How 'Badly' Have You Scored a Fight?

Following on from Trussman's thread on the scoring system and the issues raised over corrupt judges and so on, have you ever scored a fight completly differently to the majority?

I'm not talking about a round or two either way that meant you had one fighter winning by a point opposed to losing but a score that was completely left field to everyone else?

I watched the Manny v Floyd fight with my friend. I can't remember what rounds I'd scored but after 6 rounds I'd Floyd 4-2 up and I had him winning the last 6 rounds 4-2 as well. However, my friend had it the opposite with Manny winning 8-4 on his card. I just couldn't see how he scored it like that. So the next day I went down to him and we chatted about it again and how we scored it. We agreed to watch and score the fight again but didn't tell each other what rounds we'd scored to who until it was over. We both scored it the exact same as we had it the night before which is good going as we were pretty high and drunk watching it live. My friend is more of a casual fan than me but he boxed for a few years when he was younger so understands boxing more than just a regular Joe.

I thought Hopkins clearly beat Joe. Was not the best scoring, but was well oiled at the time.

Haven't rewatched it, but I had Pacquiao 115-114 over Floyd.
Also scored Porter Brook to Porter by two or three.

Not quite related, but I was scoring Canelo-Trout again, and I had Canelo up a point after eight. Luckily the WBC informed Trout that he was in the middle of attending a masterclass and it was tough to score the fight after the ninth because you knew both fighters were fighting with the screwjob, I mean fix, I mean cards in

Had Sturm beating Macklin. Valuev beating Haye comfortably and Hopkins beating Taylor twice. But there were plenty who agreed with me on these even if it wasnt the majority.

The really strange one I have and nobody agrees with is Sakio Bika beating Calzaghe. Still cant see what Calzaghe is doing that is supposedly winning him round after round

I think the fights with little action seem to be the ones people disagree on. I find I score most Mayweather fights different to most people, all very well making someone miss but you need to do something yourself as well to win a round. Had a few of his fights a lot closer than most.

Also I watched Calzaghe vs Kessler and then vs Hopkins a while ago and scored Kessler a lot closer than the Hopkins fight, most people are the other way round.

AdamT wrote:I thought Hopkins clearly beat Joe. Was not the best scoring, but was well oiled at the time.

I had Hopkins beating Calzaghe, scored straight ignoring the heap of BS Bernard put on that night

Ref was a joke so I won't complain to loudly about it

Thought May Pac was way closer, draw or either man by a small margin

Thought Porter beat Thurman

Thought McDonnell clearly beat Kameda, it wasn't even close in the second fight

I thought Selby vs Hunter was closer than the scorecards suggested

Pacquiao whooped Bradley in the first fight, that was clear as day robbery

Thought Cotto beat Alvarez by a few points

Thought Dirrell beat Froch in a close decision, but I won't complain as Dirrell did a whole load of BS

BoxingFan88 wrote:I had Hopkins beating Calzaghe, scored straight ignoring the heap of BS Bernard put on that night

Ref was a joke so I won't complain to loudly about it

Thought May Pac was way closer, draw or either man by a small margin

Thought Porter beat Thurman

Thought McDonnell clearly beat Kameda, it wasn't even close in the second fight

I thought Selby vs Hunter was closer than the scorecards suggested

Pacquiao whooped Bradley in the first fight, that was clear as day robbery

Thought Cotto beat Alvarez by a few points

Thought Dirrell beat Froch in a close decision, but I won't complain as Dirrell did a whole load of BS

Me to and I certainly scored Floyd a much bigger winner than the judges.

Strangely enough I had Porter Thurman to Porter by one round. If anything the fight made me reassess Thurman. I think he's vastly overrated and I'd pick Brook to bear him. I think it was simply for the fact that Porter was wild that it played in Thurman's favour with the judges.

I had a few that surprised me:

Marquez 116-112 Pacquiao in the 3rd fight
Richard Abril 117-111 Rios

I also had Lamont Peterson 115-113 Danny Garcia.

Floyd 118-110 Canelo but one judge had it 114-114 I think?!

Maybe my scoring of the above fights is just me being too drunk....either that or a case of "boxing politics"

Anyone watching the box nation card??? That Flanagan is utter toss. Tuned in, watched the first 7 rounds and though who the hell are these...then found out...and genuinely couldn't believe it.

Is he A world champ?!!

I'm not sure anyone so far apart from lance has picked fights where their scores were  dramatically different from the majority. Most have picked examples of disagreeing with judges in controversially scored or difficult to score fights.

I had Alexander Matthysse very close. Many had it a shut out for Matthysse.

Think rios vs abril is universally recognised as a robbery

milkyboy wrote:I'm not sure anyone so far apart from lance has picked fights where their scores were  dramatically different from the majority. Most have picked examples of disagreeing with judges in controversially scored or difficult to score fights.

I had Alexander Matthysse very close. Many had it a shut out for Matthysse.

I had Judah beating Matthysse by a round and again that fight was for a while seen as a bad decision.

There are a few decisions generally seen by the majority as highway jobs which I’ve not really understood the controversy over and actually agreed (more or less) with the maligned judges.

The most notable one was the first Bradley-Pacquaio fight, which I had plenty of back and forth with some of you guys over at the time. Watching it live it soon dawned on me that I was watching a totally different fight to everyone else who was commenting on the live thread; they saw Pacquiao busting Bradley up and overwhelming him, I saw a low-quality fight with neither man landing much as Pacquiao flattered to deceive with ineffective and off-target flurries usually towards the end of a round to try and nick it, while Bradley just looked to accumulate points with a stick and move job during Manny’s lulls in activity. Got an absolute kicking (which I’m willing to concede I might have deserved given how out of step I was with everyone!) for saying I had it 115-114 to Bradley after the final bell sounded, and when the verdict was announced….Dayumn. Most of the talk was about it being the worst decision people had ever seen, how the decision needed overturning, how the verdict was going to be the death knell for the sport etc.

Anyway, I convinced myself that I must have just had a ‘mare on the night and that my lack of enjoyment of the fight had caused sloppiness in my scoring of it, so a few days later I watched it again – and basically came to the same conclusion. Think I had Manny edging it that time, but my basic belief remained the same, that it was a dull, scrappy fight in which neither guy really performed and which could have gone either way, but by no more than a point or so. Watched it yet again in the build up to their first rematch a couple of years later and again couldn’t see what the fuss was about. Hey ho, guess it’ll always just be one of those oddities from my point of view.

I’ve also never agreed that Witherspoon-Holmes was a robbery, which puts me in a minority. Holmes outfought him and both times I’ve scored it I’ve had Larry winning by a couple. ‘Spoon should have taken it in some respects, because stylistically he had the wood on Holmes and Larry was starting to look a little there for the taking, but I can’t give Tim rounds for that nice Philly shell defence alone, and he should have kicked himself all the way back to the City of Brotherly Love for taking his foot off the gas after he’d hurt Holmes in round nine.

Going a long way back, but the Willie Pastrano-Harold Johnson fight is of the same ilk, for me. Generally seen as a historically bad decision which robbed Johnson of a) the limelight he deserved as Light-Heavyweight champion having only just stepped out of Archie Moore’s shadow, and b) an overdue big pay day against Liston for the Heavyweight title (Sonny was in ringside attendance to size up his assumed next opponent). I thought Pastrano controlled the range with that beautiful footwork of his and took the play away from Johnson, a natural counter puncher himself, to the point where Harold didn’t know how to approach the fight and solve the puzzle. Wonderful fight, though.

Also, does anyone else think like me that Juan Laporte just about beat Julio Cesar Chavez? Granted, it was hard to score and close all the way (hence one judge scoring it 117-117, I believe, meaning he scored six of the twelve rounds even) but you never really hear anyone saying that Laporte has a claim based on actually outmuscling and out-toughing Chavez, which I think he definitely has. How one judge had it so wide to Chavez is beyond me.

88Chris05 wrote:There are a few decisions generally seen by the majority as highway jobs which I’ve not really understood the controversy over and actually agreed (more or less) with the maligned judges.

The most notable one was the first Bradley-Pacquaio fight, which I had plenty of back and forth with some of you guys over at the time. Watching it live it soon dawned on me that I was watching a totally different fight to everyone else who was commenting on the live thread; they saw Pacquiao busting Bradley up and overwhelming him, I saw a low-quality fight with neither man landing much as Pacquiao flattered to deceive with ineffective and off-target flurries usually towards the end of a round to try and nick it, while Bradley just looked to accumulate points with a stick and move job during Manny’s lulls in activity. Got an absolute kicking (which I’m willing to concede I might have deserved given how out of step I was with everyone!) for saying I had it 115-114 to Bradley after the final bell sounded, and when the verdict was announced….Dayumn. Most of the talk was about it being the worst decision people had ever seen, how the decision needed overturning, how the verdict was going to be the death knell for the sport etc.

Anyway, I convinced myself that I must have just had a ‘mare on the night and that my lack of enjoyment of the fight had caused sloppiness in my scoring of it, so a few days later I watched it again – and basically came to the same conclusion. Think I had Manny edging it that time, but my basic belief remained the same, that it was a dull, scrappy fight in which neither guy really performed and which could have gone either way, but by no more than a point or so. Watched it yet again in the build up to their first rematch a couple of years later and again couldn’t see what the fuss was about. Hey ho, guess it’ll always just be one of those oddities from my point of view.

I’ve also never agreed that Witherspoon-Holmes was a robbery, which puts me in a minority. Holmes outfought him and both times I’ve scored it I’ve had Larry winning by a couple. ‘Spoon should have taken it in some respects, because stylistically he had the wood on Holmes and Larry was starting to look a little there for the taking, but I can’t give Tim rounds for that nice Philly shell defence alone, and he should have kicked himself all the way back to the City of Brotherly Love for taking his foot off the gas after he’d hurt Holmes in round nine.

Going a long way back, but the Willie Pastrano-Harold Johnson fight is of the same ilk, for me. Generally seen as a historically bad decision which robbed Johnson of a) the limelight he deserved as Light-Heavyweight champion having only just stepped out of Archie Moore’s shadow, and b) an overdue big pay day against Liston for the Heavyweight title (Sonny was in ringside attendance to size up his assumed next opponent). I thought Pastrano controlled the range with that beautiful footwork of his and took the play away from Johnson, a natural counter puncher himself, to the point where Harold didn’t know how to approach the fight and solve the puzzle. Wonderful fight, though.

Also, does anyone else think like me that Juan Laporte just about beat Julio Cesar Chavez? Granted, it was hard to score and close all the way (hence one judge scoring it 117-117, I believe, meaning he scored six of the twelve rounds even) but you never really hear anyone saying that Laporte has a claim based on actually outmuscling and out-toughing Chavez, which I think he definitely has. How one judge had it so wide to Chavez is beyond me.

You should go watch Pacquiao vs Bradley again using the HBO link

Bradley didn't win a single round until the 8th IMO, I would really like to know why you gave Bradley rounds, being on the back foot doing nothing doesn't award you points

Can't say I've got any inclination to ever watch that fight again, BF88, regardless of what broadcaster's version it is (although for what it's worth, as I tend to do for a lot of big fights I watched it on silent all three times). I don't really feel any need to try and win people over to my way of thinking on it largely because their two subsequent fights showed who the better, dominant fighter was and thus greatly reduced any significance that the first verdict might have had.

If one guy is mostly on the front foot and the other mostly on the back, but both are essentially doing little, I don't necessarily think the front footer has to be given the round by default. When Pacquiao successfully managed to turn up the heat and get Bradley engaging at close quarters, it's true that Bradley didn't really have the answers. But the way I saw it at the time, Pacquiao often left these salvos to the dying moments of a round, and while some were successful, he was hitting a lot of thin air in many of them. It was turgid stuff from Bradley, just using the perfunctory jab and his foot speed to make it a stick and move job, but in a fight which had so many poor, low-key rounds that was enough, in my eyes, to just about get him home in some of them - particularly in the rounds where Pacquiao missed with most of his late flurries having spent the previous 2 minutes and 40 seconds just following Bradley around.

Honestly, I tried upon the second and third viewing to understand the highway robbery talk, but no point in lying about how I saw it, I guess. For whatever reason it's just one of those fights I saw differently to the masses. Fortunately Manny put the record straight a couple of times over to leave everyone more or less satisfied on the Bradley-Pacquiao issue.

No one has ever said Holmes Witherspoon was a robbery....Majority had Tim winning though...Out-fought my arse..

Holmes was the only fighter close to being taken out in that fight..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Holmes was the only fighter close to being taken out in that fight..

Yep, in one round, Truss. The ninth. In the rest of the fight I felt Holmes pulled it out and outworked / outfought Tim. Couldn't get his jab going so had to rely on straight rights and body work, but did enough to hold on to his title, for me. Can't make a case for Witherspoon personally although it was a close and very competitive one.

If Holmes did get away with a bad one in his title reign, then it was against Williams for me rather than Witherspoon. The Williams fight was another rare case of Holmes losing the jabbing exchanges and needing to grit his way through with body shots and his right cross, but that time I don't think he did enough to win. Williams hard done by, for me.

I also scored Pac v Bradley 1 to Bradley. Watched it again a few days later and still gave it to Bradley. Didn't see the problem but that's why they have 3 judges.

Took me years to score Oscar v Floyd to Floyd but I got there in the end. Found Hopkins v Calzaghe relatively easy to score to Joe, never seen the issue there.

88Chris05 wrote:Can't say I've got any inclination to ever watch that fight again, BF88, regardless of what broadcaster's version it is (although for what it's worth, as I tend to do for a lot of big fights I watched it on silent all three times). I don't really feel any need to try and win people over to my way of thinking on it largely because their two subsequent fights showed who the better, dominant fighter was and thus greatly reduced any significance that the first verdict might have had.

If one guy is mostly on the front foot and the other mostly on the back, but both are essentially doing little, I don't necessarily think the front footer has to be given the round by default. When Pacquiao successfully managed to turn up the heat and get Bradley engaging at close quarters, it's true that Bradley didn't really have the answers. But the way I saw it at the time, Pacquiao often left these salvos to the dying moments of a round, and while some were successful, he was hitting a lot of thin air in many of them. It was turgid stuff from Bradley, just using the perfunctory jab and his foot speed to make it a stick and move job, but in a fight which had so many poor, low-key rounds that was enough, in my eyes, to just about get him home in some of them - particularly in the rounds where Pacquiao missed with most of his late flurries having spent the previous 2 minutes and 40 seconds just following Bradley around.

Honestly, I tried upon the second and third viewing to understand the highway robbery talk, but no point in lying about how I saw it, I guess. For whatever reason it's just one of those fights I saw differently to the masses. Fortunately Manny put the record straight a couple of times over to leave everyone more or less satisfied on the Bradley-Pacquiao issue.

But Chris, you don't understand. You need to watch it again until you conform. Think of it like waterboarding. Eventually they'll break you.

For what it's worth (not much obviously) I thought manny won, but I didn't see the dominating masterclass many seemed to. It wasn't Whittaker Ramirez for me.

The commentary point is interesting.

Take kameda McDonnell 2, BF88 mentioned earlier. In the uk we had a US commentator on hbo international who thought McDonnell pitched a shut out. In the US, on their broadcast, Virgil hunter and Paulie were calling it wide for Kameda.

Almost Everyone in the states thought it was a robbery, whilst everyone in the uk thought McDonnell won easily. But hey we all have free independent minds and are immune to outside influence.

Have to say, I think hunter and Paulie were on acid. One flashy combination per round doesn't offset 3 minutes of eating less showy leather. I had McDonnell wide, but maybe I'm just a sheep too. Baaaa.

milkyboy wrote:The commentary point is interesting.

Take kameda McDonnell 2, BF88 mentioned earlier. In the uk we had a US commentator on hbo international who thought McDonnell pitched a shut out. In the US, on their broadcast, Virgil hunter and Paulie were calling it wide for Kameda.

Almost Everyone in the states thought it was a robbery, whilst everyone in the uk thought McDonnell won easily. But hey we all have free independent minds and are immune to outside influence.

Have to say, I think hunter and Paulie were on acid. One flashy combination per round doesn't offset 3 minutes of eating less showy leather. I had McDonnell wide, but maybe I'm just a sheep too. Baaaa.

They got badly swayed by the commentators, I wasn't listening to the commentary, as my friend and I were discussing the action as it unfolded

Think the US wanted to make it look like Kameda won

88Chris05 wrote:

Also, does anyone else think like me that Juan Laporte just about beat Julio Cesar Chavez? Granted, it was hard to score and close all the way (hence one judge scoring it 117-117, I believe, meaning he scored six of the twelve rounds even) but you never really hear anyone saying that Laporte has a claim based on actually outmuscling and out-toughing Chavez, which I think he definitely has. How one judge had it so wide to Chavez is beyond me.

It was a close fight been thirty years since I watched it.........Always remember a great preview of the Chavez v Laporte fight....They were saying how the young Mexican champ was great at throwing his opponents off their gameplan and that it would be a bit hard to do against Laporte who usually entered the ring not knowing what the hell he was gonna do... .....Loved the nitty gritty of the Pedrosa fight too though it stunk otherwise......another close fight.....

There were better fighters than Juan but there weren't any harder or more game....What a CV too.....Sanchez, Nelson, Gomez, Lockridge, Mcguigan, Chavez, Tszyu, Molina....and he went the distance with all of them !!!!!!!!

One of the few that thought Camacho did enough to beat Rosario......

Calzaghe beat Hopkns who had to crawl around like a dog feigning a low blow coz he couldn't live with the Welshman's workrate. Simple as that really.  Never wins that fight Hopkins

Point I'm trying to make is sometimes we see things we want to see.

I had money on Hopkins and chose to ignore Hopkins crawling around on all fours like a nonce even though it was obvious he was acting. Surely he would have lost even wider if he hadn't taken that rest.