Canelo vs Erislandy Lara, July 12th

[naner12]

I'm saying virtually never, because I cannot think of a single fight that I thought a guy won by 1 round that every single round was clear cut over 12 rounds.

Off the top of my head, I scored Paul Malignaggi Vs. Juan Diaz I 115-113 and that was a miserable decision and most people actually agreed.

Robert Helenius Vs. Derek Chisora was another that Chisora clearly won 7 rounds and there was huge issues with the fight being given to Helenius because there's no way possible that he won 7 rounds.

I'm sure there's plenty more. When you judge a fight you have to treat each round like an individual fight and score accordingly and if there's no argument that can be made for the guy who "won" winning 7 rounds then it's a robbery.

 

[Coach E. No]

I'm sure there's been fights in history like that, just none came to mind. By comparison, I'm sure there's been WAY more fights scored 115-113 that had AT LEAST 1 round that could've gone either way. You also have to consider that it's different judging a fight ringside than it is on tv. We have instant replay, punch stats, etc... they have none of that when judging a fight, and it's harder when one fighter has way more fans than the other, as was the case in Paulie/Diaz in that first fight.

 

[naner12]

Obviously there's been more 115-113 fights with swing rounds. My point was that making a blanket statement that a fight you scored 7-5 can't be a robbery is just false.

Also if a judge in a big fight like that that should have experience is judging based on crowd noise, that person should be fired on the spot. I can't imagine any angle that Paulie/Diaz was watched from that Diaz won the fight.

 

[Tony]

I didn't see the fight until now so I held my comments until I seen it.... Thanks $Cash$. I scored the fight 116-112 in favor or Canelo. But I do see why it was a split decision. I gave some rounds to Canelo because he was making it a fight by being the aggressor, now I won't say Lara ran but he never took the fight to Canelo even though he landed some good shots here and there. Aggressors sometimes get hit because they're trying to make it a fight.

 

[Coach E. No]

Obviously there's been more 115-113 fights with swing rounds. My point was that making a blanket statement that a fight you scored 7-5 can't be a robbery is just false.

Also if a judge in a big fight like that that should have experience is judging based on crowd noise, that person should be fired on the spot. I can't imagine any angle that Paulie/Diaz was watched from that Diaz won the fight.

all a matter of a opinion. That's why there are 3 judges and a lot of times there are bad decisions, one guy has it close to being correct and 2 other guys have lame scores. In even more cases, there are split decisions with 2 scorecards close to each other in the 115-113 range, and one wacked out score of 117-111 like we saw this weekend.

I stand by what I said though. A fight that ends with 1 round being the difference, it's hard to call it a "robbery." You have judges who don't have the same advantages that we have watching it on tv and out of 7 rounds, you're saying that one guy won them so clean that there is no doubt but then clearly lost the other 5 rounds with no debate as well. It's not impossible, but it just doesn't really happen like that in boxing. If the fight is that close, at some point there is some debate on at least one round in there and that can make all the difference.

 

[naner12]

Then there's never a robbery, it's all a matter of opinion and vantage point. I'm not saying that one guy won 7 rounds clearly and lost 5 rounds clearly. I'm saying there's been fights that I've scored 115-113 where 7 rounds were won clearly and the other 5 rounds I scored for the other guy, not necessarily clearly in every single round. I gave 2 examples, in Chisora/Helenius 1 judge scored it correctly and 2 judges were idiots and everyone that watched it complained about that decision (including on this forum).

I never said it's common and happens all the time, I said the blanket statement that a 115-113 scored fight isn't a robbery is wrong and if you watch and actually score those fights you'd likely agree.

You can have the last post if you want after this cause I don't really feel like going back and forth anymore after this on something that doesn't even make sense.

 

[Coach E. No]

I don't feel like going back and forth either, my point is that it's one thing to say that by watching it on tv and another seeing it live. I've been to a number of big fights and sat ringside. I'm not a professional judge, but in my opinion, judging isn't as easy as people make it sound when you're ringside. It's easier to score watching on tv.