I'm hearing way more people saying Bivol was robbed then the latter which is distorting an otherwise damn good fight. This was a close fight that could've went to either or could've been a draw. I think the ESPN broadcast influenced people way more than they wanna realize
Plenty of trainers have said that to their fighter when it wasn't necessarily the case. Hell Bomac told Crawford that Porter was up in their fight and he needed a KO to win otherwise he might lose on the cards when the judges all had Crawford up 5 rounds to 4(including mine), and Crawford had all the momentum in that fight going forward even if it would have went to the cards he would have won a fairly comfortable decision. Trainers say that to their fighters bro, nothing new won't be the last time. It's not a bad tactic, never let your fighter take their foot off the gas and think they have a fight in the bag which Bivol learned Saturday. He should have never have up the 11th and 12th(arguably the 10th as well) because it was a close fight. It's never a good look to end a fight getting backed up and wailed on no matter how good you did in the front half of the fight(which was also close).
Id argue that most people who are saying that Bivol was robbed is because if you award anything else than a Bivol win or a draw then it's manifestly unjust. On paper, on eyesight, on knowing what a blocked shot is, on knowing what a power shot is, on knowing what a clean counter punch is.
More & more are speaking out saying exactly what @patscorpio & I said & some others here said; it was close fight that could've went to either or been a draw. You're less emotional than yesterday & the day before bro but are still standing & will die on that hill lol. You still can't come to terms that it was a close fight
www.boxingscene.com
Artur Beterbiev Beating Dmitry Bivol Was No RobberyControversy nearly always follows a close fight, particularly when it’s watched by a lot of people – as the verdict that favored Artur Beterbiev over Dmitry Bivol proved.Let’s get this out of the way early: I scored the contest 115-113 for Beterbiev; I watched on a screen alongside three boxers and a broadcaster, all of whom were vocal, so my concentration was nowhere near as intense as those employed (and trained) to fill in the official scorecards; I have seen the fight only once. Should I watch it again I wouldn’t be surprised, not even the tiniest bit, if my score changed. Certainly, I have no issue whatsoever with Bivol winning by the same margin, and I don’t believe the 116-112 tally for Beterbiev, handed in by Polish judge Pawel Kardyni, is as remotely outrageous as some educated people are making out. There were several ‘swing’ rounds, a term that means the round could have gone either way; one could even argue that most of the 12 were swing rounds given CompuBox stats reveal, in eight of the rounds, four or less punches was the difference between them. However, for context here, let’s say there were only three. That means if you don’t have a strong opinion on who won those three rounds and can therefore understand why a judge – or that stranger with whom you’re squabbling on social media – might have scored them for either Beterbiev or Bivol, there’s a feasible six-point ‘swing’ from your card to theirs. To explain that further and taking my (completely unimportant) scorecard as an example, if you change three close rounds from Beterbiev rounds to Bivol rounds, the 115-113 for Artur becomes 116-112 for Dmitry. If there were more close rounds, and on this occasion, I believe there were, that potential for discrepancy becomes even greater. Something else to consider is the view to which we’re privy. According to an impartial figure in Saudi Arabia, those who watched from one side of the ring preferred the work of Beterbiev and those who watched from the opposite side liked Bivol’s. That’s not unusual in a close encounter and is exactly why judges sit in different positions, with unique vantage points, at ringside. Furthermore, though some people are so wise and headstrong they couldn’t possibly be swayed by the opinion of others – like companions, commentators, analysts or the social media feeds that are repeatedly checked – plenty are, albeit subliminally. Considering there were three different outlets showing the fight in the UK alone, with each using different commentary teams, fans from all over the world would have heard a multitude of conflicting opinions. It's not just what we hear or read, either. The replays at the end of seven of the 12 rounds focused only on Bivol, even though Beterbiev landed several punches in those rounds and threw more than his rival in 10 of them. It creates the illusion that the slicker Bivol has won the round the replays follow, when, in truth, his moments of success were cleaner and therefore easier for those in charge of those slow-motion replays to identify, and then edit, in a very short space of time. It follows that the commentators will then spend even more time talking about those passages of the fight. It can all play a part in our perception of the action. Additionally, when watching replays that did identify moments of success for Beterbiev, it was interesting to note how many punches that initially appeared to hit the gloves actually got through. Then consider the tiny proportion of his work we got to see in slow motion. To be clear, this writing is not designed to change your opinion on who won because my opinion, much like yours, is far from definitive. I accept it could have gone either way while increasingly believing a draw might have been the fairest decision – considering the elite levels of skill and gameplay on display, it’s difficult to say either of them deserved to lose. It is for that reason, after a contest so plainly close, why it is surprising when certain observers scream robbery when official scorecards don’t match their own. |
www.boxingscene.com
It’s pretty straightforward.
Stop being an emotional dude & come to terms with this, it's corny & you're better than this. You've already made a fool of yourself the past few days lol
I’m saying one thing, you’re saying another, I’d be hard pressed to see how thats unusual?
.
What's unusual is you saying the shyt over and over and over again, and getting your panties in a bunch whenever someone disagrees with you - it's been 4 days and you're STILL spiralling... you're up to 66 posts in this thread btw
My motive is more second hand embarrassment than anything else@Suspicious Dingo still hurt because I pulled them up for shytting on Andrade for taking a difficult fight. Don’t think I don’t see these motives
What's unusual is you saying the shyt over and over and over again, and getting your panties in a bunch whenever someone disagrees with you - it's been 4 days and you're STILL spiralling... you're up to 66 posts in this thread btw
My motive is more second hand embarrassment than anything else
. You keeping investigative tabs on a forum, don’t ’crash’ out .
That's 67
