Taylor-Catterall Sky Sports Arena 19:00

walshb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118700466#Comment_118700466

Taylor was missing 4/5 shots…

Biy few rds where Catterall was doing very little. Those rds cost him.

anyway, Catterall is nothing near great, even though I thought he won..

ctrl-alt-delete

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118700466#Comment_118700466

Near enough twice as much.

And a 10-8 round.

That 114-111 is preposterous.

PropJoe10

You could easily make the argument that Taylor didn't win a single round in that fight. Crazy decision.

Cyrus

Outrageous

walshb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118700491#Comment_118700491

That’s ridiculous.

you could argue a fair few rds..

PropJoe10

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118700496#Comment_118700496

It'd be a far better argument than arguing that Taylor won that fight. Taylor was nowhere near. Johnny Nelson just said he was embarrassed. Imagine putting your life into getting that world title shot, clearly winning the fight, and then being robbed like that. Shameful really.

Big Ears

The decision was definitely a poor one, and should have gone to Catterall.

However I don't think you can have much sympathy for Catterall, anyone who holds that much potentially deserves to be Dq'ed and lose anyway.

It reminds me very much of Froch Vs Dirrell. Dirrell outboxed Froch clearly, but again who has sympathy for someone who relies almost exclusively on tying up when the fight is on the inside.

Paul_Mc1988

Boxing is a joke. Robbed is an understatement. That one judge should be sacked and never allowed to judge again

walshb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118700506#Comment_118700506

You do realize Nelson gave Josh 4 rds, but not round 2. Round 2 was a Taylor round. So there’s 5 rds for Taylor..

Im gutted for Jack, and scored it 8/4 Jack

Rolling Stone

Sick of this with UK boxing. Ritson, Campbell Hatton, Ryder v Jacobs and now this. I’m certainly no expert but how does a judge give that 114-111 to Taylor? Why does this keep happening? Yes boxing is subjective but this is a joke. This isn’t Russia or some banana republic. There has to be better standards in the UK.

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.

walshb

Jim, Taylor is a pr1ck. And only for such a weak division, as well as him being a fully fledged WW boiling down, he’d be a nobody.

StringerBell

Taylor did nothing in the fight but they get in close and rough Jack up, that was the sum total of what he did for 12 rounds. I'm not gonna give him too much **** for his post fight interview, he had to be over the moon and felt like he slipped the hangman's noose. Fighters are not exactly the best at judging rounds either tbf.

The fight was fought almost exclusively on the challengers terms, he controlled the pace, he had control of the distance and he did the cleaner work throughout.

The decision stinks, it's pretty rare you have that kind of universal condemnation of a decision and it's not like Taylor isn't a golden boy for sky, of course they would want him to win and keep the show on the road but you just can't deny what you saw in front of your eyes, it's Orwellian to suggest otherwise in my view. Don't believe your eyes, believe what we are telling you. I watched it without sound so I only had my eyes to go with but having watched it back with sound the commentary team were useless too which brings me to -

The fight itself was very poor, scrappy, styles just didn't mesh at all and Taylor was utterly dogshit for 12 rounds, I'd say he probably put together 3 good minutes of clean work in the 36.

He needed a stoppage to win after the 10th, I gave him 4 rounds and at that I felt I was being generous in all honesty. A bad night for the sport and one that will live in the memory of the casual fans who tuned in, Frampton summer it up pretty well afterwards. To paraphrase "This **** game, makes you sick sometimes"

walshb

Yeh, I wouldn’t at all slate Taylor for post fight interview when asked if he thought he won. They’re silly questions.

The fight was very scrappy and closely fought. Taylor isn’t going to know what real way it went until he watched the tape. He’s too busy fighting in the moment.

Cyrus

I take Walshb's point that its easy to be swayed by the commentary (how macklin earnts a living at that is beyond me) and someone like andre ward with no vested interest in this scores it to taylor.

But there was a lot of people saying catterall took the last 4 rounds off, he still won one of them 10-8 for the point deduction, for me he did enough to take it by 3 or 4 rounds.

walshb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118707295#Comment_118707295

And Mack and Moore as thick as thieves as well....

Dante

Rewatched the fight and still can't see how Taylor came anywhere near winning that fight. Daylight robbery.

The judge gave that 114-111 to Taylor needs to be investigated.

Brock Turnpike

Investigation launched into the scoring of the bout:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/28/taylor-v-catterall-boxing-investigation-controversial-scoring?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

walshb

Social media is awash with commentary. Majority saying Jack robbed, but many, like myself not seeing this OTT hysteria about robbery/corruption.

No idea what this investigation is supposed to investigate/uncover. The judges weren't cheating.

Watch the fight: score it based off Ring Generalship/Defence/Clean hard shots and aggression.....

Fight of two halves........1st 6 rounds you absolutely could argue that Taylor bagged a couple rds, unless you were listening to that muppet, Macklin and his 6-0.

Second half: rds 7-12. Taylor had a better second half. Jack definitely had a weaker second half compared to his first half.

Taylor could be argued for 3-4 rounds in the second half.....that is exactly why we had the scores we had....razor close, as well as the three rds where points were "deducted". 10-8 Jack, 10-8 Josh and a 9-9....

Too many folks focusing too much on compubox and landed shots here and there.....there is more to professional boxing decisions than compubox.

Overall I thought Taylor was rubbish in his fight and plan and execution. He gets a grade D-. But a grade A for desire to want to win

Overall I gave Jack a C-, but a C- also for his desire to want to win. He was simply too spoiling and negative and fouling throughout, and it cost him.