Macklin was robbed

First topic message reminder :

Matthew Macklin outworked, outfought, hurt Felix Sturm throughout the fight and deserved the fight, he wasn't in trouble at all until the final 20 seconds of the 12th round. Typical Germany, like Ritchie Woodhall said Macklin won the fight UD by 2 rounds and that was being generous, 4 rounds he won by imo.

How is a WUM like southpaw still tolerated on these boards. People have been banned for far less.

Which controversial things have I ever said out of interest?

I've not seen the fight Tino, but I think what was implied by judges having to explain themselves is the margin by which they scored the fight, rather than the actual result. Not as bad as the Tillemann card in Froch-Kessler, the Japanese(?) judge at Froch-Johnson or the female judge at Malignaggi-Diaz I.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:How is a WUM like southpaw still tolerated on these boards. People have been banned for far less.

That, m'boy, is slander...

Woodhalls comments afterwards were ludicrous
...........................
I thought they were right his comments, Macklin won the fight hands down, the Americans gave him it, he outlanded Sturm, if it was in Ireland, UK, America, Macklin's the WBA champ imo. Like he said Macklin won by 2 rounds and that's been generous to Sturm, spot on.

How is a WUM like southpaw still tolerated on these boards. People have been banned for far less.
..................
Never been a wum in my life, i'm unbelievably fair with every fighter, and are a quality poster. You just swear though, don't you? yeah i thought so as well.

Young_Towzer wrote:How is a WUM like southpaw still tolerated on these boards. People have been banned for far less.
..................
Never been a wum in my life, i'm unbelievably fair with every fighter, and are a quality poster. You just swear though, don't you? yeah i thought so as well.

If you say so...

Have you seen the quote button? Saves time.

Which controversial things have I ever said out of interest?
...........
You said, lets not go there, so i won't go there.

If you say so...

Have you seen the quote button? Saves time.
...................
Have you seen the no swearing rule?
Save bans.

Easy way out but i'm now genuinely interested

Young_Towzer wrote:If you say so...

Have you seen the quote button? Saves time.
...................
Have you seen the no swearing rule?
Save bans.

I dont swear. WUM.

Cool it down please fellas, clearly a few here being affected by the heat on such a glorious day!

A few instances of the pot calling the kettle black, too, so I'm going to lock this for 10 minutes why you all go and get yourselves a refreshment or two..

Ok guys unlocked again, but please give the insults a rest, and actually discuss the topic at hand.

If it deteriorates into the above again then it will be locked for good.

Thanks

Fists

Ok guys unlocked again, but please give the insults a rest, and actually discuss the topic at hand.

If it deteriorates into the above again then it will be locked for good.

Thanks

Fists
.............................
i won't respond to imperial wumming anyway, he said don't go there so i won't. And Lumbering Jack - doesn't he just swear? mmm i thought so.

Towzer; that IS a response of sorts...

Would still be interested to know how i'm a WUM?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Would still be interested to know how i'm a WUM?

I'd of (sic) thought it was obvious. FACT. End of. LOL.

Seems the news is buzzing that Sturm's offered a rematch. Wonder if that comes to fruition.

BALTIMORA wrote:
Seems the news is buzzing that Sturm's offered a rematch. Wonder if that comes to fruition.

Splendid idea.

Let's all discuss that, shall we ?

Despite not really being bothered about Macklin I'm genuinely interested in seeing what comes of this because we all know too well that these things are often said after fights, only for unforseen monetary and contractual 'issues' to suddenly pop up.

Have to say that, if Sturm is sincere about this, he has just shot up in my estimation. Very honourable gesture.

It is, and I think generally the actual fighters are the guys who are most likely to be genuine about such offers. The problem lies with the men behind the scenes. I guess if a rematch makes financial sense and Sturm's team are confident they can build on this performance, it'll perhaps happen. Time will tell I suppose.

Considering the whole De La Hoya debacle it does seem decent of Sturm to offer a rematch after all he was on the receiving end of one of the worst decisions i've ever seen so can probably understand Macklins frustration better than most.

HumanWindmill wrote:Have to say that, if Sturm is sincere about this, he has just shot up in my estimation. Very honourable gesture.

I wouldn't go back over there if i was Macklin. It's a good gesture in terms of he doesn't have to do it, but it's also what he should do imo windy. I just don't see the point in going back there to lose on points again, i don't think Macklin will box better than he did last night and won't stop Sturm, i originally thought he could however.

I can't see how macklin takes it in a rematch. Sturm underestimated macklin. He also probably though that he was the lighter hitter, but he may feel like he can exchange with macklin as I thought he looked more powerful. He will get his jab going and try to draw the fight into the 2nd half of the fight as macklin couldn't keep up a high pace. I can't see macklin becoming a heavy enough hitter over the next few months to stop sturm or truly hurt him

Young_Towzer wrote:Woodhalls comments afterwards were ludicrous
...........................
I thought they were right his comments, Macklin won the fight hands down, the Americans gave him it, he outlanded Sturm, if it was in Ireland, UK, America, Macklin's the WBA champ imo. Like he said Macklin won by 2 rounds and that's been generous to Sturm, spot on.

So what if the American's gave it to Macklin. Two of the judges didn't. Utterly irrelevant comment. Macklin didn't win the fight "hands down" did he? If it were that clear cut, we would be discussing Matthew's first defense of his title wouldn't we? As it is, there is still no agreement on this thread as to who won. It was a close fight and and on another night, could have gone Macklin's way, but it didn't.

I usually think Woodhall comes across quite well but he let himself down yesterday.

BALTIMORA wrote:I've not seen the fight Tino, but I think what was implied by judges having to explain themselves is the margin by which they scored the fight, rather than the actual result. Not as bad as the Tillemann card in Froch-Kessler, the Japanese(?) judge at Froch-Johnson or the female judge at Malignaggi-Diaz I.

I agree Balti, the cards were a touch wide and in that respect I understand where the poster is coming from, but it was hardly a Eugenia Williams card or anything along those lines. No need for a public lynching or investigation.

I think the less said about Roger Tillerman the better! Either corrupt or incompetent. Doesn't reflect well either on him either way.

[quote="Mind the windows Tino."]

BALTIMORA wrote:I've not seen the fight Tino, but I think what was implied by judges having to explain themselves is the margin by which they scored the fight, rather than the actual result. Not as bad as the Tillemann card in Froch-Kessler, the Japanese(?) judge at Froch-Johnson or the female judge at Malignaggi-Diaz I.

what you haven't seen the fight but don't think the judges should have to explain themselves, man that's some bad judgment!. I think the judging was laughable, but i seen the fight and watched it again, i have it 3 or 4 rounds Macklin, you can't keep the title by being as lazy as he was last night.

Well at least it wasn't quite as bad as an Ottke fight. Sturm would have been gifted a 5-6 round UD if that was the case...

[quote="Young_Towzer"]

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:I've not seen the fight Tino, but I think what was implied by judges having to explain themselves is the margin by which they scored the fight, rather than the actual result. Not as bad as the Tillemann card in Froch-Kessler, the Japanese(?) judge at Froch-Johnson or the female judge at Malignaggi-Diaz I.

what you haven't seen the fight but don't think the judges should have to explain themselves, man that's some bad judgment!. I think the judging was laughable, but i seen the fight and watched it again, i have it 3 or 4 rounds Macklin, you can't keep the title by being as lazy as he was last night.

Far be it from me to speak for Baltimora, but why should they explain themselves? It just simply wasn't that controversial. Surely you can grasp that concept? You scored it to Macklin, I thought Sturm edged it. You don't have some sort of overriding opinion on the fight. You could take the comments from Chris and the Captain as perfect examples. Both are exceptionally knowledgeable posters and both had different winners, as did two of the three judges. It was a hard fight to score, but to claim the judges need to explain anything is so far off the mark.

i know i don't have an overriding opinion, and neither do you. I think it's wrong to comment on a fight you NEVER seen, it's ludicrous. I'm an 'exceptionally knowledgeable poster' as well, without a doubt

Your right up there with the captain, Chris, Windy, Tino and Jeff when it comes to boxing knowledge Southpaw i'll give you that

Having watched the fight had it Macklin by two rounds but can see how Sturm could have got the fight, was the more accurate and cleaner puncher but in no way was it a robbery. Rematch I expect Sturm to win more comfortably although think he only really has Martinez left

Very close fight; no-one can really cry over it being scored 2 rounds one way or the other.

Fair play to Sturm for offering an immediate rematch. Honourable, decent thing to do and not just another German 'homer.'

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Your right up there with the captain, Chris, Windy, Tino and Jeff when it comes to boxing knowledge Southpaw i'll give you that

Having watched the fight had it Macklin by two rounds but can see how Sturm could have got the fight, was the more accurate and cleaner puncher but in no way was it a robbery. Rematch I expect Sturm to win more comfortably although think he only really has Martinez left

Thats very kind Ghosty but I certainly don't belong in their company.

Completely agree with your point here. Macklin was far better than I thought he was capable of and think Sturm must have been taken aback slightly by Matthew's relentlessness. But, and it is a big but, if they do rematch each other, I fully expect Sturm to deal with Macklin with much more ease. I can't imagine Macklin can perform any better than that, whilst I believe Sturm most certainly can. I hope Macklin does get another shot, but I guess if Sturm can land a fight with Martinez then this will be the gig.

Would have loved to see Matthew Macklin win the title. An all-Ireland middleweight title fight with Andy Lee would have been on the cards.

Was more dissapointed with the scoring of 116-112 by 2 of the judges as I had Matthew by a round, maybe 2 tops but understandable that he didn't get the decision as when challenging for the title I think you have to be 3 or 4 rounds better to get the nod. Allied with the fight being in Germany, he just didn't do quite enough and seemed to tire as the fight went on.

Is there one of the boards that announce the scores during the fight, e.g. after 3, 6, 9 and 12 rounds? I'm sure I remember that from somewhere and in my opinion it should mean less controversial decisions.

mort- thats a whole different can of worms, think its usually the WBC who do that and can result in fighters just giving up ala peter v klitscho

Mort the WBC were doing it some time ago but hopefully it has died a death, it was never very popular with fans as it sucks all the drama out of a fight

I understand about the drama aspect as you could have a situation where a fighter knows he just has to avoid the knock out to win but then at least it lets the other fella know what he has to do.

Maybe the scores could be given to the ref or someone else at the end of each round (maybe that does happen) so that in a tight fight, a judge can't make an alteration to an earlier round to suit the decision he wants to make.

they can still call the rounds wrong though, imagine in very volitile places where judges are giving rounds to the away fighter. its putting alot of pressure on said judges and also with some idiot fans putting there health at risk.

it can work where a fighter pushed for the win but if he's miles behind then sometimes it just disheartens. sameul peter looked up seen he had lost every round and decided he had enough beating, cant really blame him he was never going to win

Calling the scores as the fight progresses is a rubbish idea.

compelling and rich wrote:it can work where a fighter pushed for the win but if he's miles behind then sometimes it just disheartens. sameul peter looked up seen he had lost every round and decided he had enough beating, cant really blame him he was never going to win

Oh yes I remember that fight now. think that was the only time I seen that type of scoring done in a fight and thought it interesting although the ending wasn't great as Peter knew he was beat.

BALTIMORA wrote:Calling the scores as the fight progresses is a rubbish idea.

Just an idea. Think there does need to be a way where scoring is transparent even if as fans and fighters, we don't get to see them during the match but that something should be done to make decisions less controversial. But then I suppose thats one of the things people like about boxing.

The decision at the weekend was by no means the worst and in fact it could have went either way. There have been many worse decisions that could have benefitted from a different way of scoring rather than 3 judges who can see things vastly different. For instance, Daniel Geale beat Sebastian Sylvester by split decision in May. One judge gave in 118-110 to Slyvester with the others giving it 118-110 and 118-112 to Geale. How someone can see something so differently from others surely means there must be a better way.

i think in general they need to raise the level of judging, terrible judging should be punished. (judging at weekend was bad to have it four rounds but certainly wasnt the worse). britains judges arnt much better imo, you only have to look at the fuss made after the tyson fury v mcdermott 1 and he's often sat judging fights still.

more transparenty would be helpful, perhaps if they showed the full card after fights have been made. a independent viewer to watch the marking of cards to make sure there no changes etc would all help but with all the different govering bodies theres no one to force these things to happen. we need a board who can control the seperate goverining bodies and not let them get away with all the rubbish they do

britains judges arnt much better imo, you only have to look at the fuss made after the tyson fury v mcdermott 1 and he's often sat judging fights still.
_______________________________________________________

Agree with this, does make me laugh when people go on about how bad things are in Germany, am sure the guy who fought Tom Dallas a few weeks ago, Zach something would have plenty to say aobut the quality of British judging as he got on the wrong end of an absolutely shameful decision.

Reality is with judging there will always be controversies because scoring is largely subjective, although do think there should be some sort of formal process to call into account bad judges because examples of wildly different results obviously suggest the quality of judging varies greatly.

Mort wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Calling the scores as the fight progresses is a rubbish idea.

Just an idea. Think there does need to be a way where scoring is transparent even if as fans and fighters, we don't get to see them during the match but that something should be done to make decisions less controversial. But then I suppose thats one of the things people like about boxing.

The decision at the weekend was by no means the worst and in fact it could have went either way. There have been many worse decisions that could have benefitted from a different way of scoring rather than 3 judges who can see things vastly different. For instance, Daniel Geale beat Sebastian Sylvester by split decision in May. One judge gave in 118-110 to Slyvester with the others giving it 118-110 and 118-112 to Geale. How someone can see something so differently from others surely means there must be a better way.

Didn't mean to sound like I was jumping down your throat. Just didn't have time to type a full response, as I'm at work...

Hometown and biased judging is hardly just a German problem.
It happens in all corners of the world. Britain and America aren't any better.

Sturm himself was the victim of a clear robbery on the single occasion when he fought away.

Anyway, I thought Sturm won this fight. It was very close and I can see why others will disagree, but I picked Sturm's quality over Macklin's quantity.

Can't be as bad as the guy at Martinez Williams 1!

Punch stats for those who wanted them:

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/view.php?pg=sturm-macklin-compubox

Macklin landed 314/1102
Sturm landed 187/519

Make up your own minds...

BALTIMORA wrote:Punch stats for those who wanted them:

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/view.php?pg=sturm-macklin-compubox

Macklin landed 314/1102
Sturm landed 187/519

Make up your own minds...

Macklin as i said won that fight hands down, as you say make up your own minds balti, i think them stats prove what i said.

The stats certainly give weight to the calls for a rematch.

"Macklin was robbed"

Not prone to exaggeration this kid is he??????