Press Scores for Rees vs Buckland

23 out 25 people scored this fight for Rees, why aren't we complaining about this being a bad decision?

Press Scores

Jim Watt (Sky Sports TV) : 116-114 Rees
Andrew McKart (FirstClassBoxing) : 116-112 Rees
Adam Abramowitz (SaturdayNightBxing) : 116-112 Rees
John Wharton (KCCBoxingShow) : 116-112 Rees
Phil D Jay (WorldBoxingNews) : 115-113 Rees
Ciaran Shanks (IrvineTimes) : 116-114 Rees
Shaun Brown (Boxing Monthly) : 115-113 Rees
ATR Boxing Tipster : 116-113 Rees
Tommy Allan (BoxingAsylum) : 117-112 Rees
Daniel Vano (CheckHookBoxing) : 116-113 Rees
John A MacDonald (Livefight) : 115-113 Rees
Kasim Aslam (UKFighthype) : 116-113 Rees
Ciaran Gibbons (Freelance) : 117-115 Rees
John Evans (Livefight) : 115-113 Rees
Iain R Langmaid (SaddoBoxing) : 115-113 Rees
Alex Morris (BoxingAsylum) : 116-112 Rees
Danny Winterbottom (BoxingNews) : 116-113 Rees
Mersey Boxing : 115-115 **Draw**
Boxing Analyst (CheckHookBoxing) : 115-113 Rees
Corey Quincy (FightersXchange) : 114-114 **Draw**
Alexy Suckachev (BoxingScene) :115-113 Rees
V2 Boxing : 116-113 Rees
Kurt Ward (BoxingAsylum) : 115-113 Rees
Adam Canavan (BoxingMadMagazine) : 116-112 Rees
Paul Daley (TopClassBoxing) : 115-113 Rees


And yes we got a mention

Is that the only reason you posted this?

Why we are not complaining about the decision is a fair question Hampo. My own guess is when a fight is a belter, which this one was you do tend to get swept up a bit in how good a fight it was and your enjoyment of it than any kind of analysis of the decision. However having watched the fight this does chime with my own views on the fight, those being that Rees deserved the nod. Think on the whole he matched Buckland for work rate but just tended to have the edge in quality of work.

Had Rees by a small margin. But to be honest I tend to find press row all being a bit sheep like... This in no way shape or form was a robbery, there were so many close rounds it could've gone either way, said on the night we could see a scary card for either guy but thankfully that wasn't the case.

And can I get a press pass for the Froch v Groves rematch? I can carry your pencil case?

Dave I posted it find out why people have overlooked the bad judging in this fight, I've seen people moaning about different fights for years on here yet this one has been ignored.

Was curious why, as I personally couldn't find a way to give it Buckland.

I don' think this is viewed as a bad decision Hampo; ok the judges went against the consensus but I also think that the press were a bit rose tinted with the way they viewed Rees.

As I said to you I myself had Rees by 2 rounds...do I think it should have gone the other way, no probably not...can I see a case as to why it did. Yes.

There were rounds for the taking; especially the 5 & 6th (I had one a piece) where I think the sheer fact Buckland was pushing the action may have got him the nod on the judges card. The same could be said of the 10th & 11th. It is remarkable how different a fight looks ringside in comparison to on tv & as I watched it there were times where I couldn't help think

''Why are the judges literally on the ring apron...''

there view of some of the action is most definitely obscured at times & whilst there are 3 judges with 3 different views surely the best thing would be to seat them a little further back where their field of vision would be wider.

I actually thought Buckland just edged it. Have only seen the once though and may see it different a second time. I dont think either really deserved to lose but when you see peoples cards there are two or three rounds that people have a different opinion on so I can see where the judges called it from. Not a terrible decision just maybe harsh on rees. Lets just let them fight again eh and settle it? :-)

I think it's time for Rees to retire or he'll be stopped in his next fight. His stamina has been on the wane for a good few fights now.

He would have stopped Buckland and Crolla a couple of years ago.

I think Rowley is on to something when he says that if a fight is a barnstormer and close, a slightly dodgy decision can be airbrushed out of the equation to a degree, and become almost inconsequential, particularly as a superb close fight will often lead to a rematch or two. For instance, how many people do you know who agreed with the decisions in Gatti-Ward I or Barrera-Morales I?

Always hard to define what a 'robbery' is. Thing is, if you score a fight to a certain fighter by a margin of about two rounds, but the other man gets the nod, then usually you can't really cry robbery, because there always tend to be at least the odd round or two in a fight which is open to interpretation or very, very hard to score. Likewise, if you and even a few others have the same card, in such a fight there will normally be a group of others who had it to the other man by a similar kind of margin, for the reasons I've just given. A good example that I like to use for such a fight is the Whitaker-De la Hoya one; HBO polled 26 ringside publications afterwards, of which 14 scored it for Whitaker, 11 for De la Hoya, with one of them having it even.

So on that basis, it's hard to call any fight with a couple of rounds in it or less a robbery.

However, what if just about every single person who saw the fight had it to the same man by a couple of points or so, but the decision goes the other way? Relatively rare, but not far off what we see above. Can you call that a robbery then? Perhaps. Usually if a lot of people have fighter A a couple of rounds up, there will be a pretty similar-sized group of people who have the same score for fighter B, but that's not the case here. Seems that most are finding it impossible to make a case for Buckland - so how do you define that?

It reminds me of the Matthysse-Alexander discussions. Some argued that, as you could conceivably have it by as little as only one point in favour of Matthysse, it can't possibly be called a robbery. But that was the point - absolutely everyone agreed that Matthysse won it, even if it was just by the odd round. So when everyone agrees that fighter A won, even if it was only narrowly, but fighter B gets the nod, how can that be anything other than a robbery?

Difficult to give a definitive answer, I guess.

Funny thing about decisions........

If 9/10 out of the pundits pick Rees to win it makes a close fight (which it was) look like a scandal...

Yet you can have a 7/10 split like in the 2nd Holmes - Spinks fight and it isn't a scandal even though the decision was more shocking.....

I had Rees by one/two rounds...........I had Holmes by four..........