Matthysse vs Dallas JR. SPOILERS

First topic message reminder :

Wow this knockout was brutal. Dallas JR, looked a little bit reckless and over anxious.

Bring on Danny Garcia because that fight could be explosive.

Maidana has said that he won't fight at 140 anymore because he struggled too hard to get down to it.

He also looked very good against Soto Karass, but you don't actually watch the fights though Az I forgot.

Watch what fights? No I didn't see his last fight. But well done for following his career so closely.

azania wrote:Watch what fights? No I didn't see his last fight. But well done for following his career so closely.

You barely watch any fights then claim to be an expert on everything, stating your opinion is a fact, yet you haven't even watched 90% of the fights or fighters that you talk about.

Errr how do you know I barely watch any fights Alex?

azania wrote:Errr how do you know I barely watch any fights Alex?

Stalking you.

AlexHuckerby wrote:

azania wrote:Errr how do you know I barely watch any fights Alex?

Stalking you.

Some things never change...

Cracking punch to finish it all.

Dallas looked and fought abit nervous but tried a Buster Douglas routine and got cracked.

It happens. I'm sure Dallas will bounce back while Lucas moves onto bigger and more important fights.

The Argentine did the PR no harm, in this exercise.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I'm a traditionalist Chris I prefer fighters to do a bit more than lose fights and beat Olusegun for a title shot, he's looked good against less than stellar opposition and lost the two times he's really stepped up.

What's more traditional then a fighter being given a title shot once he's become the number one contender / mandatory for someone's belts?

In this day and age, where there are multiple organisations which are often unwilling to rank fighters who represent others, Matthysse's road to a mandatory position has actually been fairly testing, for me. If you're arguing that the road to a number one contender spot was more difficult back in the day, then I'd agree, but Matthysse didn't choose the era he fights in.

He's worked his way in to a mandatory position. Ergo, he deserves his title shot.

Given that the decision against Alexander absolutely stunk and also that Alexander doesn't even campaign as a Light-Welter anymore, I don't see why that 'loss' should be used as a stick to beat his claims to a 140 lb title fight with.

The argument that Lara deserves a shot at Canelo but no other LMW belt holder is astonishing.

In order for a fighter to 'deserve' a shot, especially in Matthysse's case it would seem, then that fighter must have established himself as the #1 contender in the division. That is to say, the best fighter in his division, APART from the 'champion(s)'

In Alvarez's case, he clearly has defended against weak opposition, but that has absolutely no bearing on Lara's position. IF Lara has established himself as the best LMW out there, aside from Alvarez, Trout, or any other belt holder, then he deserves his shot.

If Lara is the #1 contender, then it makes no difference if the champion is Saul Alvarez or Mike McCallum. Why should Lara deserve Alvarez more than Cotto, for example? Or, indeed any other ranked LMW fighter? The question is not has the contender done more than the champion, but, has the contender done more than his rival world ranked contenders?

The status of the champion is completely irrelevant. How on earth can the supposed quality of a champion have any effect on who the #1 contender in the division is?

Canelo has also had some serious bad luck with opposition.

The Alexander fight could have gone either way had him winning by a point but please don't paint it as an absolute robbery. The early rounds could have gone either way.

AlexHuckerby wrote:The Alexander fight could have gone either way had him winning by a point but please don't paint it as an absolute robbery. The early rounds could have gone either way.

I disagree that it could have gone either way, Alex. That, to me, would suggest that a reasonable, competent and on-form judge could conceivably score it to Alexander. However, that's clearly not the case with regards to that fight.

The only way you could have it by a single point, I believe, is if you were giving Alexander the huge benefit of every single possible shred of doubt, or if you were actively trying to give him rounds whenever possible. There were five rounds in that fight - one of which included a knockdown - that were Matthysse's beyond any kind of doubt. There was one which was very, very probably his too, although less dominant. Of the other four, I believe there were only a couple that you could unequivocally score for Alexander. The rest were close and open to interpretation, granted.

I'd have a very, very hard time giving Alexander any more than four rounds at best. Factor in the knockdown, and the decision deserves to be condemned, I think. Yes, there's a conceivability that the margin could have been by a single point in some people's eyes, but the point is that, usually, in that kind of fight there is usually some kind of argument that can be made either way. In this fight, it wasn't the case. I'm yet to hear of anyone aside from those 'judges' who had anything other than a Matthysse win, regardless of whether it was by one, two, three, four or five points.

In terms of the scoring of the fight, I find it practically impossible to give Alexander win, even if the overall score only reflects a close Matthysse win. You would need to give Alexander almost every close round to give him the win. Round 4 was a 10-8 to Matthysse and he decisively won rounds 7 and 8 where most of the telling shots were landed and Alexander was really struggling.

The other rounds were more nip tuck but I think its stretching it to say Alexander won them all and not giving any even, which is what one judge determined. The way the action happened aswell then Matthysse also deserved the nod I think. All of the easy to score rounds were his and he inflicted the heavy damage in rounds 7/8.

I had it 96-94 Matthysse and thought he landed the greater and more telling punches over the fight. I suppose when people think robbery they tend to think a fighter winning by several rounds at least, but as I cant really find a way for Alexander to win it outright I think it was a bit of a home towner.

I had the fight to Matthysse, but I don't see the problems in giving everything apart from I think pre round 7 and the KD round to Alexander and then obviously the 9th, I had it a draw going into the final round but I had Matthysse winning it, I scored it basically the exact same as Lederman, however if you gave Alexander the first round as Lederman didn't then you could very well make a case that Alexander won the fight in my view. So I would be more than happy for you to tell me that Alexander won the fight as I can see how you have come to that conclusion.

Not a major robbery in my view, however I don't see how one judge had 3 points in it, that needs questioning...