Boxing Thread

[JimStynes]

Didn't see it but that's a couple of times that has happened to Pac now. He was completely robbed in his fight with Timothy Bradley a few years ago. He should have retired by now anyway, he's nothing to prove!

[tintin25]

117-111 was too wide but general consensus was that Horn did enough to win.

Boxnation guys had Horn winning by a couple

[nrico2006]

Pacquiao landed three times as many punches ffs. Horn was game but limited. In saying that, Pacquiao should be retired by now and would have beat this boy easy in his prime.

[gallsman]

117-111 was too wide but general consensus was that Horn did enough to win.

Boxnation guys had Horn winning by a couple

General consensus was anything but. ESPN had it 117-111 for Pacquiao.

[square_ball]

Pacquiao landed three times as many punches ffs. Horn was game but limited. In saying that, Pacquiao should be retired by now and would have beat this boy easy in his prime.

Are stats like that not misleading? Boxing is scored round by round. You could throw 100 punches to the opppnents 10 in one round and you only win that one round. I didn't see the fight so mightn't be the case in this one but just pointing out.

[gallsman]

Pacquiao landed three times as many punches ffs. Horn was game but limited. In saying that, Pacquiao should be retired by now and would have beat this boy easy in his prime.

Are stats like that not misleading? Boxing is scored round by round. You could throw 100 punches to the opppnents 10 in one round and you only win that one round. I didn't see the fight so mightn't be the case in this one but just pointing out.

They're not misleading as such - they are indicative of how a fight went, but not decisive.

[Hound]

US commentators had Manny winning, UK commentators had Horn winning it.

First 6 rounds were tough to score. 3 of them were easy enough, being 2-1 to Horn. But other 3 were very tight and hard to score, so could have been anything from 5-1 to Horn to 4-2 to Manny. The UK co-comm had it 4-2 Horn, the UK main commenator had it 5-1 to Horn, the US TV had it 4-2 for Manny.

Manny got on top for the middle rounds, without being dominant. But then the 9th round looked key, where Manny was really on top and looked like Horn had gassed and was gone. Ref even came to the corner and said if he doesn't show much in the next round, he would stop it.

But Horn then dug really deep and put in a great effort from then on. Clearly won 10 and 12, and probably 11 too.

For me, Horn was deserving winner.

[omaghjoe]

Pacquiao landed three times as many punches ffs. Horn was game but limited. In saying that, Pacquiao should be retired by now and would have beat this boy easy in his prime.

Are stats like that not misleading? Boxing is scored round by round. You could throw 100 punches to the opppnents 10 in one round and you only win that one round. I didn't see the fight so mightn't be the case in this one but just pointing out.

They're not misleading as such - they are indicative of how a fight went, but not decisive.

Compubox doesn't score rounds, judges do. It's not amateur boxing. The decision came about as a result of the the fine margins of boxing. Nothing to do with a homer decision.

[Targetman]

How'd Michael Conlon do?

[gallsman]

Pacquiao landed three times as many punches ffs. Horn was game but limited. In saying that, Pacquiao should be retired by now and would have beat this boy easy in his prime.

Are stats like that not misleading? Boxing is scored round by round. You could throw 100 punches to the opppnents 10 in one round and you only win that one round. I didn't see the fight so mightn't be the case in this one but just pointing out.

They're not misleading as such - they are indicative of how a fight went, but not decisive.

Compubox doesn't score rounds, judges do. It's not amateur boxing. The decision came about as a result of the the fine margins of boxing. Nothing to do with a homer decision.

You do understand what the word indicative means, yes?

[omaghjoe]

Pacquiao landed three times as many punches ffs. Horn was game but limited. In saying that, Pacquiao should be retired by now and would have beat this boy easy in his prime.

Are stats like that not misleading? Boxing is scored round by round. You could throw 100 punches to the opppnents 10 in one round and you only win that one round. I didn't see the fight so mightn't be the case in this one but just pointing out.

They're not misleading as such - they are indicative of how a fight went, but not decisive.

Compubox doesn't score rounds, judges do. It's not amateur boxing. The decision came about as a result of the the fine margins of boxing. Nothing to do with a homer decision.

You do understand what the word indicative means, yes?

Enlighten us lesser mortals?
And wile your at it define contradictory

[gallsman]

The statements aren't contradictory you complete gluebag.

[omaghjoe]

Who said they were?
Whats a gluebag?

[Hound]

How'd Michael Conlon do?

Conlon did fine. His Aussie opponent had a reputation as a come-forward fighter, which they were hoping for, but he ended up being very defensive. Conlon was calm, composed, patient. Finally pinned him down in the 3rd, hit him a beaut of a bodyshot, and the ref jumped in fairly early to save the Aussie from getting some real punishment.

Job done. Probably the best of his 3 performances to date.

[nrico2006]

How'd Michael Conlon do?

Conlon did fine. His Aussie opponent had a reputation as a come-forward fighter, which they were hoping for, but he ended up being very defensive. Conlon was calm, composed, patient. Finally pinned him down in the 3rd, hit him a beaut of a bodyshot, and the ref jumped in fairly early to save the Aussie from getting some real punishment.

Job done. Probably the best of his 3 performances to date.

Another fight where he will gain experience, seemed a bit naive when the aussie stopped defending himself and instead of fighting on he looked to the ref, which he shouldn't have done.  Good lesson learnt.