Jim Lampley Quotes

agreed

 

Nice run-on sentence, you worthless pile of shit!

 

Even I had Taylor ahead 8-3, which proves what a fucking idiot "cdog" is...

 

I had it 7-3-1 Taylor going into the 12th.

Chavez rounds: 2, 9, 11
Taylor rounds: 1, 3-8
Even: 10

 

Are you trying to tell me you don't believe HBO have an agenda with promoting certain fighters?

I wasn't making any excuse for Lampley, just saying there is some reason beyond purely him which influences what he says, obviously. I don't think people are wrong to criticise him --- just that there should be some perspective to it.

 

you had Whitaker/Chavez 2-2-8, what could possibly compare to that?

nothing is dumber than that

 

I disagree. Would you prefer Colonel Sheridan?

 

I think Sheridan is excellent. He's one of my favorites.

Lampley bang is bang good bang, too, bang, though.

 

no, but Colonel Sheridan being awful doesnt make Lampley good any more than Rosie O'Donnell being fat and gross makes Ellen DeGeneres hot

 

having chavez-taylor 6-6 is dumber

 

no, that is simply untrue

taking what is at best (for chavez) an 8-4 Whitaker win and turning it into 2-2-8 is simply the dumbest scoring in the history of mankind, even dumber than the idiots who actually officially scored that fight

I dont believe in even rounds... if I did, maybe my Chavez/Taylor score would be something more like 6-3-2 or 5-4-1 for Taylor, but I think SOMEBODY wins the round... Taylor threw a lot more punches, he was busy, he carried the fight to JCC, but the vastly more telling shots in the fight were landed by Chavez and clean, effective punching is the most important element in scoring

you scoring Whitaker's obvious victory over Chavez 2 rounds a piece with a ridiculous 8 even rounds is preposterous and obscenely prejudicial

you are a moron, you have been a moron as long as I've been aware of you, wrong king

 

If you cannot decide who the winner of a round is, then you are obliged to score it even. Otherwise, you'd simply be allocating the winner of a round by guesswork, which isn't just.

I some of the very rare cases an even round (10-10) is the only fair solution.

 

someone always gets the better of it. always

 

When two sprinters seemingly hit the tape simultaneously and the machine cannot even separate them by 1/1000th of a second, someone always gets there first, always. But since we cannot tell who got it even with advanced technological timing, we shouldn't guess at it, we should call it a draw.

If the scorer cannot perceive who got the better in the close round, they should score it even.

 

then you have a case where fighter A barely edges 7 uneventful rounds by the most infinitesimal of margins, yet gets dropped hard once, and thoroughly out punched and outboxed in the 5 other rounds. 114-113 victory for fighter A :doh:

 

The only way Chavez-Taylor being 6-6 is dumb is if it's Chavez vs Taylor II

The official cards for Taylor vs Chavez had Taylor ahead {on two cards} with Chavez leading on the other.

It's perhaps, in the 10 point must system, a bit generous to have Chavez even, but in terms of a fight, it was very much even.

Had the fight not been stopped when it was, then Chavez would have gotten a 10-8 for the 12th, minimum.

 

exactly

 

boxing isnt a race to a ticker tape, you cant make that comparison

in boxing you seldom have two fighters doing the EXACT SAME thing in a round... someone is always hitting cleaner, or carrying the fight, or controlling the pace better than his opponent... always, even in the WORST fights

 

fighter B should have done more in the other 7 rounds... thats the way it goes... if we didnt score fights by rounds, but rather as an entire contest, then that would be different

if you barely win 7 rounds and your opponent clearly wins 5, you know what the score is? 7-5... it is STILL 7-5, no matter what... thats where that old expression "won the battle, but not the war" comes into play

if your football team outgains their opponent 500 yards to 180 but fumbles 4 times in the redzone and loses 13-10 on field goals, they lose the game despite dominating stretches of it... thats the way the cookie crumbles

what would you do? give the 5 rounds fighter a couple of extra rounds just for the hell of it?

 

in fights such as the one described, i give even rounds in uneventful rounds where i'd simply be reaching to find a reason to give one of the boxers the round. pretty shitty to decide a bout by just flipping a coin to give one guy the edge.

 

but Im not flipping a coin:dunno:

 

maybe not, but youve probably given close rounds to a guy cuz he landed one or two glancing, partially blocks jabs more than the other chap.

 

if you have a round, theoretically, where that little happens (I havent seen such a round in thousands of fights) , where one guy throws two punches and the other guy throws none, than the guy who threw the punches gets the round... thats how it works

if you have a fight like Marquez/Gainer where one guy chases the other guy arouns because the other guy refuses to fight and just runs, you give the rounds to Marquez because he is trying to fight even if he isnt doing much else

 

Agreed, but there's a difference between Marquez-Gainer and for example some of the early rounds of Hopkins - De La Hoya.

If two guys stare at each other and do nothing but feint i have a hard time giving a guy a round because he "scored" two jabs to one.

 

agree, but if the guy who scored the two jabs is also forcing the other guy to fight his fight, well ring generalship comes into play and that edges things in his favor

 

Lampley was especially blind the other day during Khan-Maidana.

 

"Its nonsense, Harold"- one of my favourites.

 

I can't accept Ring generalship as a variable to score on at all, it's a means to scoring not something to reward in itself. It's punches scored and damage done, period. No other considerations.

 

If a guy managed to outland and out hurt another guy while running I'd score it for him without hesitation. Doing differently is how ridiculous decisions like Whitaker-Ramirez are justified.

 

Taylor's success in that fight was overstated both by his hand-speed and by the HBO broadcast.