Who's scorecards is the most important to you?

Following on from Truss's worst decisions thread; who's scorecard do you put the most importance to- your own, popular opinion, or the judges when considering a fighter's overall standing.
Using Whittaker as an easy example- Offically lost his first title shot, drew against his main P4P rival, lost to the other two of the three other ATGs he fought (ODL and Trinidad & Nelson) . Popular opinion is that he won his first title fight, bested his main P4P rival, but lost, albeit closley, to ODL and Trinidad. My scorecards say he went unbeaten right through to losing to Trinidad. The difference in the standing in terms of ATG status, based on whether you use the offical judges cards, or mine is considerable.
Personally I think that the fairest is to go with popular opinion as it removes the inevitable personal bias that we all have (ok contraversal decisions can split popular opinion,...). but intersted to see how the rest of you see it.

Mine if I was concentrating, popular opinion otherwise.

I had Oscar winning the Whittaker fight.....

Had enough of whittaker's style by then......Combination, illegally turn the guy, combination, illegally turn the guy.......Frustrated me like Michael Nunn used to......

I'd have deducted Pernell three points a fight.........

Sad thing is as Nazario showed there was an exciting fighter trying to get out......

No sympathy for the stinker............Top 15 though in my list.

My scorecard is most important..to me.

Mine.

Not much point in watching the sport if I don't believe I know what I'm seeing with my own eyes. Although it doesn't  make me right of course.

I will gauge popular opinion if I appear to be seeing it differently to most. But popular opinion can easily be shaped of course.

Take froch groves 2. Froch comfortably ahead according to uk commentary. Groves comfortably ahead according to US commentary. Most US cards I saw had groves ahead at the time and most UK ones seemed to have froch ahead. Coincidence? I had it about even.

milkyboy wrote:Mine.

Not much point in watching the sport if I don't believe I know what I'm seeing with my own eyes. Although it doesn't  make me right of course.

I will gauge popular opinion if I appear to be seeing it differently to most. But popular opinion can easily be shaped of course.

Take froch groves 2. Froch comfortably ahead according to uk commentary. Groves comfortably ahead according to US commentary. Most US cards I saw had groves ahead at the time and most UK ones seemed to have froch ahead. Coincidence? I had it about even.

Woodhall's card is my second most important......... Smith 120 -108 Abraham...........Was right on the money !!

The Froch - Groves was interesting in that respect- I had Groves winning- I saw Froch falling sort with his jabs, and gettting caught by right hand counters, whereas many had Froch's aggression winning the rounds. The punch stats seemed confirmed that Groves had landed more shots, and was more accurate. Had it gone twelve, I have a feeling that it would still be being debated now...

horizontalhero wrote:The Froch - Groves was interesting in that respect- I had Groves winning- I saw Froch falling sort with his jabs, and gettting caught by right hand counters, whereas many had Froch's aggression winning the rounds. The punch stats seemed confirmed that Groves had landed more shots, and was more accurate. Had it gone twelve, I have a feeling that it would still be being debated now...

That's a great example for me of someone dominating the first fight and it hurting him in the second..............

The fact Froch held his own early and Groves struggled to get on top made it look like Froch was winning.....Because it was so different from the first fight.......Think consensus was Groves would do well early...

In fairness i do have Froch shading it prior to the ko.............But that's with my eyes and not with Halling and Watt telling me so...........

I have watched a couple of fights with the sound off, and was surprised how much difference it made it- the noise of crowd, the levels of excitement from the commentary etc definately affected my judgement. Perhaps judges should wear ears plugs

horizontalhero wrote:I have watched a couple of fights with the sound off, and was surprised how much difference it made it- the noise of crowd, the levels of excitement from the commentary etc definately affected my judgement. Perhaps judges should wear ears plugs

I've said that before...........Their movements should also be monitored

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

horizontalhero wrote:I have watched a couple of fights with the sound off, and was surprised how much difference it made it- the noise of crowd, the levels of excitement from the commentary etc definately affected my judgement. Perhaps judges should wear ears plugs

I've said that before...........Their movements should also be monitored

Adelaide, I'm afraid we need another stool sample, to see if you're as full of sh*t as we think you are.

That's like something Gilford would write.......You've captured the essence of that site uncannily...

I can only aspire to such dizzy literary heights.

milkyboy wrote:I can only aspire to such dizzy literary heights.

You go the dizzy bit sorted..........So you're halfway there !!