Hopkins Robbed?
- Thread starter dookie1
- Start date
I thought he won.
I don't think it's the worst decision in the world, seen worse. But I definitely think hopkins deserved the nod.
I just want to see the scorecards. How did one judge have it 114-114?
Also, if the ref would have ruled that the knock down in the first round was not a legit knock down which it wasn't, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I don't think it's the worst decision in the world, seen worse. But I definitely think hopkins deserved the nod.
I just want to see the scorecards. How did one judge have it 114-114?
Also, if the ref would have ruled that the knock down in the first round was not a legit knock down which it wasn't, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
i know bhop is old and its hard to do but these judges are straight retarded in MMA or boxing its ridiculous how bad they fuck up i mean joe rogan was blasting the judges when they gave leonard garcia the victory the scoring system or something needs to be changed real quick cause judges are fucking shit up horribly
I think Hopkins lost, but then it says something when you can barely pull off a draw in your own backyard even though you have two knock downs. Like I said in the other thread, I picked HOP to win in the 10th round, but I don't see what you guys saw. Now I thought he was robbed in the Taylor and Calzaghe fights, but this one? Nope.
Fight ends in a majority draw(114-112 Hopkins, 113-113,114-114).
I know 2 judges scored a draw but if one judge went with hopkins (total the score) they should of gave it to him. A draw is just insulting to both fighters, you might as well give them a sudden death round lol...
Thats ridiculous, who hires these fools?
I know 2 judges scored a draw but if one judge went with hopkins (total the score) they should of gave it to him. A draw is just insulting to both fighters, you might as well give them a sudden death round lol...
Thats ridiculous, who hires these fools?
I think you might see it differently the second time around.
I just don't see how you could give rounds to pascal (besides the knockdown rounds really). I mean for what? Hopkins had control of the fight (after the first few rounds), ring generalship, was out landing pascal in every round and was out working pascal in every round. Meanwhile pascal was back peddling going backwards and rarely throwing any punches. Every now and then he'd land a nice shot or two but it was too far and in between to win rounds.
The only acceptable outcomes for me would be hopkins winning by 2 points, hopkins winning by 1 point or at the very worst a draw. I just don't see pascal winning. imo.
I just don't see how you could give rounds to pascal (besides the knockdown rounds really). I mean for what? Hopkins had control of the fight (after the first few rounds), ring generalship, was out landing pascal in every round and was out working pascal in every round. Meanwhile pascal was back peddling going backwards and rarely throwing any punches. Every now and then he'd land a nice shot or two but it was too far and in between to win rounds.
The only acceptable outcomes for me would be hopkins winning by 2 points, hopkins winning by 1 point or at the very worst a draw. I just don't see pascal winning. imo.
I think people use the term "robbed" a little too loosely nowadays.
It was a very close fight that could have went either way.
Personally, I had Hopkins winning the fight by a small margin. He was in control of the almost the entire second half of the fight, and was uncharacteristically aggressive, and put in some great body work.
By no means, was it a robbery, IMO.
It was a very close fight that could have went either way.
Personally, I had Hopkins winning the fight by a small margin. He was in control of the almost the entire second half of the fight, and was uncharacteristically aggressive, and put in some great body work.
By no means, was it a robbery, IMO.
OK, I watched this again and while I don't think Hopkins was "robbed" I believe he was the better boxer that fight. I had Pascal winning 1-3 and Hopkins winning 4. Round 5 could have gone either way. 6-9 was Hopkins. 10 could have gone either way. 11 for Hopkins and 12 could have gone either way. Considering Pascal had two knockdowns (again, one was very questionable, neither hurt him but the ruling stands) and he was the champ (forget about boxing in his own backyard as there was an american and Belgium judge as well) I can't see Hopkins winning the fight and becoming champion.
It will be debated if he was robbed or not, but IMHO, "the challenger" did not beat "the champion." You have to beat the champ, the champ doesn't have to beat you. While Hopkins landed more shots, landed more precise shots, went to the body, etc, that isn't enough when you have two knockdowns hanging over you and you're fighting the champ. He didn't have Pascal seriously hurt, he never put him down and Pascal still exchanged and countered with him.
So after watching it again, I say the draw was fair, but by no means was Hopkins "robbed." He put on an EXCELLENT performance, and like I said before, if they fight again I'm still going with Hopkins in round 10, but he just didn't do enough as challenger to take the champions belt.
It will be debated if he was robbed or not, but IMHO, "the challenger" did not beat "the champion." You have to beat the champ, the champ doesn't have to beat you. While Hopkins landed more shots, landed more precise shots, went to the body, etc, that isn't enough when you have two knockdowns hanging over you and you're fighting the champ. He didn't have Pascal seriously hurt, he never put him down and Pascal still exchanged and countered with him.
So after watching it again, I say the draw was fair, but by no means was Hopkins "robbed." He put on an EXCELLENT performance, and like I said before, if they fight again I'm still going with Hopkins in round 10, but he just didn't do enough as challenger to take the champions belt.
HERESEY, the argument that the challenger has to TAKE the belt from the champion doesn't work in boxing, since each round is scored individually. So whoever wins the most rounds/scores the most points, wins the fight.
I thought round 10 was clearly a bhop round, with bhop landing double the power shots and nearly double the overall punches landed.
How did you score the knockdown rounds? 10-8 or 10-9 rounds? I think at least one of those rounds should be a 10-9 since hopkins won the entire round besides getting dropped in the final seconds. Some people forget a knockdown is a 10 point must system, but assume it's a 10-8 must when in reality if the fighter who is knockdown wins the round, you can score it a 10-9 round..
But you're right, I wouldn't call this fight a robbery. A draw is one of the acceptable outcomes (either that or hopkins winning).
I thought round 10 was clearly a bhop round, with bhop landing double the power shots and nearly double the overall punches landed.
How did you score the knockdown rounds? 10-8 or 10-9 rounds? I think at least one of those rounds should be a 10-9 since hopkins won the entire round besides getting dropped in the final seconds. Some people forget a knockdown is a 10 point must system, but assume it's a 10-8 must when in reality if the fighter who is knockdown wins the round, you can score it a 10-9 round..
But you're right, I wouldn't call this fight a robbery. A draw is one of the acceptable outcomes (either that or hopkins winning).
Yes it does and the scoring system doesn't matter as you're relying on a human to give his/her opinion (which is all the score really is) on who won the round. So yes, the challenger TAKING the belt does matter. And if he won on points why then is he not champion? Because he didn't do enough to win, in other words, he didn't do enough to convince the judges.
That's how boxing should work but that isn't how it goes. Remember you're dealing with judges and judges have bias, agendas, etc. Think of them the same way as a juror or jury pool. A judge in a court room can instruct them to do X or consider X, but at the end of the day, only they know what they're thinking and will do exactly what it is they want to do.
10-8 on the first and 10-9 for the second one. If you were to take my total, minus the three rounds I said could go either way, Hopkins would be up by 2 points.
It is acceptable, but I don't think Hopkins won that fight which is why my initially thoughts before the results were given was that he lost. He put on a performance, I take my hat off to the guy and still thinks he has a couple of fights left in him, but he didn't do enough as challenger to beat the champ.
That's how boxing should work but that isn't how it goes. Remember you're dealing with judges and judges have bias, agendas, etc. Think of them the same way as a juror or jury pool. A judge in a court room can instruct them to do X or consider X, but at the end of the day, only they know what they're thinking and will do exactly what it is they want to do.
10-8 on the first and 10-9 for the second one. If you were to take my total, minus the three rounds I said could go either way, Hopkins would be up by 2 points.
It is acceptable, but I don't think Hopkins won that fight which is why my initially thoughts before the results were given was that he lost. He put on a performance, I take my hat off to the guy and still thinks he has a couple of fights left in him, but he didn't do enough as challenger to beat the champ.
It shouldn't matter who the champion is because a round is based on performance, mostly who lands the most punches. If that cannot be decided then it goes to clean/effective punching. Then effective aggression and finally defense.
So in every single round, hopkins out landed pascal. The close rounds should go to hopkins by out working pascal alone, based on how to score rounds.
Well obviously. I'm just arguing on how fights should technically be scored, defined by the rules of boxing.
Well you're definitely in the minority with that opinion based on all the articles I've been reading and public polls, etc. Most people believe Pascal won 3-4 rounds total with hopkins taking the rest.
Other than getting knocked down early, he did everything he needed to. Out landed him by nearly double. Out threw him/was busier. Nearly doubled him in total power punches. Was more accurate. Fought at his pace. Backed Pascal up the entire fight (like Nazim said in the corner, "you have him running in his own town, X!").
So in every single round, hopkins out landed pascal. The close rounds should go to hopkins by out working pascal alone, based on how to score rounds.
Well obviously. I'm just arguing on how fights should technically be scored, defined by the rules of boxing.
Well you're definitely in the minority with that opinion based on all the articles I've been reading and public polls, etc. Most people believe Pascal won 3-4 rounds total with hopkins taking the rest.
Other than getting knocked down early, he did everything he needed to. Out landed him by nearly double. Out threw him/was busier. Nearly doubled him in total power punches. Was more accurate. Fought at his pace. Backed Pascal up the entire fight (like Nazim said in the corner, "you have him running in his own town, X!").
Again, you're relying on a human to give his/her opinion (which is all the score really is) on who won the round. Yes a round is based on who lands the most punches and then on to other things if that can't be established but look at things for what they are. You have judges who score based on where a particular fighter is from. You have judges who give the whole fight away because for the last three rounds the fighter wasn't "aggressive enough." So no, it shouldn't matter but it does matter when you're in a hole or you're fighting for a belt. If you don't convince the judges that you beat the champ, you don't get the belt (unless their is some tomfoolery going on.) Before the results were announced I had already said he lost and the judges saw it in similar fashion. He didn't do anything to take the belts. Was he a better boxer that night? Yes, I've said that earlier, but he didn't beat the champ.
No they shouldn't. He could have outlanded him but you're comparing that to what exactly? Pascal countering? Pascal being the agressor? Pascal landing the cleaner shots?
The rules? What rules? Again, I'm not disputing that it isn't how it should work, I'm just saying in reality it doesn't work like that.
Now this goes back to what I was saying about beating the champ. You're fighting the champ. In the champs back yard. In order to walk away with that W and those belts, you need to beat him within an inch of his life every round, knock him out, beat his ass so bad that he doesn't answer the bell or beat him so bad that the ref stops the fight. Plain and simple. All the ring generalship, technical savy, etc is nothing when you aren't effective and Hopkins was not effective. Did he knock pascal down? No. Did he ever have Pascal in any serious trouble? No. Did he take Pascal out of his element? No. Did he do things that stopped Pascal from countering? No.
Nazim should have told him, "You're in his backyard, you have to knock him out, X."
And no he didn't back him up the entire fight. There was like 2 rounds were Pascal stayed moving away, but others than that he stayed in there and exchanged. So Hopkins did everything you listed but it wasn't effective. Pascal walked out of the arena. He was never seriously injured, no major cuts, etc. Hopkins was the better fighter that night, I agree, but he didn't do enough as challenger to take those belts.
No they shouldn't. He could have outlanded him but you're comparing that to what exactly? Pascal countering? Pascal being the agressor? Pascal landing the cleaner shots?
The rules? What rules? Again, I'm not disputing that it isn't how it should work, I'm just saying in reality it doesn't work like that.
Now this goes back to what I was saying about beating the champ. You're fighting the champ. In the champs back yard. In order to walk away with that W and those belts, you need to beat him within an inch of his life every round, knock him out, beat his ass so bad that he doesn't answer the bell or beat him so bad that the ref stops the fight. Plain and simple. All the ring generalship, technical savy, etc is nothing when you aren't effective and Hopkins was not effective. Did he knock pascal down? No. Did he ever have Pascal in any serious trouble? No. Did he take Pascal out of his element? No. Did he do things that stopped Pascal from countering? No.
Nazim should have told him, "You're in his backyard, you have to knock him out, X."
And no he didn't back him up the entire fight. There was like 2 rounds were Pascal stayed moving away, but others than that he stayed in there and exchanged. So Hopkins did everything you listed but it wasn't effective. Pascal walked out of the arena. He was never seriously injured, no major cuts, etc. Hopkins was the better fighter that night, I agree, but he didn't do enough as challenger to take those belts.