There's very few fights I have an official scorecard for , but I felt Laciar deserved the Zapata win because of effective aggression. Zapata-Bassa I & II I watched some years ago, both late at night, and I think both deserve a rewatch. But I do know Zapata did a lot better in the rematch. The last Bassa fight I watched was last week, his loss to Rojas. I'm surprised Jesus Rojas didn't have a great career, because he looked like a superb boxer-puncher in that fight.
I didn't watch it too long ago, but I think I had Bassa winning the first 9-6, and Zapata winning the second 8-7 with a KD. That said, I've lost the notepad what my card is in. So I could be wrong, and I can't find the round by round. I do know that I haven't seen Laciar vs Zapata yet. Always heard that Hilario deserved to win that one on some cards.
Laciar - Zapata 10 : 9* 9 : 10 10 : 9 9 : 10 10 : 9 (48/47) 10 : 9 9 : 10 9 : 10 10 : 9 10 : 9 (95/95) 9 : 10 10 : 9 9 : 10 10 : 9 9 : 10 (142/143) Yeah, 8-7 for Zap. Nothing I'm willing to die defending, though. Every round could be seen in a different light by a different person. Proper seesaw-type fight. I guess if you were looking at it with quite strict parameters, then I suppose Zapata would be the winner. If you look at the four main scoring criteria: Clean Punching, Ring Generalship, Effective Aggression and Defence; then it'd have to be Zap's. Neither were landing cleanly, neither established themselves as the boss in there, Laciar's aggression was rarely effective as he wasn't landing, but Zapata's defence was exceptional. Sure, that's quite a bleak and robotic way of looking at it, but it is a nice little ode to how the fight went down.
