HERESY, we're talking about how to score a boxing round. To score a round it's based on who lands the most punches. If that isn't established it goes to clean & effective punching. Then effective aggression and defense.
Where do you see me saying this shouldn't be the case? You don't. What you see me saying is it isn't the case due to a multitude of reasons. Bias/favortism, home crowd/home town, not being aggressive enough in the later rounds (especially those championship rounds.) If you think for one second that every judge is going to call it down the middle or score based on the elements we both agree on, you're in for bad news.
He won the vast majority of the rounds! How? By landing more punches, by being the aggressor. How does Pascal win rounds by back peddling and landing less than 10 punches in a round? I don't get it...
Again, he was the better boxer. He did NOTHING to convince the judges that he should be the champion. If he did, he would be champion right now. I didn't see Pascal back peddling every round. I saw two rounds where he really slacked off and tried to catch his breath, but the guy stayed in there and fought which is my point. Hopkins didn't do what he needed to do to win the belts. If this had been a ten rounder, he would have walked away with the W, but this was a championship fight and many times in championship fights you have to go that extra mile to show the judges you deserve the win. I'm sorry, while winning the majority of the rounds is a lot, especially at his age, he didn't do anything that convinced them.
HERSEY, I am argueing how the rounds are supposed to be scored. I understand boxing is a clusterfuck of terrible judges completely incompetent and void of basic boxing knowledge and I question if most judges even know how they are supposed to judge rounds correctly.
I'm not in disagreement with you as to how the rounds should be scored. If you read my last post fam you would see that I agree with you. I too question if most judges know how to score correctly, and in the case of Hopkins I'd wager to say a lot of judges probably don't like the guy. I have no proof, but look at those Taylor fights and the Calzaghe fight. Those were robberies and a stain on the sport.
I'm talking to you, as a person, as to who we (you and I) thought won the fight. Not the canadian & belgium judges. We are already know what they thought, they didn't think either guy won the fight.
Again, Hopkins was the better boxer that night and not counting those three rounds I left off, I have him up by two points. However, I think the draw was fair.
I disagree. Hopkins totally took Pascal out of his element so much so pascal was hardly throwing any punches. The body work hopkins did slowed him down tremendously. Hopkins won 8 or 9 rounds, Pascal won 3 or 4. That said he got knocked down twice, which put him in the whole he had to dig out of.
The body work did slow him down but I don't think he took the guy out of his element. It was the same Pascal style of lunging in and throwing wild shots. He didn't get to exchange as much, I agree, but I wouldn't say that was completely due to Hopkins taking him out his element. If he was so effective at taking him out his element we wouldn't be having this conversation. We'd be talking about how Hopkins beat the shit out of him and took his belts in his backyard.
That's not something Hopkins can do at this point in time of his career. He beat the shit out of Pavlik and couldn't even knock him down. Again his last KO was Oscar, a junior middleweight in 2004.
He probably can't do it but that doesn't mean he shouldn't have been told to do it. I'm just saying to use it to light a fire under his ass, because at the end of the day, you're in his backyard and things may not go your way unless you cripple the guy.
What? The vast majority of the fight pascal was back pedling the majority of the round and hokins was the aggressor...
Two rounds where he was back peddling. In the other rounds he stayed in there with Bernard. Watch the fight again and pay attention to the counters.
Boxing isn't always about hurting and knocking the other guy out. Pernell Whitaker, Floyd Mayweather, Bernard Hopkins, Winky Wright, Willie Pepp, etc etc etc. It's the sweet science they use. They out-box their opponents. That's what bhop did on saturday night.
And you can toss Gerald McClellan (before the fight with Nigel) on that same list. Again, I've already said Bernard was the better boxer that night. I said it in this thread, I've said it in the other thread. However, when you're fighting for the championship it's either all or nothing and the science often goes out the window with the judges.
This is a contradiction. Hopkins wins 8 or 9 rounds by out boxing pascal. But he didn't do enough to take the belts?
No, it's not a contradiction. Again, before they even announced the results I was saying he lost because he didn't do enough. Yes he may have won more rounds, yes his ring generalship was on point, yes he was the aggressor, but he didn't earn the victory. It's that simple. He did nothing in the judges eyes that convinced them that he should be champion. If we were strictly going down the middle, there was no bias, etc, yes he would have walked away, but this is a sport where you have to crush the champ in order to be the champ, and he didn't do that.
I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one. I've seen the fight a few times now and Hopkins pretty much shut pascal out after the 4th round. Not to the extent of Kelly Pavlik but he totally took pascal out of his game. Canada's crowd was silent for a reason.
Again, I'm not saying he wasn't the better boxer that night. What I'm saying is in my eyes (and in the eyes of the judges) he didn't do enough to earn the belts. He's in the champs backyard for crying out loud. He was knocked down twice. Yes he came back but what exactly did he do? You tell me where in the fight Pascal was on the verge of being knocked out or not answering the bell.
