Exactly. It's not helping his case that he didn't score the 5th round for MAB. That makes his scoring even more questionable.
Barrera hurt Morales repeatedly in that first fight, it amazes how little attention people give to one guy hurting the other... thats pretty much the whole point If Morales throws 25 punches and fails to stun Barrera and Barrera throws 7 and stuns Morales... then BARRERA wins that contest
I'm assuming....therefore, that you had Chavez winning the first Tayor fight at the time of the stoppage?
how is it a doozie??? despite the absurd commentary (again, Lampley) Chavez/Taylor was a CLOSE fight... Meldrick was busy as hell, Chavez did vastly more damage Sly probably had it 10-1
I remember Lampleys' quote he got in trouble for during Barrera/Hamed. "Hamed said that whether he won or lost it would be the will of Allah. Well right NOW, Allah knows how to spell B-A-R-R-E-R-A!!" Lampley completely lost it
Just watched clips of the Marquez-Katsidis fight...Lampley blurted out "Katsidis is thinking of his lost brother...he's fighting for two" right after the knockdown. I may have a different opinion than some, but that seemed a little curious.
That's Lampley being overdramatic. I don't care for it when commentators try to play psychic and read the athlete's minds, or create their own dialogue between the competitors.
Lampley's always trying to create drama, as if the combat between JMM and Katsidis wasn't enough. Lampley's even resorted to chanting, "pow pow pow," in order to create drama.
I was including the 12th, since it was nearly over... including the 12th, I would have had it 6-6, but with Chavez by a point due to the knockdown but, not including the 12th, it was 6-5 Taylor, if that makes your vagina feel better
again, I honestly think Lampley is a horrendous blow-by-blow man, he is a cheerleader and a drama queen and his ability to accurately report what is happening in front of him is highly suspect
I like Lampley's commentary a lot at times, and at other times I simply can't stand his blindness, attempts to be dramatic, bias, and mancrushes.
I love every member of the classic HBO team, tbh. Nut hugging Lampley, miserable old drunk Larry, Big abtruse George. It's like bands you start loving when you're 13, for all their flaws there's a rosy hue that makes them OK.
I see that point 100%. Merchant, Foreman, Lampley, Lederman. Interesting, dramatic, absorbing, flawed, hilarious --- both intentionally & unintentionally --- I love 'em, & wish they could stay on the air forever.
I think Lampley gets a touch too much abuse over favouritism, too. Not saying he isn't guilty of it (he patently is), but I think a good chunk of that has to stem from HBO-related pressure for support of the house fighter, promotion of the, "product," that is said-fighter, etc. Merchant got away with speaking his mind regardless (as someone with major sway at the network, built up over several decades), but I doubt Lampley has ever felt the same sense of verbal freedom.
I don't think he gets enough criticism. His call of certain fights has been an absolute embarassment, and the problem with it is that it shades the entire discussion of certain fights. And that's a significant problem when youre discussing a sport that relies heavily on scoring and judges. If you want to give him an excuse, fine, though I'd like to see what that's based on other than having a soft spot for him.
If I were to take 5 minutes to write down just 10 of the 100000 completely idiotic things you have spewed forth on these forums over the last 10 years, I would be giving you more credit than you deserve 2-2 with 8 rounds even... suck a dick, you blind mongoloid