya you're right, the second fight is often the least eventful one in a trilogy. Not always, but a lot of the time it is.
The first fight was the biggest brawl of the 3 fights, but I actually think their third fight was the best of the 3. That one had great technical boxing and lots of toe-to-toe action. I also think the third fight is the only one that didn't have a controversial decision. Barrera got a close decision, and that was the right decision.

Yeah in the 3rd Barrera settled all arguments . It was a good close fight. This how I view the trilogy

1st fight - Amazing . Best fight ive ever seen . Barrera was robbed but it couldnt cloud a great fight

2nd fight - Not as good , havent seen it for a while . From what I remember Barrera just plain outboxed him in a pretty uneventful battle and people werent happy .

3rd fight - Back to war . Both had good spells . Barreras extra class and skills clinched it for him .

I think Morales moved up in weight and Barrera followed him . He didnt need to . The extra pounds suited Erik more but Ironically it was Barrera who seemed more comfortable .

At least give Morales a victory GAME. 3 was decisive but I thought Morales took 1 and 2. But at least give him something.

Which 1's though ? He got the decision in the 1st fight but everyone in the arena thought he lost . Nuthin really happend in teh second fight and I cant recall Erik landing anything big . The 3rd fight was decisive for barrera so although Erik made the trilogy close he never actually did enough to win .

The asked these questions to the sky experts on the Juarez - Barrera bill when they asked them to seperate Barrera and Erik. It was close in almost every department but Barrera took it in every question criteria , be it about class , ability to change , strategy etc .

ICECOLD - This is how I see it . The judges agreed in the last two fights and in the 1st fight everyone in teh studio and Vegas disagreed with the decision

[ICB]

I assumed it was coming next Barrera had a much easier fight next time round . He emerged unmarked but Erik looked like he had been in a war . No where near as good as the 1st fight . Rematches usually arent but then it picks up again in the decider

Ya you're right, the second fight is often the least eventful one in a trilogy. Not always, but a lot of the time it is.
The first fight was the biggest brawl of the 3 fights, but I actually think their third fight was the best of the 3. That one had great technical boxing and lots of toe-to-toe action. I also think the third fight is the only one that didn't have a controversial decision. Barrera got a close decision, and that was the right decision.

Yeah in the 3rd Barrera settled all arguments . It was a good close fight. This how I view the trilogy

1st fight - Amazing . Best fight ive ever seen . Barrera was robbed but it couldnt cloud a great fight

2nd fight - Not as good , havent seen it for a while . From what I remember Barrera just plain outboxed him in a pretty uneventful battle and people werent happy .

3rd fight - Back to war . Both had good spells . Barreras extra class and skills clinched it for him .

I think Morales moved up in weight and Barrera followed him . He didnt need to . The extra pounds suited Erik more but Ironically it was Barrera who seemed more comfortable .

At least give Morales a victory GAME. 3 was decisive but I thought Morales took 1 and 2. But at least give him something.

Which 1's though ? He got the decision in the 1st fight but everyone in the arena thought he lost . Nuthin really happend in teh second fight and I cant recall Erik landing anything big . The 3rd fight was decisive for barrera so although Erik made the trilogy close he never actually did enough to win .

The asked these questions to the sky experts on the Juarez - Barrera bill when they asked them to seperate Barrera and Erik. It was close in almost every department but Barrera took it in every question criteria , be it about class , ability to change , strategy etc .

ICECOLD - This is how I see it . The judges agreed in the last two fights and in the 1st fight everyone in teh studio and Vegas disagreed with the decision

thats fine mate if you see it that way i had it draw because of 10-8 round in 12th round

[GAME]

I assumed it was coming next Barrera had a much easier fight next time round . He emerged unmarked but Erik looked like he had been in a war . No where near as good as the 1st fight . Rematches usually arent but then it picks up again in the decider

Ya you're right, the second fight is often the least eventful one in a trilogy. Not always, but a lot of the time it is.
The first fight was the biggest brawl of the 3 fights, but I actually think their third fight was the best of the 3. That one had great technical boxing and lots of toe-to-toe action. I also think the third fight is the only one that didn't have a controversial decision. Barrera got a close decision, and that was the right decision.

Yeah in the 3rd Barrera settled all arguments . It was a good close fight. This how I view the trilogy

1st fight - Amazing . Best fight ive ever seen . Barrera was robbed but it couldnt cloud a great fight

2nd fight - Not as good , havent seen it for a while . From what I remember Barrera just plain outboxed him in a pretty uneventful battle and people werent happy .

3rd fight - Back to war . Both had good spells . Barreras extra class and skills clinched it for him .

I think Morales moved up in weight and Barrera followed him . He didnt need to . The extra pounds suited Erik more but Ironically it was Barrera who seemed more comfortable .

At least give Morales a victory GAME. 3 was decisive but I thought Morales took 1 and 2. But at least give him something.

Which 1's though ? He got the decision in the 1st fight but everyone in the arena thought he lost . Nuthin really happend in teh second fight and I cant recall Erik landing anything big . The 3rd fight was decisive for barrera so although Erik made the trilogy close he never actually did enough to win .

The asked these questions to the sky experts on the Juarez - Barrera bill when they asked them to seperate Barrera and Erik. It was close in almost every department but Barrera took it in every question criteria , be it about class , ability to change , strategy etc .

ICECOLD - This is how I see it . The judges agreed in the last two fights and in the 1st fight everyone in teh studio and Vegas disagreed with the decision

thats fine mate if you see it that way i had it draw because of 10-8 round in 12th round

So you had Erik 2 rounds up going into the 12th ? WTF . Are you an Erik fan or summat ? Glenn Mcrory and Ian Darke had it big for Barrera going into teh last and that knockdown should have clinched it . Cant complain though cuz it made for a classic trilogy . A trilogy in which Barrera learnt and adapted his style but Morales didnt appear to change much . If Erik had a better defence that would have made em much harder to score IMO

[killersheep]

I assumed it was coming next Barrera had a much easier fight next time round . He emerged unmarked but Erik looked like he had been in a war . No where near as good as the 1st fight . Rematches usually arent but then it picks up again in the decider

Ya you're right, the second fight is often the least eventful one in a trilogy. Not always, but a lot of the time it is.
The first fight was the biggest brawl of the 3 fights, but I actually think their third fight was the best of the 3. That one had great technical boxing and lots of toe-to-toe action. I also think the third fight is the only one that didn't have a controversial decision. Barrera got a close decision, and that was the right decision.

Yeah in the 3rd Barrera settled all arguments . It was a good close fight. This how I view the trilogy

1st fight - Amazing . Best fight ive ever seen . Barrera was robbed but it couldnt cloud a great fight

2nd fight - Not as good , havent seen it for a while . From what I remember Barrera just plain outboxed him in a pretty uneventful battle and people werent happy .

3rd fight - Back to war . Both had good spells . Barreras extra class and skills clinched it for him .

I think Morales moved up in weight and Barrera followed him . He didnt need to . The extra pounds suited Erik more but Ironically it was Barrera who seemed more comfortable .

At least give Morales a victory GAME. 3 was decisive but I thought Morales took 1 and 2. But at least give him something.

Which 1's though ? He got the decision in the 1st fight but everyone in the arena thought he lost . Nuthin really happend in teh second fight and I cant recall Erik landing anything big . The 3rd fight was decisive for barrera so although Erik made the trilogy close he never actually did enough to win .

The asked these questions to the sky experts on the Juarez - Barrera bill when they asked them to seperate Barrera and Erik. It was close in almost every department but Barrera took it in every question criteria , be it about class , ability to change , strategy etc .

ICECOLD - This is how I see it . The judges agreed in the last two fights and in the 1st fight everyone in teh studio and Vegas disagreed with the decision

thats fine mate if you see it that way i had it draw because of 10-8 round in 12th round

So you had Erik 2 rounds up going into the 12th ? WTF . Are you an Erik fan or summat ? Glenn Mcrory and Ian Darke had it big for Barrera going into teh last and that knockdown should have clinched it . Cant complain though cuz it made for a classic trilogy . A trilogy in which Barrera learnt and adapted his style but Morales didnt appear to change much . If Erik had a better defence that would have made em much harder to score IMO

So how did you have the rounds?

[ICB]

I assumed it was coming next Barrera had a much easier fight next time round . He emerged unmarked but Erik looked like he had been in a war . No where near as good as the 1st fight . Rematches usually arent but then it picks up again in the decider

Ya you're right, the second fight is often the least eventful one in a trilogy. Not always, but a lot of the time it is.
The first fight was the biggest brawl of the 3 fights, but I actually think their third fight was the best of the 3. That one had great technical boxing and lots of toe-to-toe action. I also think the third fight is the only one that didn't have a controversial decision. Barrera got a close decision, and that was the right decision.

Yeah in the 3rd Barrera settled all arguments . It was a good close fight. This how I view the trilogy

1st fight - Amazing . Best fight ive ever seen . Barrera was robbed but it couldnt cloud a great fight

2nd fight - Not as good , havent seen it for a while . From what I remember Barrera just plain outboxed him in a pretty uneventful battle and people werent happy .

3rd fight - Back to war . Both had good spells . Barreras extra class and skills clinched it for him .

I think Morales moved up in weight and Barrera followed him . He didnt need to . The extra pounds suited Erik more but Ironically it was Barrera who seemed more comfortable .

At least give Morales a victory GAME. 3 was decisive but I thought Morales took 1 and 2. But at least give him something.

Which 1's though ? He got the decision in the 1st fight but everyone in the arena thought he lost . Nuthin really happend in teh second fight and I cant recall Erik landing anything big . The 3rd fight was decisive for barrera so although Erik made the trilogy close he never actually did enough to win .

The asked these questions to the sky experts on the Juarez - Barrera bill when they asked them to seperate Barrera and Erik. It was close in almost every department but Barrera took it in every question criteria , be it about class , ability to change , strategy etc .

ICECOLD - This is how I see it . The judges agreed in the last two fights and in the 1st fight everyone in teh studio and Vegas disagreed with the decision

thats fine mate if you see it that way i had it draw because of 10-8 round in 12th round

So you had Erik 2 rounds up going into the 12th ? WTF . Are you an Erik fan or summat ? Glenn Mcrory and Ian Darke had it big for Barrera going into teh last and that knockdown should have clinched it . Cant complain though cuz it made for a classic trilogy . A trilogy in which Barrera learnt and adapted his style but Morales didnt appear to change much . If Erik had a better defence that would have made em much harder to score IMO

i like both equally i dont pick favourites i liked busier guy which morales was imo and i had him up 2 in last round and 10-8 round secured draw on my card even though it wasnt a legit knockdown you still have have to say it was 10-8 round

[GAME]

I assumed it was coming next Barrera had a much easier fight next time round . He emerged unmarked but Erik looked like he had been in a war . No where near as good as the 1st fight . Rematches usually arent but then it picks up again in the decider

Ya you're right, the second fight is often the least eventful one in a trilogy. Not always, but a lot of the time it is.
The first fight was the biggest brawl of the 3 fights, but I actually think their third fight was the best of the 3. That one had great technical boxing and lots of toe-to-toe action. I also think the third fight is the only one that didn't have a controversial decision. Barrera got a close decision, and that was the right decision.

Yeah in the 3rd Barrera settled all arguments . It was a good close fight. This how I view the trilogy

1st fight - Amazing . Best fight ive ever seen . Barrera was robbed but it couldnt cloud a great fight

2nd fight - Not as good , havent seen it for a while . From what I remember Barrera just plain outboxed him in a pretty uneventful battle and people werent happy .

3rd fight - Back to war . Both had good spells . Barreras extra class and skills clinched it for him .

I think Morales moved up in weight and Barrera followed him . He didnt need to . The extra pounds suited Erik more but Ironically it was Barrera who seemed more comfortable .

At least give Morales a victory GAME. 3 was decisive but I thought Morales took 1 and 2. But at least give him something.

Which 1's though ? He got the decision in the 1st fight but everyone in the arena thought he lost . Nuthin really happend in teh second fight and I cant recall Erik landing anything big . The 3rd fight was decisive for barrera so although Erik made the trilogy close he never actually did enough to win .

The asked these questions to the sky experts on the Juarez - Barrera bill when they asked them to seperate Barrera and Erik. It was close in almost every department but Barrera took it in every question criteria , be it about class , ability to change , strategy etc .

ICECOLD - This is how I see it . The judges agreed in the last two fights and in the 1st fight everyone in teh studio and Vegas disagreed with the decision

thats fine mate if you see it that way i had it draw because of 10-8 round in 12th round

So you had Erik 2 rounds up going into the 12th ? WTF . Are you an Erik fan or summat ? Glenn Mcrory and Ian Darke had it big for Barrera going into teh last and that knockdown should have clinched it . Cant complain though cuz it made for a classic trilogy . A trilogy in which Barrera learnt and adapted his style but Morales didnt appear to change much . If Erik had a better defence that would have made em much harder to score IMO

i like both equally i dont pick favourites i liked busier guy which morales was imo and i had him up 2 in last round and 10-8 round secured draw on my card even though it wasnt a legit knockdown you still have have to say it was 10-8 round

Yeah im glad weve established clarity on that cuz some were saying it wasnt a proper knockdown so they werent guna reflect it in their scoring . I agree if the ref calls it a KD then like it or not we have to go along with it or whats the point , anyone can refuse to score any given knockdown.

I do think Erik was a great fighter but Barreras style was a bad mix for him . He was a boxer that loved to brawl and Barrera was a brawler who loved to box . Marco seemed to have the extra handspeed , defence and ringsmarts . He was better built for fighting aswel in his crouched atacking style but when he boxed Erik he allowed it to be closer than it should be . When he was n the front foot Erik had much more problems . I believe Erik was at his best in his superbantam days . He made a great superfeather too . I dont think a move up to lightweight at this stage would be a sensible move TBH

[El Gamo]

Whichever way you look at it,in all those 3 fights,none can be considered robberies. 36 of some of the closest and best rounds. I remember watching the first fight and thinking MAB won but it was one of the first fights I saw(and my favourite) but I didn't really know what to look for. Now I know more about boxing,I'll watch it again! All I know is,I called the third fight a draw.

[Lords Gym]

Barrera -vs- Morales

| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | Total
Barrera | 10| 10 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 9 |10 | 113
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Morales | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 10 |10 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 115

Excellent fight to watch again... great action !

[ICB]

bump cant wait for the next one sweet

[SweetPea]

Ok, I thought the Morales-Barrera discussion went well. Good points made on both sides. We definitely need to examine Morales-Barrera II at some point, but I'd like to switch things up right now. I don't really want to look at the same two fighters twice in a row. We'll look at their second fight down the road.

For our second fight, we'll look at a fight that should be easier to score. The fight that I want to select third is going to bring lots of arguments (at least I think it will), so for our second fight we'll do one that we should be able to score in agreement.

March 13, 1999- Madison Square Garden
Lennox Lewis (34-1, WBC Heavyweight Champion) vs. Evander Holyfield (36-3, WBA & IBF Heavyweight Champion) for the Undisputed Heavyweight Championship
The three scorecards were 115-113 Holyfield, 116-113 Lewis, 115-115 Draw

My scorecard:

| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | total
Lewis | 10 | 10 | 10| 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 118
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX
Holyfield | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 110

118-110 Lewis, 10 rounds to 2. I could've scored it 11-1 or even 12-0. Holyfield looked incredibly slow and did hardly anything the whole fight. Lewis didn't even look like he was trying that hard. He peppered Holyfield with jabs and right hands all night. Terrible decision by the judges.

[Lords Gym]

Ok, I thought the Morales-Barrera discussion went well. Good points made on both sides. We definitely need to examine Morales-Barrera II at some point, but I'd like to switch things up right now. I don't really want to look at the same two fighters twice in a row. We'll look at their second fight down the road.

For our second fight, we'll look at a fight that should be easier to score. The fight that I want to select third is going to bring lots of arguments (at least I think it will), so for our second fight we'll do one that we should be able to score in agreement.

March 13, 1999- Madison Square Garden
Lennox Lewis (34-1, WBC Heavyweight Champion) vs. Evander Holyfield (36-3, WBA & IBF Heavyweight Champion) for the Undisputed Heavyweight Championship
The three scorecards were 115-113 Holyfield, 116-113 Lewis, 115-115 Draw

My scorecard:

| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | total
Lewis | 10 | 10 | 10| 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 118
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX
Holyfield | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 110

118-110 Lewis, 10 rounds to 2. I could've scored it 11-1 or even 12-0. Holyfield looked incredibly slow and did hardly anything the whole fight. Lewis didn't even look like he was trying that hard. He peppered Holyfield with jabs and right hands all night. Terrible decision by the judges.

you surprise me with that... I got to watch and score that again... I think I had Lewis winning the first fight but not by that margin. , and thought Holyfield won the second fight by several rounds. both fights controversial....
I will watch this in a few moments and score it ! #49