Taylor-Catterall Sky Sports Arena 19:00

PropJoe10

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118700526#Comment_118700526

I do realise that, Nelson mentioned that, yet he was embarrassed. All the analysts on Sky Sports here are embarrassed. You're entitled to your view there, but this wasn't even a close one for me, and apparently for the analysts as well, that know a lot more about boxing than I do. There should be an inquest into that. Money must be changing hands somewhere!

walshb

I reckon Spence and Crawford and the other WWs will be scarpering to 154 lbs now that Josh could be moving up. They’d need to KO him twice in the fight to get a fooking draw!

Rjd2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118700532#Comment_118700532

Its not all bad, tomorrow THE CAMPBELL HATTON is fighting. 😍

jimwallace197

No wonder paddy power had Taylor at 1/14 to win the fight tonight. They must have known what was coming or that something dodgy could happen.

Thats an absolutely disgraceful decision, especially the judge that scored it by three rounds to Taylor. Catterall hit nearly twice as many times. Not impressed with Taylor at all.

Turns me right off boxing, still a corrupt sport in many ways.

titan18

I'd love to see that 114-111 card. Like what was he watching

walshb

Just to rub salt into Jack’s wounds. It was an English judge who went for Taylor…

x PyRo

https://twitter.com/MichaelBensonn/status/1497731977792954377

blade1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118700549#Comment_118700549

The difference being, Taylor won't be getting up if he fights them.

Sky said a lot of people regard Taylor as the second best boxer in Britain.

I'd hate to see the worst..... although I may have already 🙈

Backstreet Moyes

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118700593#Comment_118700593

Paddy Power refunded all win bets on Catterall.

walshb

Forgetting the result for a minute

Sky commentary, as usual absolute way biased.

Catterall only had to throw a fooking shape and those two knobs, Macklin and Smith were wetting themselves,

walshb

On the scoring:

jusdges score rounds on a criteria. It’s not just some landed shots here and there.

Aggression, effective aggression, control, generalship, who is pushing the pace of the fight.

then they also see and factor and consider who’s fouling, spoiling, holding, clinching, not engaging etc

of all the holding, spoiling, clinching and moving backwards, it was Jack doing it far more.

when the rounds end, judges consider more than just landed shots.

walshb

The judge that gave Jack the fight still only had him winning 5 rds I think. Maybe 6 with the deduction

blade1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118701044#Comment_118701044

Anyone that had that fight 30-27 to Taylor after 3rounds is off their trolley imo.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118701482#Comment_118701482

If that fight takes place in England Catterall wins by plenty on the cards.

It feels corrupt, Taylor basically won because he was the home fighter, not because he was the better man on the night.

ebbsy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118700594#Comment_118700594

And his bank statement as well.

I woke up this morning and was expecting to read that a mistake had been made with the scorecards.

walshb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118700853#Comment_118700853

Foster, although he gave it to Jack, scores rd 12 to Jack? Wtf was he watching that round..

had he scored that correctly to Josh, Taylor wins unanimously

Charlie69

Walshb It seems as if you're trying to justify the decision, you said yourself you had it 8-4 to Jack... The chap was robbed, end of story.

walshb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118702656#Comment_118702656

I had it 7-4-1 (correction) but with swing rds. Some easily could be argued for either man.

it’s not all cries of robbery.

Teddy Atlas, a chap who screams robbery at any old fight, is not screaming it here. He’s similar to me, in that Jack didn’t consistently do enough the last 4/5 rds.

Oh, and folks do need to switch off the ridiculously biased Sky commentary..

two English judges and one Scottish. Even the English judge who scored for Jack, only did so by the tiniest of margins, and had he scored rd 12 correctly (for Taylor), then the decision is unanimous

I wanted Jack to win, big time. At half way he was 4/2, maybe 5-1 up. He let himself down the last 3/4 rds where he spent majority time holding and spoiling.

these OTT hysterical robbery cries are no surprise.

blade1

Taylor was pure muck last night though.

What did he do good?

Even though catterall was probably worse for holding and those headlocks 🙄 but in between he was landing the better shots

walshb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118703219#Comment_118703219

Agreed. Taylor was very poor, even though he was pressuring all night. Missed so many punches. Just piss poor.

Yes, Catterall was landing cleaner shots, but spent a lot of time moving backwards and holding and spoiling.

I think judges were using what they should be, all criteria to score, and certain areas hurt Catterall.

blade1

To be honest I don't think the judges were using that criteria at all.

They were giving it to Taylor no matter what 🙄

walshb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118703445#Comment_118703445

Well, one gave it to to Jack by the tiniest margins, and one to Taylor by the tiniest margins..

There is no conspiracy or cheating here....Had Victor Loughlin, for example, "incorrectly" scored round 12 to Jack, like Foster did, and it is Jack who wins.

Vast majority people are not sitting and scoring the fight live with real concentration. The judges are. Vast majority people, whether they admit it or not, are biased with commentary. It's only natural. And last night was serious bias.

I was watching it and wondering what Jack was doing that was garnering so much praise and adulation. Weird.

I really wanted him to win, but during the second half the fight (rds 7-12) he was not winning, or at least not in any clear sense. After 6 completed rounds Jack was up by 2 points on two cards and level on the 3rd card. The second half the fight cost him.

My card was for Jack, but in no way was my card clear. There were several rds that were just not clear for him, and these rds could justifiably have went to Taylor

On scoring shots: Judges are not compubox, and should never be. They don't sit counting what they believe to be scoring blows. They take into account all criteria and score each rd accordingly. Jack did well in some areas, and poorly in others. Taylor did well in some areas, and poorly in others.

blade1

What areas did Taylor do well in?

Charlie69

I don't care what criteria they used... No way Taylor does anywhere near enough to win that fight... being the aggressor is not enough, Catterall was in control, kept his chin tucked away nicely behind his shoulder and landed with crisp combinations when the opportunity arose... he doesn't waste shots flailing around like Taylor... Yes he did a bit of holding when Taylor was trying to use his physical advantages but there was two of them at it. He definitely coasted a bit in the last few rounds but Jack Catterall won that fight whatever way you want to score it.

Charlie69

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118703910#Comment_118703910

The weigh in....

walshb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118703910#Comment_118703910

Well, pushing Catterall back all night and forcing Catterall to resort to constant holding that resulted in a point’s deduction, and which likely should have been more. Josh also set a very tough pace, and was much more looking the man pressing to win

Judges take this into account

Charlie69

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118704155#Comment_118704155

Yet you scored it by a wide margin for Catterall... the reason you gave the swing rounds to Jack was because he deserved them more... the first priority is to hit and avoid getting hit... Catterall was always in control even when on the back foot, the judges are also obliged to score for good defence. As Jamie Moore said they didn't allow Taylor dictate or use his advantages in this fight. I gave a few close rounds to Taylor for the very reasons you reference... but there wasn't enough of them to win this fight.

walshb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118704224#Comment_118704224

But I am not a professional judge, so I have 0 issue with swing rounds here and there for this fight.

titan18

Tbh there's no way someone can look at that fight and score it 114-111 legitimately. There's easily 6 rounds for Catterall, one of which is a 10-8 and whilst he loses a 10-8 round himself cos of the point deduction, another round is 9-9 cos of Taylor's one. That score was nonsense.

jimwallace197

Whatever about who should have won it, Taylor was very sloppy coming forward, getting hit consistently & throwing wild shots all over the place. He's been placed on a pedestal of being the best uk boxer or top 3 at least until recently. Either the Uk is screwed boxing wise or there's alot of delusional people out there.

Anywhere else besides Scotland & that ends in a win for Catterall or at best a draw. Its all well & good coming forward & being the aggressor but if you keep getting hit & are unable to land properly yourself, you dont deserve much credit for that. All it shows is that you have a good heart & decent chin, plenty of rubbish boxers out there that have that.

I understand Walshb's argument but the whole point of boxing is landing shots & landing them well. If thats not the criteria, it should be a contest to see who gets knocked out first. Its boxing not bare knuckle fighting championship.

Didnt like Taylors attitude in the aftermath as well, quite arrogant & unwilling to show any sort of humbleness/decency despite the daylight robbery. Whatever about Conor Mcgregor, at least he was always respectful in victory. Bad mark of his character.