Soto won; HBO and GBpcredibility gone; sport on edge of collapse.

Astute observation. I have to agree. I also saw a little bit of a prime Hamed in there as well (but without the power of course).

Although he was somewhat annoying in his approach...Guzman is very talented: Incredibily "slippery" and seems pretty tough (he got nailed with some good shots in some of teh exchanges). Difficult fighter to beat.

 

soto could've made it a better fight by doing something other than plodding forward.

 

Not much he could do when all teh other guy did was ride a bycicle around the ring.

 

to steal a quote from you..

 

::

 

the problem is that you interpret me saying he is overrated with saying he sucks.

He is a good solid fighter but still overrated. next time Soto steps up he'll lose. That's not caliming he is bad that's just my opininon with him.

I think if you thought the fight was closer you gave Soto more credit for just coming forward and mising wildly. You also have to credit Guzman for an excellent defense.

Honestly once Guzman got on a rythm he did what he wanted in there.

I think Both Soto and Guzman fought the way they had to fight. But Guzman's speed and skill prevailed. :cheer:

 

I agree with you Latin King.

And Donny is sometimes guilty of jumping on me for saying a fighter is overrated too.

I am not the type to go branding fighters bums at the drop of a hat. Especially fighters on the world stage.

So if I say a fighter is overrated, it means just that, he is not worthy of the hype/praise he's been getting.

I find them both overrated. Soto is a solid fighter, but nothing special. Guzman is slippery and tricky, but just has an annoying, ugly style. Sort of in the Casamayor mould.

 

No, the problem is you saying:

" Soto was never that good and last night it was proven."

and then saying, "you interpret me saying he is overrated with saying he sucks."

 

Fair assessment and point.

But it's different to say "he's a good fighter who was beaten on Saturday per my prediction" than to say "Soto was never that good and he's 1-dimensional and it was proven last night".....especially when MANY (reading alot of media this morning) had it a very close fight.

But by the same token, if you had Guzman winning 9-3 or 10-2, you're giving way too much credit to partially or fully blocked shots - and you're discounting ALOT of Soto's body work (and yes, I'm aware Guzman defends his body well with his arm and elbow).

Soto made a few critical strategic mistakes, such as abandoning his jab (which was very successful early) and going too left-hook crazy when Guzman was on the ropes...though he nailed Guzman with some right-hand doozies when Joan was sliding off the ropes.

Again, Guzman gets much credit from me - I recognize his talent, speed, skill, underrated toughness and offensive/defensive repertoire - and the fact that he is not nearly as unwatchable as some make him out to be.

I had called it as a very, very tight fight either way....that's the way I saw it on paper, but Guzman was a clear winner.

As far as Soto stepping up....I think alot depends on who he fights.

Peace.

 

Not necessarily. He is saying he was never THAT good. Thus being overrated. Not "he sucks".

 

Read the full quote if you like. Your interpretation of what he wrote vs what he meant is far too generous (and unlikely). If you say someone was never that good, it means what it means. If you want to say someone was never THAT good, you write it like that.

 

I jump on you because you deserve it. :nono: ::

I don't remember MANY saying that Soto was going to "blow out" Guzman....or that Kessler was going to blow away Calzaghe.

So it's funny to me that someone says that the loser of the fight is "overrated" when they lose in a competitive fight - and in the process prove themselves no worse than #2 in the entire division (in the case of Kessler) or in the top 5-7 of their division (Soto).

Where is all this supposed "overrating" coming from? Again, to make that a fair criticism we should have many people engaging in that kind of behavior.

The way you guys talk sometimes, you'd swear that the fighter you say is getting "overrated" has been talked about as #1 PxP all-time GOAT by thousands of posters. ::

That's more my point.

I don't tend to use words like "overrated" and "exposed" to begin with, so that already gets my gander up a bit. ::

I probably react stronger than most to it...I can accept that.

Peace.

 

wow, the people who scored this fight for Soto should be banned from receiving oxygen. Guzman is a dirty, hard to watch, clowning pile of filth, but he absolutely outclassed Soto.

9-3 10-2 are much more reasonable than 8-4 or 7-5.

besides the 2nd, name one soto round,...one

 

Actually, the more I read, the more common close scorecards are in the media.

Besides the 2nd? The 2nd I had as a Guzman round....Soto was too sloppy. But it was certainly close.

The 1st was a Soto round and I can't see how you'd have it otherwise; unless you completely discount Soto's bodywork, which I am starting to see is often the case.

I scored 1, 3, 7, 11 & 12 for Soto ( I can give you the 12th if you were impressed by Guzman's movement and clowning, but the 11th was pretty clear, IMHO).

Even HBO, who were really high on Guzman, had it closer than the judges.

It depends on your definition of "outclassing", I guess. I like to focus on what's actually landing and forcing the exchanges vs. who is giving the appearance of being flashy and supposedly "controlling" a round. That's not to say Guzman did not outland Soto - he did - but I think he gets more credit than he should for his flurries.

There were alot of close rounds and IMHO if you had Guzman winning by a landslide you were giving him the benefit of every close round.

You gotta give it to Guzman...his style can certainly swing perception his way.

The 2nd, 4th, 9th and 10th which were Guzman rounds on my card were EXTREMELY close.

So I scored those 4 close rounds for Guzman...and the 7th and 12th very close rounds for Soto.

Sometimes the very fact that a fight has varying scorecards among hardcore fans in and of itself indicates that it was a close/tough fight to score.

It's good to keep an open mind in that regard.

Peace.

 

It is alot like people who gave oscar 5+ rounds.

You simply don't know how to score a fight if you think Soto won more than 4 rounds. Guzman absolutely outclassed him in every regard. I know punchstat numbers aren't always reliable, but in this case, the numbers show what an absolute clowning it was.

Did you have Whitaker-Ramirez 1 for Ramirez?

 

Well, at least you're now up to 4 rounds, like in the other thread where you said "anyone who gave Soto more than 3-4 rounds is fooling themselves..."

Here before you said 10-2 was more sensible.

Which is it? ::

I have no problems with an 8-4 card - which incidentally is what Jake had.

No, I didn't have Whitaker-Ramirez I for Ramirez.....nor Whitaker-Chavez for Chavez either.

Stay away from generalist statements; no need for them here.

I'm not alone in my appreciation of the fight.

I had PBF-DLH 9-3 for Mayweather.

See, every fight is different and I score it as such.

Peace.

 

this is the same fight as Floyd-Oscar. What is it about Soto that you love so much?

There is no way a sensible person could possibly have it closer than 8-4, and yes 10-2 is a legitimate score.

The sad truth is that you aren't alone in your abysmal scoring of this fight. But of course I knew people who thought Oscar was robbed against Floyd, and even someone on this board who scored Casa-Santa Cruz for Casamayor.

That is just wrong, w-r-o-n-g, wrong

 

Soto hits harder than Guzman.

HBO was pouring on the brainwashing...even getting Lederman to change his view of the fight.

Guzman fought like he was trying to annoy the viewer.

I thought Guzman clearly won, but fights like this can be a lot different at ringside or

if you can avoid letting Lampley and crew get inside your head.

 

Scoring SC-Casamayor for Santa Cruz is ridiculous...agree with you there.

How did you score Guzman-Soto round by round, Myelmers?

Sorry, we just don't agree on the scoring of that fight. I don't why that is so unusual to a purportedly experienced fan such as yourself.

I think Guzman got too much credit for half-blocked, deflected shots - especially within a flurry where many seem to assume all of the shots landed.

I think Soto's work to the body (despite Guzman's cross-defense against the ropes) is underrated, as were his uppercuts and his short rights over the top when Guzman was coming off the ropes.

Soto shouldn't get credit for just coming forward (and doing things like neglecting his jab which worked well early); Guzman shouldn't get excessive credit for shoeshing, jogging, and clowning....all the while letting Soto control large portions of certain rounds.

I had it closer than you; similar to many whose opinions I respect more than yours, both here and in the media.

Some had it wider.

That's fine. The right guy won and that's what matters.

Peace.

 

Oh I agree with you about the love fest Lampley was putting on.

But this was one of the few times when the fighter deserved to be lauded for what he was doing.

hitting harder is not a scoring criteria, last I checked. And despite his cowardice, his disgusting low blows, his filthy elbows and pushing off, Guzman was outclassing Soto in there.

I was lucky enough to get a ticket to Whitaker-Chavez, and there were hundreds of people in my vicinity who thought Chavez won, so I know people live can be awful at scoring fights, especially regarding such a hideous style to watch.

All that said, the fight wasn't even close, and that a sizable number had it so, is just silly.

 

its not unusual. For some reason a majority of fans, even die hard fans, just have some biases that allow them to score in a way that is contrary to what actualy happens in the ring.

Thankfully, I didn't tape the fight, all I can say is that I was in agreement with Lederman until the last three, which despite my bouts with sleeping, I still scored either all for Guzman or maybe one for Soto.

The same way as the judges had it, 9-3 or 10-2, in an absolutely uncompetitive bout.

 

He wants round by round so that he can pick apart any rounds he disagrees with. Can you blame him?

 

dsimon writes:

This is what I noticed. And his work to the body in the last rounds was substantial it definitely should have won him 10and 11.... Meanwhile HBO went on about their Guzman testicular serenade with the usual locraciousness reserved for blithering idiots and drunk uncles named Larry. Teh fight should have been a lot closer. I don't think Soto won, but again I like to watch fights not score them.

 

well last week he was attempting to justify giving cotto three of the last 4 rounds againt mosley, so that tactic doesn't hold merit.

 

So you didn't score the fight but are basically going by your "impression" of the fight.

In that case, I can understand why you think the way you do.

But given you seem to have experience watching fights, you should know that the overall impression or mental 'scoring' you have of a fight can feel very different than when you actually score it on paper, round by round.

I stand by my scoring of the fight, as do many others who had it close.

Funny you admit many others had it closer...then state they're all wrong, all the while admitting you didn't keep a round-by-round score and that you were fighting off sleep. ::

Seems to me you may not have been paying attention too much to what was going on in the ring; given all the Soto work you missed and all the erroneous flurries you credited Guzman with.

Scoring is about subtleties, not the flash.

Goes both ways.

And shame for even bringing up punchstats in a fight like this. :nono:

Anywhoo, nice debate.

See ya next time. Sleep calls.

Peace.

 

I gave him 2.

You're the one doing the bold proclaiming. Now back it up.

Do it for the busty maxim ad chick if for no other reason.

 

Me?

No. I gave 2 of the last 4 to Mosley, not 3.

Get your facts straight.

Anyone that gave the 11th to Mosley should have their scoring privileges revoked.

As for the 9th at BEST it's extremely close. I broke down a minute-by-minute of that round in the Cotto-Mosley r-by-r thread to show why I scored it the way I did.

If you don't even have rounds to show, then you really shouldn't be nitpicking anyone else's scorecards, truthfully.

And equating the last 4 rounds of Cotto-Mosley (i.e.; what Cotto did) to the last 4 rounds of Guzman-Soto (i.e.; what Guzman did)....is....well....laughable.

Peace.

 

did I say I wasn't paying attention to the fight?

I agree with lederman until the last 3, one of which I gave to Soto, the others to Guzman.

Subtleties is the kind of mindless drivel people said regarding Oscar-Floyd. Are you sure you didn't think Oscar's "superior defense" and "unnoticed bodywork" didn't get him more rounds?

You stand by an obvious ineptitude in scoring fights, as long as you are ok with being blind and biased that is fine:bears:

 

we can agree clearly that you clearly can't score a fight.

Cotto was legitimately hurt in the 9th round, so if that doesn't win the round, then its no surprise you had it so wide for Cotto.

Truthfuly you are bad at analyzing fights apparently

 

Not directly, no.

But then again, you didn't have to. It's apparent.