|
Post by davemurphy on Jun 20, 2012 11:31:15 GMT -5
Listened to the "argument" between Billy C. and Alex on today's show. I thought Alex made a good point about Harold Ledderman, who often has a lopsided score in otherwise normally close fights and ALWAYS favors the favorite (House Pet as it were). It happened in Nunn-Scully when he didn't give Ice the sweat off his balls, it happened in several Pernell Whitaker fights (the first fight with Wilfredo Rivera comes to mind), IMO he was guilty of it again last Saturday. Anyone who thought that fight 11 to 1 was, quite simply, either shortsighted or in somebodies pocket. Many of the untrained eyes that had Pacquaio winning in a walk fell victim to the same strategy that Sugar Ray Leonard used to hoodwink them with, increasing output the last 45 seconds and stealing rounds. Of the rounds I gave to Bradley, which were 1,2, 8, 10, and 12, I favored TB based on being the more consistent fighter throughout the entire round, using Tom Kaczmarek's principal of breaking the round into three one-minute segments. Manny's opening minute was weak throughout the entire fight, and he SHOULD have been held accountable for it, but I don't believe he was. Alex raised a good point about Rd 7 and also is right in casting a suspicious eye upon whoever was operating the Compubox that night, as I thought Pacquaio was the beneficiary of some very questionable "connects", and I don't believe all Bradley's jabs were being registered and ESPECIALLY his punches to Manny's body. I thought the numbers were suspect, and despite our constantly railing against them and how inconsequential they are, the Lampleys of the World are able to lead their sheep via the numbers. Those who didn't listen to the commentary (always a good idea with HBO) are unfortunately still subjected to the graphics. Bottomline is, if you had more than nine rounds for Manny Pacquiao, say hello to this guy for me
|
|
alexp
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by alexp on Jun 20, 2012 13:40:58 GMT -5
i think that's a very good point about the 3 minute segments of each round, Murph. it was consistently Bradley working over the larger portion of each round with PacMan coming alive and exploding in the final 30 or 35 seconds of each stanza. that worked for ray leonard but it hasn't worked very well for others. Bradley pressed the action especially in the fight's final rounds and traditionally Vegas favors the guy who closes big. That wasn't Manny. Rounds 10, 11 & 12 all favored Bradley on the official cards. Yes, i agree about Harold Lederman, what he says about how to judge i agree with but i don't see his methods reflected in the cards he shows on HBO very often. they seem to consistently favor the star HBO is selling on the night. and Lampley simply cannot be trusted. only Max K seemed to go back and re-evaluate their broadcast honestly. I give him props for that. if we can't honestly and fearlessly re-examine our own sport at it's weirdest, what good are we? and in the grand scheme of things Pacquiao was never robbed like Pernell Whitaker was against Ramirez in paris. That was probably the most ridiculous decision i can remember. worse than the draw with chavez at the alamodome.
|
|
|
Post by krawhitham on Jun 22, 2012 21:46:50 GMT -5
using Tom Kaczmarek's principal of breaking the round into three one-minute segments. But that is *not* a principle of judging. Period. Judges score rounds, not portions of rounds. In the arena there isn't a clock available to a judge to divide the round up into thirds, and even if there was, a judge should be concentrating on the action, not having to keep an eye on the clock to see when the next sixty minute segment is coming. Furthermore, judges shouldn't be guessing when the next third of the round is coming because if they are following such a hare-brained scheme and they're wrong about how long 60 seconds takes, the already shaky method is further flawed. If Kaczmarek says that, he's simply wrong. You judge a round, not portions of it. Just as a baseball team can win giving up one run every inning by scoring 10 runs in a single inning, the timing in which a fighter scores with effective punches is irrelevant. I'm not disagreeing with the larger point--I scored it 8-4 Manny, could have stretched it to 7-5. (Also could have taken a close one away though and had it 9-3.) Rounds 10 and 12 seem easily Bradley's and I gave him the 2nd as well. (Can't remember the other one--it might have been 8.) But I just think this "parts of a round" business is a dangerous fiction. Might as well have 36 rounds if that's the way it's meant to be done.
|
|
|
Post by davemurphy on Jun 23, 2012 10:00:24 GMT -5
using Tom Kaczmarek's principal of breaking the round into three one-minute segments. But that is *not* a principle of judging. Period. Judges score rounds, not portions of rounds. In the arena there isn't a clock available to a judge to divide the round up into thirds, and even if there was, a judge should be concentrating on the action, not having to keep an eye on the clock to see when the next sixty minute segment is coming. Furthermore, judges shouldn't be guessing when the next third of the round is coming because if they are following such a hare-brained scheme and they're wrong about how long 60 seconds takes, the already shaky method is further flawed. If Kaczmarek says that, he's simply wrong. You judge a round, not portions of it. Just as a baseball team can win giving up one run every inning by scoring 10 runs in a single inning, the timing in which a fighter scores with effective punches is irrelevant. I'm not disagreeing with the larger point--I scored it 8-4 Manny, could have stretched it to 7-5. (Also could have taken a close one away though and had it 9-3.) Rounds 10 and 12 seem easily Bradley's and I gave him the 2nd as well. (Can't remember the other one--it might have been 8.) But I just think this "parts of a round" business is a dangerous fiction. Might as well have 36 rounds if that's the way it's meant to be done. Kraw- When he says he's breaking it into three min segments, he isn't out and out timing it, he's making a mental note of it. Just like a veteran boxer, an experienced Judge has been through thousands of rounds and could probably tell you within 5 seconds of when 3 minutes had elapsed, even without the benefit of the clock. The reason for breaking it down into segments and filing that info away in your mind is because it's difficult for even an experienced observer to recall what happened the first 30 seconds after watching the last 30, which is naturally going to be fresher in your mind. As for my own card, unfortunately I didn't get to watch it live and score on Fightjudge.com, which I usually use so that I can have a copy of my scorecard to post to the various websites, however I will tell you that my five rounds I scored for Bradley were 1,2,8,10, and 12.
|
|
|
Post by krawhitham on Jun 23, 2012 23:52:01 GMT -5
I'm going to respectfully disagree but not belabor the point. A judge should always have a running tally, if not conversation, in his/her head as to what the score is and who is leading so as soon as the bell rings the judge is prepared to turn in a card. (Or, in the case of a injury stoppage, ready to turn in a card for an incomplete round without having to do any further thinking.) But the idea that a round should be divided into segments is wrong IMO. A round is a round, and anyone who gave Bradley a round because he won 2/3rds of it might as well never watch the fourth quarter of a football game. There's been such a backlash seemingly ever since Leonard-Hagler about overrating and overemphasizing the idea of "stealing" rounds that I think we've way overcompensated. Okay, maybe I belabored it a little.
|
|
|
Post by billyc on Jun 25, 2012 3:18:28 GMT -5
Kraw...I agree with you. Judges get one shot at scoring and it has to be for the entire round. For these guys to suggest that AFTER RE-WATCHING a fight one or more times, and predeciding that all close rounds will be given to one side...then come up with another score and argue that point is a down right joke. The world, except for the three blind mice, and I guess Murph too, saw the fight 117-111 or so (I scored it 118-110, only giving Bradley the 2 and 12th rounds) on the night of the fight is what the scores should have been. With that said...the only scores that counted were the judges...who WERE in the best seats to judge and the result is what it is. Thanks for your thoughts!
|
|
|
Post by davemurphy on Jun 25, 2012 15:53:11 GMT -5
Kraw...I agree with you. Judges get one shot at scoring and it has to be for the entire round. For these guys to suggest that AFTER RE-WATCHING a fight one or more times, and predeciding that all close rounds will be given to one side...then come up with another score and argue that point is a down right joke. The world, except for the three blind mice, and I guess Murph too, saw the fight 117-111 or so (I scored it 118-110, only giving Bradley the 2 and 12th rounds) on the night of the fight is what the scores should have been. With that said...the only scores that counted were the judges...who WERE in the best seats to judge and the result is what it is. Thanks for your thoughts! Who said I rewatched it? I've only watched once and had it 7-5 the night of the fight, I only mentioned Fightjudge because I didn't have the nice FJ graphic of my card that I usually post here. I listened to Russell Peltz talking last week and he mentioned how he had 7-5 Pac also, and for the same reason I did, Pac slowed down the second half of the fight. The 10th was Bradley's best round, I don't know how anyone could give it to Pac.
|
|