Arthur Abraham vs. Paul Smith

Enter your Arthur Abraham vs. Paul Smith fan card
CONTROVERSY RATING: 0%
The percentage of fan cards that disagree with an official result. Exclusively on EYE ON THE RING.
Arthur Abraham vs. Paul Smith
Fan Rating: 
0
Your rating: None
0
No votes yet

Date: 
Saturday, September 27, 2014
Location: 
Kiel, Germany
Rounds Scheduled: 
12
Referee: 
Robert Byrd

Official Judging
Waleska Roldan 117 - 110
Fernando Laguna 119 - 109
Zoltan Enyedi 117 - 111

More:






Averaged Fan Card:

round 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Arthur Abraham
                                                                    
9
9.66
9.66
10
10
9.66
9.33
10
9
9.33
10
10
Paul Smith
                                                                    
10
9.33
9.33
9
9
9.33
9.66
9
10
9.66
9
9


Fan Cards: Arthur Abraham vs. Paul Smith


scorecard by CHAMPION97
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
ARTHUR ABRAHAM
9
9
10
10
10
10
9
10
9
9
10
10
115
PAUL SMITH
10
10
9
9
9
9
10
9
10
10
9
9
113


scorecard by BOXING KNOWLEDGE
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
ARTHUR ABRAHAM
9
10
9
10
10
9
9
10
9
10
10
10
115
PAUL SMITH
10
9
10
9
9
10
10
9
10
9
9
9
113


scorecard by MATYS
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
ARTHUR ABRAHAM
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
10
10
117
PAUL SMITH
10
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
9
9
111


Comments

Champion97's picture

What an effort from Paul Smith!
The Smiths are all great guys, dedicated athletes, and good, solid boxers.
Paul is a clever guy, he is a good pundit for SkySports, gives very good analyses, and in this scenario, in his own boxing career, he knew that brains were more important than given bravery. Smith had a good, realistic attitide going into this fight, he didn't consider himself the best in his division, he wasn't in the slightest bit deluded, he knew what his own limitations were, skill, and talent wise, he also knew how hard working an athlete he was, how sharp, experienced he considered himself, how dominant he was against a certain level of opposition, how successful he was at a fairly high level, and he had a good idea of which fights he believed he had genuinely strong chances of winning. Smith saw a 34 year old Arthur Abraham, a fighter who was never a match for Andre Ward, and a fighter who had looked declined after a move up in weight, and he decided in his mind, with confidence, that due to the timing, circumstances, he could have the beating of Arthur Abraham, and win a world title, as every fighter dreams of doing.

Smith gave it everything, did very well, but he lost, and he legitimately lost, SkySports wmay have been slightly biased, unlike them, but nevertheless, their judgement was clouded, but that being said, there wasn't so much bias that there overall evaluation of the fight was too harsh on Abraham, I just heard them declare what were shots Abraham blocked, landed punches from Smith, and it just sounded as if they were desperately hoping Smith was going to get the better of Abraham. This certainly wasn't a blowout, it wasn't an easy night for Abraham, I didn't think it was one sided, I think Abraham won, but only by two points, not wide at all, and back to the point, Abraham did not win by 10 points, by any means, he didn't win by 8, he didn't win by 6, the judges were not fair with their scoring, it was to be expected in Germany, but it was still sad to see. I think Abraham should be commended for giving Smith the rematch, Smith desereved the rematch after not only his desire, but also hurting Abraham, making him have to dig deep, but Abraham didn't need Smith again, a tough opponent, no name, not worldwide, he wasn't going to get much credit from those who aren't British after beating Smith, and he can't have expected Smith not to have tried his best again, made it tough again, in a rematch, good on Abraham for making that brave move.

I'm guessing the second worst score would be 113-114 Shumenov in Hopkins last fight. I'm positive number one on your list is Bradleys win over Pacquiao.

Champion97's picture

You're half right. Have you seen Hopkins vs Shumenov? Hopkins won 10 rounds clearly and you can score the fight no closer than 118-109 and I wouldn't argue with 119-108. Pacquiao vs Bradley was a terrible injustice but it wasn't as bad as 116-112 for Brandon Rios in his fight with Richard Abril.

I'm sure you are surprise by this but I can explain myself, to measure how bad a decision is I count the what I call robbery rounds. For example I wouldn't argue with 116-112 for Manny Pacquiao in his fight with Bradley although any closer isn't valid. in this case Bradley wins 4 rounds and with Foolish Forde and Ridiculous Ross giving him 7 this adds up to 3 robbery rounds. The closet you can score Hopkins vs Shumenov is 118-109 which gives Shumenov 2 rounds and yet he was given 7 by a judge. This adds up to 5 robbery rounds. Do you get it?

No actually I really wasn't surprised plus I never saw Rios and Abril. Correct me if I'm wrong but what your saying is that if a fight goes the distance and there are several rounds that you could argue, 3 for example, and one judge gives him nine rounds, then what your saying is that there are six rounds that he clearly didn't win "robbery rounds"(I like that term)

Speaking of Hopkins what are your thoughts on Hopkins vs Kovalev? Personally I believe that age will be a possible factor here as Kovalev is probably the hardest hitter Hopkins has faced since Trinidad(and that was 15 years ago) I think if he can avoid getting tagged then he may hold his own, plus I can't think of any big names Kovalev has faced or more importantly beaten. I actually would like Hopkins chances against Stevenson much more than Kovalev to be honest.

Champion97's picture