Mosley/Forrest
So we all saw what happened
this weekend right? Well Jim, you said Mosley was gonna
take this one? What happened? How do you feel the decision
went? Will there be a rematch? -Latinofestival.com
I really thought Shane Mosley would apply more pressure
throughout the fight like the way the first round started.
Mosley seemed to be too conscience of Vernon Forrest's right
hand to be at his best, which is attacking the body and
being aggressive in general. Forrest did make adjustments
to Mosley's change of style from their first fight. They
both landed some big punches, but I feel Mosley landed the
harder blows throughout the fight. I'm not outraged at the
decision, because I could see it going either way, but I
do have a problem with 117-111. I scored the fight 115-113
for Mosley in a very tactical defensive fight. I could see
114-114 or 115-113 for Forrest, but I guess the judges gave
credit for misses to Forrest instead of good defense by
Mosley. I will say that Mosley did not throw enough punches
to solidify the decision. I don't think there'll be a third
fight anytime soon, because Forrest want to unify the titles
and Mosley is moving up to 154 to maybe set up a rematch
with DeLaHoya or a number of attractive fights with Fernando
Vargas, Winky Wright or possibly Bernard Hopkins. - JIM
I agree with Jim as far as the
117-111 ruling by one of the judges. I have no idea what
fight he was watching. I had it 115-113 or a draw...pick
a winner. I'm a Shane fan, but just calling it like I saw
it, I'd have to go with Forrest if I HAD to choose a winner.
Only because Forrest is the champ. Basic rule of thumb when
it pertains to boxing is that the champ has to be 'beaten'
to dethrone him. Neither 'beat' the other so I'd have to
pick Forrest. Shane did enough to win.....if he was the
champ coming in. - ADRIAN
I believe a lot of judges, not all, score rounds impartial,
boxing politics aside. A challenger should be able to win
a close round the same as the champion, based on the judges
viewpoint. It's an old cliché that the challenger must really
take the title. Scoring should be consistent with all fights,
whether it's a fight between guys with losing records or
a championship bout. This is why I feel there should be
a universal/national commission to set standards for judging,
ring rules, medical standards, etc. -Jim
I agree Jim. A challenger should
have just as good a chance as the champion in every round
of every fight. However, when rounds are very close and
could go to either fighter, I tend to lean toward the champ
if he's fighting defensively good enough to keep the challenger
from getting a head. I rarely judge a round a tie unless
it is absolutely no doubt in my mind that both fighters
landed equally damaging blows. If it's a close, but boring
round (like most of the ones in this fight) where neither
fighter is delivering any real blows, opting instead, to
clinch and connect on a few soft contact shots (no damage)
at an almost even rate as the other fighter, that's when
I give it to the champ. So I tend to agree that a challenger
in any sport has to 'beat' the champion. Not necessarily
having to dominate. But it should be clear that the challenger
had the upper hand. That's fair. A challenger's goal should
not be to be 'as good' as the champion. It is to be better.
That's why in a draw, the champion should (and does) keeps
the belt. You can't have 2 champions. That said, I still
believe Forrest did just enough to keep Mosley from taking
his belt. And that Mosley did not do quite enough to take
it. This was a tough fight to judge. Because had Mosley
come in as the champion, I'd have to say that Forrest didn't
do enough to have taken it from Shane. Go figure.....-Adrian's
$.02
