Cunningham/Adamek official score cards.

[IamInuit]

Interesting.

By Barry Lindenman (Fightnews)

1. In only two of the twelve rounds did all three judges agree on the winner of the round (rounds five and eleven, both scored for Adamek).

2. There was disagreement among the judges in 83% of the rounds (rounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12).

4. Judge Tom Miller was the “lone wolf” in only one of the rounds (round 10).

5. Judge Deb Barnes was the “lone wolf” in three of the rounds (rounds 2, 9 and 12).

6. Judge Dave Greer was the “lone wolf” in six of the rounds (rounds 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and

7. Judges Miller and Greer had the bout even after six rounds. Judge Barnes had the bout even after eight rounds.

8. Despite having a different winner, Judges Miller and Barnes agreed on eight of the twelve rounds.

9. Despite both scoring the bout for Adamek, Judges Barnes are Greer only agreed on three of the twelve rounds.

[beenKOed]

Interesting.

By Barry Lindenman (Fightnews)

1. In only two of the twelve rounds did all three judges agree on the winner of the round (rounds five and eleven, both scored for Adamek).

2. There was disagreement among the judges in 83% of the rounds (rounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12).

4. Judge Tom Miller was the “lone wolf” in only one of the rounds (round 10).

5. Judge Deb Barnes was the “lone wolf” in three of the rounds (rounds 2, 9 and 12).

6. Judge Dave Greer was the “lone wolf” in six of the rounds (rounds 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and

7. Judges Miller and Greer had the bout even after six rounds. Judge Barnes had the bout even after eight rounds.

8. Despite having a different winner, Judges Miller and Barnes agreed on eight of the twelve rounds.

9. Despite both scoring the bout for Adamek, Judges Barnes are Greer only agreed on three of the twelve rounds.

I saw this on Boxing.com, but it doesn't tell us anything new. We all know judges never totally agree on any fight, just like us.

I know two things about this fight.
1. Adamek got the win.
2. I would like B.J. Flores to stop trying to convince us who is winning the rounds, I like to make up my own mind. I want his opinion but give it to me at the end of the round. Tell me what's happening not who's winning. Know what I mean?

This is my opinion and it's given with respect to everyone. I don't want judges to agree on every round or even on every fight. I want them to give their honest opinion, every time, no matter what happens.

This breakdown of each scorecard and who the lone wolf was for each round is good and bad.

Over a period of 10 fights +/- it could be valuable in identifying a problem judge. It could also become a barrier to getting an honest opinion from each judge every fight.

What do you think?

[Master]

I like the presentation of the stats and the lone wolf idea. It should be presented as what it is which are statistics just to identify where the issues may have been. Remember in the Holyfield v Lewis fight where I think it was the 5th Lewis totally dominated but the one judge had Holyfield winning it. She blamed the fact that for most of the round Lewis had his back to her. The moral of the story was that fighters should show all their sides during the round to ensure they are scored in a favourable manner.