The Judging system is a Godsend for corrupt officials...

Four factors a pro judge needs to consider when scoring a fight..

Clean punching
Ring generalship
Defence
Effective Aggressiveness.....

Ring generalship............."Dictate the pace" .."Ability to grasp every advantage offered"..."Capacity to cope with any situations that may arise"..."Ability to neutralise and foresee an opponent's attack"......"Taking your opponent out of his comfort zone"

Forget us stupid plebs that hand out rounds on "effectiveness"..............

We all scored the Quigg v Frampton fight for Frampton right ???....But think about it.... If someone slapped me a bung to give it to Quigg...

Then I could have scored all the first four rounds a draw by saying...

Defence....Quigg showed good defence.....as did Frampton..

Effective aggression.....No one was "effectively" aggresssive....

Ring generalship.....While Frampton was busier and dictated the pace....Quigg showed the ability to foresee and neutralise his attack and showed the capacity to deal with all situations...Quigg was never out of his comfort zone..

Clean punching......Wasn't any of that.......

I imagine if all the first 4 were scored even....Quigg wins right ????...and it would have been scandalous..


The system is a get out of jail free card for the corrupt and incompetent.....You can almost use it like a politician to spin any result you want....


Much better to score like plebs.........

How can it be improved in your opinon?

By ignoring the four elements...and judging like fans do..

More effective fighter...

I remember that a judge had Quigg winning...

If you take bull crap criteria like defence and neutralisation...Then he can explain how Quigg was more effective for the majority of the fight..

Simplification....is the ticket..

Some good points Truss but it's also a personal preference sometimes on whether you prefer watching attack or defensive. IE is the boxer who's missing most of his punches really doing better than the geezer that's slipping them and hitting the odd counter.

Unfortunately boxing's a big business and moves further and further away from a sport every day (IMO)

Obviously common sense is involved.....But when we watch a round of boxing we tend to see who is the most effective....

Don't need all this criteria stuff to muddy the waters..

It's a good thread Truss and I agree with some of it.

I have got to ask though. Didn't you score Oscar vs Floyd a draw?? Not a dig at you mate, but Floyd wasn't hit very clean that often in that fight. Sort of contradicts your thread a little.

I don't mind the scoring system as it is the dodgy judges that provide bad scores.

I think for the big fights, the judges should be required to provide a brief 2-3 liner on each round to explain why they judged it. Some won't need that i.e. a knock down or clearly dominated.

The annoying thing is a close fight being called a robbery.

You have to have some criteria for it though Truss or you could use any excuse to score a fight one way. I agree with Valero that judges should have to justify their scores at the end of the bout, be that by a few lines or a paragraph or 2.

There's only one way to score a fight: treat every round as a separate entity and judge it based on who you feel won the round.

Forget all of the nonsense terms - who was the better man. Who had the better round. Simple as that.

Unfortunately, a lot of judges haven't a clue what they're watching. The pool should be reduced and I don't see any reason why in this day and age, with the technology we have, why fights can't be judged by the best handful of judges going, remotely. Keep the standard high and boot out any judge that malfunctions.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:By ignoring the four elements...and judging like fans do..

More effective fighter...

I remember that a judge had Quigg winning...

If you take bull crap criteria like defence and neutralisation...Then he can explain how Quigg was more effective for the majority of the fight..

Simplification....is the ticket..

I had Quigg winning. Felt that Frampton's punches were being well blocked by gloves and elbows. In this instance I saw this as an aggressive fighter being nullified by a defensive fighter. Okay not in a flashy Sweet Pea way but in an effective old school style. Didn't think Frampton really landed anything despite being far busier.

Obviously Quigg did nowhere near enough offensively to have made others think the same so opinions would still be divided.

How I score it:

Who does the most damage (Clean and effective punching)

If you are on the back foot then you have to show you are the boss (Seems to be some myth that you can steal rounds running away these days)

Ring generalship, defence are products of the primary criteria

If you can't separate them with clean effective punching, then the aggressor wins the round

I think its why I scored the fight for Porter, He was bullying Thurman all over the ring, and Thurman landed a few got clean shots, but not that many

huw wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:By ignoring the four elements...and judging like fans do..

More effective fighter...

I remember that a judge had Quigg winning...

If you take bull crap criteria like defence and neutralisation...Then he can explain how Quigg was more effective for the majority of the fight..

Simplification....is the ticket..

I had Quigg winning. Felt that Frampton's punches were being well blocked by gloves and elbows. In this instance I saw this as an aggressive fighter being nullified by a defensive fighter. Okay not in a flashy Sweet Pea way but in an effective old school style. Didn't think Frampton really landed anything despite being far busier.

Obviously Quigg did nowhere near enough offensively to have made others think the same so opinions would still be divided.  

No offence intended here, but there's absolutely no way you can score that fight for Quigg (if you know what you're supposed to be doing - again, genuinely, not trying to be patronising).

Frampton was in control of most of the rounds. They weren't hard to score.

The first 6 rounds were like wlad haye. Nothing happened so you give it to the guy looking like he wanted it to happen. I can understand people giving a few of those rounds even.  Then he faded and got outworked for most of the second half. Not everyone saw the masterclass from frampton you did in that fight haz! Aside from the judge that gave it to quigg, a few on press row had it even.

Don't get me wrong, I thought frampton won the fight but he did it by nicking the early rounds. Quigg gifted it, frampton made hard work of accepting the gift. 

I hope he looks stronger and sharper a weight up, or he's in for a tough night in a few weeks time against lsc.

I had Frampton 5-1 up after the first 6 and there's no way that Quigg won the last 6 rounds. I mean he literally did nothing the first half of the fight.

To me this was an issue with Joe Gallagher and the team. How he was happy with Quigg's output over the first half of the fight beggars belief. He didn't even need to change any tactics as such, just needed to do more. I say Frampton couldn't believe his luck.

I truly believe that this fight is an example of a narrative being put forward beforehand that wasn't a reality. The talk going in amongst 'experts' and the media was that Quigg was the big puncher and Frampton was just a boxer. The whole narrative was based on their last fight. Quigg had beat Martinez in quick fashion and Frampton had put in an awful performance in the US. However their careers as a whole never depicted this. Quigg was a busy fighter and strong at the weight. Frampton a great all rounder with decent power in both hands. In the end that's how it played out. Frampton was just a bit better in all areas and Quigg looked a little lost technically and couldn't impose his size until the later rounds.

hazharrison wrote:

huw wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:By ignoring the four elements...and judging like fans do..

More effective fighter...

I remember that a judge had Quigg winning...

If you take bull crap criteria like defence and neutralisation...Then he can explain how Quigg was more effective for the majority of the fight..

Simplification....is the ticket..

I had Quigg winning. Felt that Frampton's punches were being well blocked by gloves and elbows. In this instance I saw this as an aggressive fighter being nullified by a defensive fighter. Okay not in a flashy Sweet Pea way but in an effective old school style. Didn't think Frampton really landed anything despite being far busier.

Obviously Quigg did nowhere near enough offensively to have made others think the same so opinions would still be divided.  

No offence intended here, but there's absolutely no way you can score that fight for Quigg (if you know what you're supposed to be doing - again, genuinely, not trying to be patronising).

Frampton was in control of most of the rounds. They weren't hard to score.

I genuinely had it very close with Quigg winning. Remember being shocked when Quigg's corner told him he was behind.

This is why judging a fight is so hard. In the build up I had wanted Frampton to win but on the night felt Quigg was the underdog and as I had no real care either way decided to support him. Watching the fight I was then just seeing Frampton throwing lots of punches but nothing getting through. Obviously in wanting Quigg to win I was probably analysing more about what he was doing well and feeling that it was his fight to win.

milkyboy wrote:The first 6 rounds were like wlad haye. Nothing happened so you give it to the guy looking like he wanted it to happen. I can understand people giving a few of those rounds even.  Then he faded and got outworked for most of the second half. Not everyone saw the masterclass from frampton you did in that fight haz! Aside from the judge that gave it to quigg, a few on press row had it even.

Don't get me wrong, I thought frampton won the fight but he did it by nicking the early rounds. Quigg gifted it, frampton made hard work of accepting the gift. 

I hope he looks stronger and sharper a weight up, or he's in for a tough night in a few weeks time against lsc.

Frampton clearly won the fight - there was daylight between them. Can't remember how I scored it exactly but only gave Quigg a few rounds. It was easy to score and the idea Quigg gifted him the fight is a nonsense.

I don't recall anyone of note scoring it even.

Would it matter if anyone of note scored it for Quigg ??

Dalby Shirley was an experienced, respected judge and he had Vito beating Hagler..

You lend too much weight on so called expert opinion..

Quigg beating Frampton is just as silly as Manny beating Floyd. Both boxers didn't dominate, but it was obvious they were able to outbox the opponents.

Can't understand how anyone would score either fight the other way. Though there are many that have.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Would it matter if anyone of note scored it for Quigg ??

Dalby Shirley was an experienced, respected judge and he had Vito beating Hagler..

You lend too much weight on so called expert opinion..

I was referring to the point he made about press row scoring it even. I don't recall anyone of note on press row scoring it that way (anyone who knows what they were watching).

No idea why you're referencing an obscure scorecard from the 80s?

Judges score on 'effectiveness' for the most part, though they probably sub-categorise it to legitimise decisions. However on the flip side effectiveness needs some qualifying criteria, otherwise how do you teach these old fogey outsiders to judge?

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:The first 6 rounds were like wlad haye. Nothing happened so you give it to the guy looking like he wanted it to happen. I can understand people giving a few of those rounds even.  Then he faded and got outworked for most of the second half. Not everyone saw the masterclass from frampton you did in that fight haz! Aside from the judge that gave it to quigg, a few on press row had it even.

Don't get me wrong, I thought frampton won the fight but he did it by nicking the early rounds. Quigg gifted it, frampton made hard work of accepting the gift. 

I hope he looks stronger and sharper a weight up, or he's in for a tough night in a few weeks time against lsc.

Frampton clearly won the fight - there was daylight between them. Can't remember how I scored it exactly but only gave Quigg a few rounds. It was easy to score and the idea Quigg gifted him the fight is a nonsense.

I don't recall anyone of note scoring it even.

So you don't think quigg not throwing a punch for 6 rounds was gifting it? He might have lost all 6 had he got on the front foot, but he didn't try and lost rounds to a guy landing a handful of punches who was simply a bit busier.

We get you thought frampton put on a show. Not everyone, even those thinking frampton won easily agrees. Personally I thought he won the fight clearly enough, but looked bang average in doing so. The punch stats were woeful for both fighters and  2 of the judges scored the second half of the fight for quigg while one had it even. Frampton won the first half of the fight sometimes landing only 2 or 3 punches and missing loads. That leaves the door open to someone scoring it different to the consensus... Which is what this thread is about. 

Compubox is compubox,  not a science, and certainly not what to wholly judge a fight on, but the stats don't show a domination or a masterclass.

Carl Froch for one scored it even, that I remember...but he's taken some blows to the head down the years.

I like frampton, always thought he was a classy alrounder, but he's looked a little easy to hit of late and although he rallied in this in the 12th, he was blowing hard through the latter part of the fight in general.

Let's hope it was weight issues, because lsc will expose him if he gasses on Saturday.

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:The first 6 rounds were like wlad haye. Nothing happened so you give it to the guy looking like he wanted it to happen. I can understand people giving a few of those rounds even.  Then he faded and got outworked for most of the second half. Not everyone saw the masterclass from frampton you did in that fight haz! Aside from the judge that gave it to quigg, a few on press row had it even.

Don't get me wrong, I thought frampton won the fight but he did it by nicking the early rounds. Quigg gifted it, frampton made hard work of accepting the gift. 

I hope he looks stronger and sharper a weight up, or he's in for a tough night in a few weeks time against lsc.

Frampton clearly won the fight - there was daylight between them. Can't remember how I scored it exactly but only gave Quigg a few rounds. It was easy to score and the idea Quigg gifted him the fight is a nonsense.

I don't recall anyone of note scoring it even.

So you don't think quigg not throwing a punch for 6 rounds was gifting it? He might have lost all 6 had he got on the front foot, but he didn't try and lost rounds to a guy landing a handful of punches who was simply a bit busier.

We get you thought frampton put on a show. Not everyone, even those thinking frampton won easily agrees. Personally I thought he won the fight clearly enough, but looked bang average in doing so. The punch stats were woeful for both fighters and  2 of the judges scored the second half of the fight for quigg while one had it even. Frampton won the first half of the fight sometimes landing only 2 or 3 punches and missing loads. That leaves the door open to someone scoring it different to the consensus... Which is what this thread is about. 

Compubox is compubox,  not a science, and certainly not what to wholly judge a fight on, but the stats don't show a domination or a masterclass.

Carl Froch for one scored it even, that I remember...but he's taken some blows to the head down the years.

I like frampton, always thought he was a classy alrounder, but he's looked a little easy to hit of late and although he rallied in this in the 12th, he was blowing hard through the latter part of the fight in general.

Let's hope it was weight issues, because lsc will expose him if he gasses on Saturday.

If you feel Quigg decided not to throw a punch for six rounds as some sort of tactical gamble, then more fool you. Quigg couldn't get off because Frampton wouldn't let him. The Ulsterman is the better fighter technically, and he remained one step ahead of Quigg through the first six or seven rounds (Quigg just could not get going).

I don't think Frampton put on a show and certainly haven't mentioned the term "masterclass" (Carl himself will admit he didn't box at his best) - not sre where you're coming from with that?

I do, though, feel that Frampton won handily on the cards - boxed Quigg's ears off at times - and there isn't any way anyone who knows how to judge a fight could score it any other way (again, without trying to p*ss off the posters on here who did just that). The only members of the media who wanted to believe this was close was the Sky Team (as Quigg was the house fighter). That's where you may get a few screwy cards. Everyone else had Frampton winning by 4-6 rounds (he swept the first six and the last before you start looking at the rest of them).

I don't think Frampton will gas on Saturday but I just think LSC's style is difficult for a short fighter to overcome. While everyone raves about his workrate, it's his technique and that straight right that impresses me. Carl will need to land something big - probably against the run of play.

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:The first 6 rounds were like wlad haye. Nothing happened so you give it to the guy looking like he wanted it to happen. I can understand people giving a few of those rounds even.  Then he faded and got outworked for most of the second half. Not everyone saw the masterclass from frampton you did in that fight haz! Aside from the judge that gave it to quigg, a few on press row had it even.

Don't get me wrong, I thought frampton won the fight but he did it by nicking the early rounds. Quigg gifted it, frampton made hard work of accepting the gift. 

I hope he looks stronger and sharper a weight up, or he's in for a tough night in a few weeks time against lsc.

Frampton clearly won the fight - there was daylight between them. Can't remember how I scored it exactly but only gave Quigg a few rounds. It was easy to score and the idea Quigg gifted him the fight is a nonsense.

I don't recall anyone of note scoring it even.

So you don't think quigg not throwing a punch for 6 rounds was gifting it? He might have lost all 6 had he got on the front foot, but he didn't try and lost rounds to a guy landing a handful of punches who was simply a bit busier.

We get you thought frampton put on a show. Not everyone, even those thinking frampton won easily agrees. Personally I thought he won the fight clearly enough, but looked bang average in doing so. The punch stats were woeful for both fighters and  2 of the judges scored the second half of the fight for quigg while one had it even. Frampton won the first half of the fight sometimes landing only 2 or 3 punches and missing loads. That leaves the door open to someone scoring it different to the consensus... Which is what this thread is about. 

Compubox is compubox,  not a science, and certainly not what to wholly judge a fight on, but the stats don't show a domination or a masterclass.

Carl Froch for one scored it even, that I remember...but he's taken some blows to the head down the years.

I like frampton, always thought he was a classy alrounder, but he's looked a little easy to hit of late and although he rallied in this in the 12th, he was blowing hard through the latter part of the fight in general.

Let's hope it was weight issues, because lsc will expose him if he gasses on Saturday.

If you feel Quigg decided not to throw a punch for six rounds as some sort of tactical gamble, then more fool you. Quigg couldn't get off because Frampton wouldn't let him. The Ulsterman is the better fighter technically, and he remained one step ahead of Quigg through the first six or seven rounds (Quigg just could not get going).

I don't think Frampton put on a show and certainly haven't mentioned the term "masterclass" (Carl himself will admit he didn't box at his best) - not sre where you're coming from with that?

I do, though, feel that Frampton won handily on the cards - boxed Quigg's ears off at times - and there isn't any way anyone who knows how to judge a fight could score it any other way (again, without trying to p*ss off the posters on here who did just that). The only members of the media who wanted to believe this was close was the Sky Team (as Quigg was the house fighter). That's where you may get a few screwy cards. Everyone else had Frampton winning by 4-6 rounds (he swept the first six and the last before you start looking at the rest of them).

I don't think Frampton will gas on Saturday but I just think LSC's style is difficult for a short fighter to overcome. While everyone raves about his workrate, it's his technique and that straight right that impresses me. Carl will need to land something big - probably against the run of play.

Quigg was trying to be smart, keeping it tight and not making mistakes, the problem was that Frampton was too slick for him and thus built a healthy lead

In the second half of the fight Quigg decided to throw all caution to the wind and just have a tear up, which is why the fight changed

I don't think Quigg was trying to be smart....I think probably Gallagher was......

I think he thought Frampo was expecting Quigg to pressure him early and see plenty of counterpunching opportunities......

Unfortunately Frampo probably trained for all possibilities......Why refuse presents..

Why go hell for leather if you don't have to....

Quigg has drawn and lost now by being tactically naive.....

Smart fighters like BJS and Frampo can read a fight......Obviously Quigg can't because I cannot for the life of me believe he thought he was doing enough to win rounds...

If he thought he was...Heaven help him..

Exactly

Frampton wasn't running either he was right there

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:The first 6 rounds were like wlad haye. Nothing happened so you give it to the guy looking like he wanted it to happen. I can understand people giving a few of those rounds even.  Then he faded and got outworked for most of the second half. Not everyone saw the masterclass from frampton you did in that fight haz! Aside from the judge that gave it to quigg, a few on press row had it even.

Don't get me wrong, I thought frampton won the fight but he did it by nicking the early rounds. Quigg gifted it, frampton made hard work of accepting the gift. 

I hope he looks stronger and sharper a weight up, or he's in for a tough night in a few weeks time against lsc.

Frampton clearly won the fight - there was daylight between them. Can't remember how I scored it exactly but only gave Quigg a few rounds. It was easy to score and the idea Quigg gifted him the fight is a nonsense. 

I don't recall anyone of note scoring it even. 

So you don't think quigg not throwing a punch for 6 rounds was gifting it? He might have lost all 6 had he got on the front foot, but he didn't try and lost rounds to a guy landing a handful of punches who was simply a bit busier.

We get you thought frampton put on a show. Not everyone, even those thinking frampton won easily agrees. Personally I thought he won the fight clearly enough, but looked bang average in doing so. The punch stats were woeful for both fighters and  2 of the judges scored the second half of the fight for quigg while one had it even. Frampton won the first half of the fight sometimes landing only 2 or 3 punches and missing loads. That leaves the door open to someone scoring it different to the consensus... Which is what this thread is about. 

Compubox is compubox,  not a science, and certainly not what to wholly judge a fight on, but the stats don't show a domination or a masterclass.

Carl Froch for one scored it even, that I remember...but he's taken some blows to the head down the years.

I like frampton, always thought he was a classy alrounder, but he's looked a little easy to hit of late and although he rallied in this in the 12th, he was blowing hard through the latter part of the fight in general.

Let's hope it was weight issues, because lsc will expose him if he gasses on Saturday.

If you feel Quigg decided not to throw a punch for six rounds as some sort of tactical gamble, then more fool you. Quigg couldn't get off because Frampton wouldn't let him. The Ulsterman is the better fighter technically, and he remained one step ahead of Quigg through the first six or seven rounds (Quigg just could not get going). 

I don't think Frampton put on a show and certainly haven't mentioned the term "masterclass" (Carl himself will admit he didn't box at his best) - not sre where you're coming from with that?

I do, though, feel that Frampton won handily on the cards - boxed Quigg's ears off at times - and there isn't any way anyone who knows how to judge a fight could score it any other way (again, without trying to p*ss off the posters on here who did just that). The only members of the media who wanted to believe this was close was the Sky Team (as Quigg was the house fighter). That's where you may get a few screwy cards. Everyone else had Frampton winning by 4-6 rounds (he swept the first six and the last before you start looking at the rest of them).

I don't think Frampton will gas on Saturday but I just think LSC's style is difficult for a short fighter to overcome. While everyone raves about his workrate, it's his technique and that straight right that impresses me. Carl will need to land something big - probably against the run of play. 

Classic haz, anyone agreeing with him is informed or an expert. Everyone else is a fool. I called the fight for frampton but wasn't impressed with him. You called it for frampton and thought he put an excellent performance. It's a difference of opinion, both of which are fairly well supported. There's no need for the superior attitude. Most people on here have watched enough boxing to know what a feint is, and to have a basic grasp of controlling range/distance. You (appear) to think frampton's feints and footwork were boxing quigg's ears off, where ii think you need to actually land a bit more and at a greater percentage to do that.

I don't recall suggesting quigg tactically decided not to throw a punch. I said he laid it on a platter by doing nothing. That's actually a commonly held view. You think he couldn't get his punches off, well maybe he should have tried something different. He got his punches off when he decided to chase the fight later. Maybe that was because frampton was blowing a bit... But we don't know because quigg didn't try it earlier.. Quigg, was fighting to orders that werent working because frampton wasn't giving him the opportunities (and/or) he was unable to take them... and didn't vary it until too late. Ie he gave it away by not Trying to vary it earlier. That's my point.

As I said, it might not have worked anyway but he gave away soft rounds. Many think quigg froze. He apparently thought the fight was even because he wasn't getting hit, and his corner was telling him he was doing fine, so he didn't feel the urgency to change.

Truss may be right about some fighters having an innate ability to judge fights, and just do enough - personally I think it's high risk if you're not conclusively winning rounds. Frampton won a round landing 2 punches! He basically won a feinting competition. I thought both fighters were wary and looking for counters not leading and simply nervous of letting anything go.

What was worrying for frampton, especially in terms of tonight's fight was that he lost 4 of the last 6 on a lot of cards, when quigg started chasing the fight, and given the paltry output of the first 6, quigg outlanded frampton in the fight.

There was some reasonable debate on this on this thread at the time:
https://www.606v2.com/t62315-was-frampton-really-that-good-on-saturday-night?highlight=Frampton+quigg

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:The first 6 rounds were like wlad haye. Nothing happened so you give it to the guy looking like he wanted it to happen. I can understand people giving a few of those rounds even.  Then he faded and got outworked for most of the second half. Not everyone saw the masterclass from frampton you did in that fight haz! Aside from the judge that gave it to quigg, a few on press row had it even.

Don't get me wrong, I thought frampton won the fight but he did it by nicking the early rounds. Quigg gifted it, frampton made hard work of accepting the gift. 

I hope he looks stronger and sharper a weight up, or he's in for a tough night in a few weeks time against lsc.

Frampton clearly won the fight - there was daylight between them. Can't remember how I scored it exactly but only gave Quigg a few rounds. It was easy to score and the idea Quigg gifted him the fight is a nonsense. 

I don't recall anyone of note scoring it even. 

So you don't think quigg not throwing a punch for 6 rounds was gifting it? He might have lost all 6 had he got on the front foot, but he didn't try and lost rounds to a guy landing a handful of punches who was simply a bit busier.

We get you thought frampton put on a show. Not everyone, even those thinking frampton won easily agrees. Personally I thought he won the fight clearly enough, but looked bang average in doing so. The punch stats were woeful for both fighters and  2 of the judges scored the second half of the fight for quigg while one had it even. Frampton won the first half of the fight sometimes landing only 2 or 3 punches and missing loads. That leaves the door open to someone scoring it different to the consensus... Which is what this thread is about. 

Compubox is compubox,  not a science, and certainly not what to wholly judge a fight on, but the stats don't show a domination or a masterclass.

Carl Froch for one scored it even, that I remember...but he's taken some blows to the head down the years.

I like frampton, always thought he was a classy alrounder, but he's looked a little easy to hit of late and although he rallied in this in the 12th, he was blowing hard through the latter part of the fight in general.

Let's hope it was weight issues, because lsc will expose him if he gasses on Saturday.

If you feel Quigg decided not to throw a punch for six rounds as some sort of tactical gamble, then more fool you. Quigg couldn't get off because Frampton wouldn't let him. The Ulsterman is the better fighter technically, and he remained one step ahead of Quigg through the first six or seven rounds (Quigg just could not get going). 

I don't think Frampton put on a show and certainly haven't mentioned the term "masterclass" (Carl himself will admit he didn't box at his best) - not sre where you're coming from with that?

I do, though, feel that Frampton won handily on the cards - boxed Quigg's ears off at times - and there isn't any way anyone who knows how to judge a fight could score it any other way (again, without trying to p*ss off the posters on here who did just that). The only members of the media who wanted to believe this was close was the Sky Team (as Quigg was the house fighter). That's where you may get a few screwy cards. Everyone else had Frampton winning by 4-6 rounds (he swept the first six and the last before you start looking at the rest of them).

I don't think Frampton will gas on Saturday but I just think LSC's style is difficult for a short fighter to overcome. While everyone raves about his workrate, it's his technique and that straight right that impresses me. Carl will need to land something big - probably against the run of play. 

Classic haz, anyone agreeing with him is informed or an expert. Everyone else is a fool. I called the fight for frampton but wasn't impressed with him. You called it for frampton and thought he put an excellent performance. It's a difference of opinion, both of which are fairly well supported. There's no need for the superior attitude. Most people on here have watched enough boxing to know what a feint is, and to have a basic grasp of controlling range/distance. You (appear) to think frampton's feints and footwork were boxing quigg's ears off, where ii think you need to actually land a bit more and at a greater percentage to do that.

I don't recall suggesting quigg tactically decided not to throw a punch. I said he laid it on a platter by doing nothing. That's actually a commonly held view. You think he couldn't get his punches off, well maybe he should have tried something different. He got his punches off when he decided to chase the fight later. Maybe that was because frampton was blowing a bit... But we don't know because quigg didn't try it earlier.. Quigg, was fighting to orders that werent working because frampton wasn't giving him the opportunities (and/or) he was unable to take them... and didn't vary it until too late. Ie he gave it away by not Trying to vary it earlier. That's my point.

As I said, it might not have worked anyway but he gave away soft rounds. Many think quigg froze. He apparently thought the fight was even because he wasn't getting hit, and his corner was telling him he was doing fine, so he didn't feel the urgency to change.

Truss may be right about some fighters having an innate ability to judge fights, and just do enough - personally I think it's high risk if you're not conclusively winning rounds. Frampton won a round landing 2 punches! He basically won a feinting competition. I thought both fighters were wary and looking for counters not leading and simply nervous of letting anything go.

What was worrying for frampton, especially in terms of tonight's fight was that he lost 4 of the last 6 on a lot of cards, when quigg started chasing the fight, and given the paltry output of the first 6, quigg outlanded frampton in the fight.

There was some reasonable debate on this on this thread at the time:
https://www.606v2.com/t62315-was-frampton-really-that-good-on-saturday-night?highlight=Frampton+quigg

Bit ridiculous that first crack isn't it? I merely made the point that the idea Quigg forgot to get going, or happily gave away rounds is foolish. You've tied yourself up in knots here a bit, to the extent I don't really know what you're arguing (bit like the time you got yourself all het up arguing over Oscar!) but I think you're contending that a combination of him freezing, being given duff advice and not being able to vary his attacks lead to him "gifting" Frampton rounds? In my book, he was merely outfoxed and contained. Had he opened up more, he'd have been at risk of catching a big shot and/or tiring late (Frampton was struggling with the weight - the idea was always for Quigg to come on late in the fight). Frampton was just a bit too good/too clever for him.

Both Quigg and Frampton were under strict orders not to over commit in the early rounds. Quigg did throw punches (go back and watch the tape) but was made to hit fresh air due to Frampton's movement and judgement of distance. At times, I thought Frampton was superb in the manner he contained Quigg (missing shots can be just as inhibiting to a fighter as landing to minimal effect). Frampton was the one who was looking to make things happen and, crucially, he made Quigg fight his fight.

If you feel I have a "superior attitude" then save yourself the bother of interacting with me. You've put a lot of words in my mouth in this thread (as you tend to whenever we "debate").

If you felt Frampton was poor, good on you (his own trainer agrees). I was arguing that a) the fight wasn't tough to score and b) Quigg didn't gift Frampton rounds. And I'm not sure where your opening gambit comes from? You tried to make the point that it was possible to score the bout for Quigg and cited Carl Froch. Unfortunately, Halling, Watt, Smith and Froch were all pulling for Quigg to win (as they so often do when a house fighter fights). In my book, it was impossible to make a case for Quigg. He won three rounds, tops. Boxing News had it 118-111 (a far more informed, reliable and impartial source than Froch).

Nhazharrison wrote:

Bit ridiculous that first crack isn't it? I merely made the point that the idea Quigg forgot to get going, or happily gave away rounds is foolish. 

You've tied yourself up in knots here a bit, to the extent I don't really know what you're arguing (bit like the time you got yourself all het up arguing over Oscar!) but I think you're contending that a combination of him freezing, being given duff advice and not being able to vary his attacks lead to him "gifting" Frampton rounds? In my book, he was merely outfoxed and contained. Had he opened up more, he'd have been at risk of catching a big shot and/or tiring late (Frampton was struggling with the weight - the idea was always for Quigg to come on late in the fight). Frampton was just a bit too good/too clever for him. 

Both Quigg and Frampton were under strict orders not to over commit in the early rounds. Quigg did throw punches (go back and watch the tape) but was made to hit fresh air due to Frampton's movement and judgement of distance. At times, I thought Frampton was superb in the manner he contained Quigg (missing shots can be just as inhibiting to a fighter as landing to minimal effect). Frampton was the one who was looking to make things happen and, crucially, he made Quigg fight his fight.

If you feel I have a "superior attitude" then save yourself the bother of interacting with me. You've put a lot of words in my mouth in this thread (as you tend to whenever we "debate"). 

If you felt Frampton was poor, good on you (his own trainer agrees). I was arguing that a) the fight wasn't tough to score and b) Quigg didn't gift Frampton rounds. And I'm not sure where your opening gambit comes from? You tried to make the point that it was possible to score the bout for Quigg and cited Carl Froch. Unfortunately, Halling, Watt, Smith and Froch were all pulling for Quigg to win (as they so often do when a house fighter fights). In my book, it was impossible to make a case for Quigg. He won three rounds, tops. Boxing News had it 118-111 (a far more informed, reliable and impartial source than 

So I use the term gifted and you interpret that as me thinking he happily gave away rounds? Rather than 'didn't put up the level of performance one would expect' or 'contributed to his own downfall'... Which are the generically understood interpretations of the expression 'gifted' in a sporting context. But I'm the one tying myself in knots and putting words into people's mouths.

Ah the Oscar thread, the one where opinion was divided who won the debate, with you in one camp and everyone else who commented in the other! Insisting on having the last word is not the same as winning. 

Yes quigg did throw punches... Just Not very many. Stats show it was Frampton whose connection rate was worse, though, he just threw more in those rounds.

You use words like excellent, great, superb, boxed ears off... But I'm putting words in your mouth by implying you think  it was a masterclass? You seem sensitive to being summarised with vocabulary you don't approve of, so Apologies if I  over-egged the  pudding with 'masterclass'.

Where did I say it was possible to score the fight for quigg? Putting words in my mouth again. We're on a thread about fight judging. I said that  a couple of those early rounds so little happened some might call them even. Plenty gave quigg 4 of the last 6. I implied it's possible to have it pretty close without being a complete imbecile.

I was referring to your superior attitude on this thread, I've no problem with you, I've no problem with anyone on here. I come on for chat and banter, and the occasional lengthy debate when I'm in the mood.i don't care who it's with.

I'm done with this one... Over to you for the final word.

milkyboy wrote:

Nhazharrison wrote:

Bit ridiculous that first crack isn't it? I merely made the point that the idea Quigg forgot to get going, or happily gave away rounds is foolish. 

You've tied yourself up in knots here a bit, to the extent I don't really know what you're arguing (bit like the time you got yourself all het up arguing over Oscar!) but I think you're contending that a combination of him freezing, being given duff advice and not being able to vary his attacks lead to him "gifting" Frampton rounds? In my book, he was merely outfoxed and contained. Had he opened up more, he'd have been at risk of catching a big shot and/or tiring late (Frampton was struggling with the weight - the idea was always for Quigg to come on late in the fight). Frampton was just a bit too good/too clever for him. 

Both Quigg and Frampton were under strict orders not to over commit in the early rounds. Quigg did throw punches (go back and watch the tape) but was made to hit fresh air due to Frampton's movement and judgement of distance. At times, I thought Frampton was superb in the manner he contained Quigg (missing shots can be just as inhibiting to a fighter as landing to minimal effect). Frampton was the one who was looking to make things happen and, crucially, he made Quigg fight his fight.

If you feel I have a "superior attitude" then save yourself the bother of interacting with me. You've put a lot of words in my mouth in this thread (as you tend to whenever we "debate"). 

If you felt Frampton was poor, good on you (his own trainer agrees). I was arguing that a) the fight wasn't tough to score and b) Quigg didn't gift Frampton rounds. And I'm not sure where your opening gambit comes from? You tried to make the point that it was possible to score the bout for Quigg and cited Carl Froch. Unfortunately, Halling, Watt, Smith and Froch were all pulling for Quigg to win (as they so often do when a house fighter fights). In my book, it was impossible to make a case for Quigg. He won three rounds, tops. Boxing News had it 118-111 (a far more informed, reliable and impartial source than 

So I use the term gifted and you interpret that as me thinking he happily gave away rounds? Rather than 'didn't put up the level of performance one would expect' or 'contributed to his own downfall'... Which are the generically understood interpretations of the expression 'gifted' in a sporting context. But I'm the one tying myself in knots and putting words into people's mouths.

Ah the Oscar thread, the one where opinion was divided who won the debate, with you in one camp and everyone else who commented in the other! Insisting on having the last word is not the same as winning. 

Yes quigg did throw punches... Just Not very many. Stats show it was Frampton whose connection rate was worse, though, he just threw more in those rounds.

You use words like excellent, great, superb, boxed ears off... But I'm putting words in your mouth by implying you think  it was a masterclass? You seem sensitive to being summarised with vocabulary you don't approve of, so Apologies if I  over-egged the  pudding with 'masterclass'.

Where did I say it was possible to score the fight for quigg? Putting words in my mouth again. We're on a thread about fight judging. I said that  a couple of those early rounds so little happened some might call them even. Plenty gave quigg 4 of the last 6. I implied it's possible to have it pretty close without being a complete imbecile.

I was referring to your superior attitude on this thread, I've no problem with you, I've no problem with anyone on here. I come on for chat and banter, and the occasional lengthy debate when I'm in the mood.i don't care who it's with.

I'm done with this one... Over to you for the final word.

You appeared to suggest Quigg had handed Frampton rounds by simply not trying hard enough (not varying his attacks, not going for it like he did late on - as though that was a conscious choice he could have made). I merely contended that Frampton didn't let Quigg throw punches. He did exactly the same with LSC tonight.

I said that Frampton looked superb AT TIMES against Quigg (which he did). It certainly wasn't a masterclass, and I never suggested it was. His judgement of timing and distance was superb. It was even better tonight.

And I maintain that the Quigg fight wasn't close. It was a clear win for Frampton. I wouldn't label anyone an imbecile for judging it otherwise. Not everyone can judge a fight. If that's me being "superior" then, whatever. It is what it is.

Not sure if anyone seen the Michael Conlon fight this afternoon but it was one of the biggest robberies in Olympic boxing history, some saying it's the biggest since RJJ in 1988. Conlon bashed his opponent for three rounds and was shafted beyond belief. His post fight interview has now gone viral.

http://www.joe.ie/sport/watch-michael-conlan-post-fight-interview/556825

Looks like it's not just pro boxing suffering from poor judges. They've also moved from the points method to 10-9 rounds for this Olympics however if anything it's got worse. There's been several complaints from nations competing that Russia have bought a cabal of judges. The Russian heavyweight last night also got a gift decision with the crowd booing when the decison was announced.

That Conlan decision is getting some serious backlash!

Is it really a surprise though.

I can't say im surprised to see fights being fixed by corrupt judges anymore.

Paddy Power paying out for Conlon win, despite the loss:

Paddy Power ✔ @paddypower
Incredible post-fight interview from Michael Conlan... #Olympics #boxing pic.twitter.com/MYcPxjxN0d
Follow
Paddy Power ✔ @paddypower
We're paying out on Michael Conlan to win #Gold at #Rio2016 & to win his fight today against Nikitin after that shocking decision. #Justice

Really disappointed for Conlon. Levit was also robbed in his fight v Tishchenko.

More accusations of Russian corruption ....

Russia shouldn't be there......Evidence of a State sponsored drug program...

Geez what else do you need to be expelled..

Sorry for Conlon but he could have conducted himself better...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Russia shouldn't be there......Evidence of a State sponsored drug program...

Geez what else do you need to be expelled..

Sorry for Conlon but he could have conducted himself better...

I don't like swearing, myself, but have been prone to the occasional outburst if anger got the better of me. Conlon could have handled his post match interview a bit better, but his frustration is understandable. He had just been robbed of a Gold that he sacrificed much for.

Nothing will change the results now, but hopefully Conlons outburst will provoke an independent inquiry into allegations of corrupt judges.

There was no point in him conducting himself better really Trussman. Sure it wasn't polite to hear but it was better then people knuckling under and accepting being screwed over instead of bringing it to eyes of the mainstream media like he has. Which should now push AIBA into doing something instead of sitting back counting their $$$ bills hopefully.

So the AIBA have released a statement in which one part of it says "Sometimes they’ve (judges) lost concentration, we have had 230 bouts.”

So taking the Chief Wiggum defence, “We can’t be expected to ‘police’ the whole town"

Pedro147 wrote:So the AIBA have released a statement in which one part of it says "Sometimes they’ve (judges) lost concentration, we have had 230 bouts.”

So taking the Chief Wiggum defence, “We can’t be expected to ‘police’ the whole town"

What a lame excuse. There are only three rounds to judge. Are we expected to believe all three judges "lost concentration"? It's not as if those judges have judged 230 bouts either!

Boxing is about clean punches

You use the others If you can't split them

On the conolan fight

A lot of people are split on whether it's a straight out robbery unlike the heavyweight final

I've heard it's subjective but haven't watched it yet

By all accounts the HW fight was a bigger robbery.

Funny that both beneficiaries were Ruskies....should never have been there and probably the most blatantly corrupt nation in the world.

f**k amateur boxing. Have no, nor ever had any real interest in it. Pro 12 round fights is where it's at.

Pedro147 wrote:So the AIBA have released a statement in which one part of it says "Sometimes they’ve (judges) lost concentration, we have had 230 bouts.”

So taking the Chief Wiggum defence, “We can’t be expected to ‘police’ the whole town"

Have they actually said that? That is horrendous. They might as well say we don't do a good job and you can't appeal so deal with it.

I very rarely watch the Olympic boxing due to corrupt judging and refereeing. I remember watching a fight from 2008 I think it was where one guy completely gassed early in the last round and just held the other fighter continuously well after the referee said break, fell to the floor a few times and was never penalised and spat has gum shield out with no penalty. With the old scoring system he had 3 or 4 shot lead and that was enough for him to cheat his way through the last round.

bellchees wrote:

Pedro147 wrote:So the AIBA have released a statement in which one part of it says "Sometimes they’ve (judges) lost concentration, we have had 230 bouts.”

So taking the Chief Wiggum defence, “We can’t be expected to ‘police’ the whole town"

Have they actually said that? That is horrendous. They might as well say we don't do a good job and you can't appeal so deal with it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/37104949

bellchees wrote:

Pedro147 wrote:So the AIBA have released a statement in which one part of it says "Sometimes they’ve (judges) lost concentration, we have had 230 bouts.”

So taking the Chief Wiggum defence, “We can’t be expected to ‘police’ the whole town"

Have they actually said that? That is horrendous. They might as well say we don't do a good job and you can't appeal so deal with it.

I very rarely watch the Olympic boxing due to corrupt judging and refereeing. I remember watching a fight from 2008 I think it was where one guy completely gassed early in the last round and just held the other fighter continuously well after the referee said break, fell to the floor a few times and was never penalised and spat has gum shield out with no penalty. With the old scoring system he had 3 or 4 shot lead and that was enough for him to cheat his way through the last round.

I prefer this scoring system to the old system......Where judges had to agree on punches landing etc.....Good work was being ignored..

The system they have now should mean the boxer dominating the round wins it..

You can't legislate for crooks or bad judges.....

Russia shouldn't be there............

There’s also a lot of controversy over the ‘Magnificent 7’ judges. These are the only judges with a 5 star rating in the world (amateur boxing) and they are the ones who decide who referees fights and what judges are appointed to fights. The rumour for some time has been that these 7 judges are being ‘swayed’ to make decisions for certain countries.

Like I put in the OP..........Muddying the waters with different categories for judges to score on gives bad/corrupt judges a way out......

If you just scored on who was the most effective they'd find it harder to argue their case..

The judges from the heavyweight final and the Conlon fight have been stood down apparently.

You couldn’t make this up;

"Unconfirmed reports suggest that Russian boxer Vladimir Nitikin will withdraw from the Olympic semi-final following injuries sustained in his hugely controversial victory over Michael Conlan on Tuesday.

Nitikin had been due to face Shakur Stevenson of the USA in the men’s bantamweight semi-final on Thursday but reports from Rio de Janeiro suggest he is not fit to fight due to injuries sustained in a bruising encounter with Conlan on Tuesday."

Hmmm

Well guess conlans punches really busted him up