Poll: Who Won Alexander-Kotelnik?
by Scott Christ on Aug 9, 2010 7:10 AM EDT
in Other
Email
Print
(Alexander photo by Getty Images / Kotelnik photo by Universum)
While I've certainly made my own feelings on Saturday night's fight clear, there are definitely folks who disagree with that stance, which I'll sum up briefly one more time in case you haven't been reading. I think Kotelnik definitely won the fight, racked up the rounds, landed better, cleaner blows, did more damage, and was more accurate. The CompuBox numbers are here, and I think they reflect that stance, but do not make the mistake of assuming I mean I'm going solely by the CompuBox numbers. I thought what CompuBox bears out was obvious watching the fight. That's my personal feeling on this bout.
But the ringside judges scored it 116-112 for Alexander across the board, and veteran HBO judge Harold Lederman had it 117-111 for Devon. And a lot of people do agree that Alexander won the fight, preferring his swarming workrate, the big punch output, or whatever else.
So who took the fight on your card, and why?
41 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
As a St. Louisan, I recognize I'm biased, but I had it 115-113 Alexander
How do I explain it? In retrospect, I thought Alexander was landing more punches than he actually did. Quite frankly, as I was watching the fight I just didn’t believe the CompuBox numbers on the screen. At one point I thought to myself, “Any minute now they [HBO] are going to admit that the punches landed graphic had the numbers flipped.”
I was counting Kotelnik's lands on Alexander...
and while there’s always a small margin of error, I’m pretty confident that that stat line reflects what Kotelnik did. The guy who was counting Alexander’s lands on Kotelnik is pretty experienced and I’m pretty confident in his work too. When we track punches, we’re not watching the fight as a whole or paying close attention to the commentary or crowd noise- we focus on the fighters were assigned. I’m not trying to be defensive as I don’t mind people questioning the stats. I’m just trying to offer an explanation of what goes on. We do have off nights and we’re not 100% perfect, but in the end, the best gauge is to go to the tape. The tape don’t lie.
When I re-watched the fight, I saw many of Alexander’s punches either fell short, were picked off or partially blocked or were grazing blows. I feel that “power punches” is deceiving because jabs can be just as effective a weapon as power punches and sometimes an effective jab is just as good, if not better than ineffective power punches. I thought Kotelnik’s jab was more effective than what Alexander brought to the table because Kotelnik’s jab landed more often and harder. I thought Kotelnik won more rounds based on clean punching, defense and ring generalship. Alexander was aggressive, but not effective and while I applaud his effort, I think the wrong fighter got the decision.
by AsianSensation on Aug 9, 2010 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions
UK Fight Fan
I still can’t understand how Alexander got the result??? Thought Kotelnik was the clear winner. Still think that Alexander beats Bradley and Khan but not if his corner don’t wise up and start getting there tactics right. They played into Kotelniks hands and had no plan B.
The Kellerman Factor
Consider:
During the broadcast, MaxK continually challenged Lederman’s scoring, which Lederman wasn’t having any of—Kellerman loves controversy, enough so to stir it up gratuitously just for fun, and I think that’s what he did Saturday night. Because even according to Kellerman, DA won the fight if you use normal standards
Listen in Rd.10: Lederman defends his scorecard to Kellerman, who keeps aggressively questioning both it, and by extension, DA’s performance. Lederman describes why, according to the time-honored standards of ring generalship, defense, aggression, & clean punches, DA was winning. Kellerman then agrees that according to prescribed standards, DA is winning. Nonethelesss Kellerman then argues that everyone knows it makes more sense, essentially, to use The Kellerman Standard, which uses among other things, the ‘who would you rather be?’ and the ‘who looks the most beat up?’ approach. Still, Kellerman concedes in Rd 10 that if you insist on using the official but apparently, to Kellerman, inefficient time-honored measures, Alexander is winning. So I just wonder how much of this is personalities, especially MaxK’s.
Imo, the right guy won the fight:
1. Three out-of-state, two of them copiously experienced, trustworthy judges thought DA won the fight;
2. Also at ringside Dan Rafael, nobody’s fool and largely unbiased, thought without reservation that DA won the fight,
3. Harold Lederman, who’s usually right and never far wrong, all of them present at ringside, where the rest of us weren’t, thought DA won the fight, and
4 . I, using my own inexpert, indefensible, intuitive standards-that-work-80%-of-the-time thought DA won the fight. Because he got in the most power shots, and he got them in last, coming back monster strong in 8 of 12 rounds, and if you win 8 0f 12, you win the fight. It wasn’t because compubox recorded more power punches, I don’t cater to it (but it does bear me out on power punches) I thought I saw just slightly more, harder punches, and they were real strong response punches toward the ends of his winning rounds. That is, he showed not only more power punches, but the greater heart.
However, I could see it if two of the rounds I gave DA (5 & 9) were scored draws, which would still have given him the fight. This in no way diminishes Kotelnik’s performance, which was excellent and entertaining, but not quite enough for me.
Arguing that Alexander won the fight on the basis that Lederman, Roth and Rafael all scored it his way is, in my opinion, a deeply flawed process. No one is right every time, and all three have come up with bizarre scorecards in the past. Ledernan scored Williams as winning the fight against Quintana, lauding a non-existent jab, and going against the decision of the judges and the public. Roth had Trinidad beating De La Hoya, and even gave the first round to Tito, if memory serves me correctly. And Rafael regularly comes up with strange scorecards, and was one of the few to score Froch as beating Dirrell. If that’s the way you see the fight, entirely fair enough, but I think using pundits as an argument is quite flawed.
"The terror of the unforeseen is what the science of history hides, turning a disaster into an epic"
by Oli Goldstein on Aug 9, 2010 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions
Lederman, Roth, Rafael
It would be deeply flawed if it were just one of them, but it’s all of them at once—all 3 wrong at once is unlikely, no matter that, of course, as with everyone, they’ve individually been wrong in the past. One judge was unfamiliar, but the other one generally does OK too. Only one is a pundit, Lederman was (& in way still is) a judge, and Roth is a judge, a generally good one.
But, they aren’t my only, or my most important reason: The kid won on power punches, and for me it was a draw on jabs—Kotelnik’s fewer jabs were landing, which certainly counts, but here’s where boxing gets subjective, I guess—DA’s were monster plentiful—busy, busy, busy, and were two-thirds effective—they use them to hit the other guy in the face, keep the other guy at bay, and to set up set up combinations. And they were definitely keeping at bay and setting up the combos, and they never seemed to stop. And not as a matter of sentiment, but as a matter of the fact that “heart” is maybe the essence of the sport, and only then if all other things seem equal, heart takes the win—so my reasoning is, draw on jabs (landing counts, but so does throwing 3 million of them to good strategic effect), he did throw more, and more powerful, power punches, and because of the rythm of the rounds, where he’d so often, against adversity, still come back and pull ahead, Alexander won the fight.
Back on the topic of judging, then. You simply can’t say ‘oh, three of them said the same thing at the same time, therefore they’re all correct.’ Three judges said Floyd Mayweather beat Jose Luis Castillo the first time; two judges said Ashley Theopane beat Delvin Rodriguez the other week. It’s such a contentious thing to base an argument on. I can appreciate your arguments for Alexander winning the fight; however, having seen the fight a few hours ago, I disagree with them and generally support the points raised by SC.
"The terror of the unforeseen is what the science of history hides, turning a disaster into an epic"
by Oli Goldstein on Aug 9, 2010 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions
I've pretty consistently disagreed with Rafael's scoring
All that said, maybe the fight just looked different ringside than it did on TV. I don’t know. I haven’t seen it yet but will watch it tonight. I feel like there are a lot of guys out there who are just plain bad at telling when a punch lands unless it snaps the other guy’s head back.
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
I feel like there are a lot of guys out there who are just plain bad at telling when a punch lands unless it snaps the other guy’s head back
.
I tend to agree with that statement.
Some analysts and fans sometimes scrutinize things too much and seem to try and make a fight more complicated to score than it really is.
Which fighter landed the solid,quality blows more often in a fight should be by far the main thing to look for when scoring.
I don’t care if someone’s got a judges certificate,i know what i’m seeing with my own eyes and unless a fight is really close,like say Williams v Martinez (which i could have scored either way because a lot of rounds were razor thin),it really shouldn’t be that hard to say Fighter A beat Fighter B.
For example,if Fighter A is boxing on the back foot but landing quality counters fairly often while Fighter B is putting loads of pressure on and throwing lots of punches but his punches are mainly blocked or not landing flush,Fighter A should win the round.
The name of the game is hit and don’t get hit,it doesn’t matter how you go about it.
I think some of these judges possibly have their favourite styles of fighting and they may score the fight on aggression or ring generalship even when hardly anything is landing.
I’m one of the dissenting voices who scored Hopkins over Calzaghe for the reasons i mention above.Yes,Hopkins fought a dirty fight and tried to cheat late on but it is a fact that the quality punches came from Bernard.
I didn’t see Calzaghe land anything really solid and accurate and i have watched the fight more than once.
I have soapboxed my stance plenty and I am more interested in hearing what others have to say now, and I thank you for the comment, but I can’t help but quibble not with you, but with Mr. Lederman on one thing:
Lederman describes why, according to the time-honored standards of ring generalship, defense, aggression, & clean punches, DA was winning
I will give him aggression for sure — Devon was very aggressive, had a huge workrate and output, and I commend that. But the ring generalship being in Alexander’s favor is at least questionable, and for defense and clean punches, I thought Kotelnik was the clear superior fighter.
And as an aside, I really wish Kellerman would stop with that “who would you rather be in that round?” bit. It’s nonsense.
Bad Left Hook
"To the town of Agua Fria rode a stranger one fine day..."
by Scott Christ on Aug 9, 2010 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions
Kotelnik definitely won in the Defense category, and it’s something AD’s people should maybe hire a fancy consultant-type trainer to bring a fresh eye and techniques to the kid.
But one of my issues is, Kellerman right there agreed that by normal standard, DA was ahead. That’s why I’m surpised—I don’t have it on On Demand yet to check again, but Kellerman agreed that DA was winning by normal standards. And, as mentioned—those 3 million thrown jabs to my eye controlled most of the fight, they were strategically very effective, contributing to his command of the ring most of the time.
I’m also aware that just because the kid finishes strong, maybe just trying to steal the round, doesn’t mean he won it—here, however, the rounds were fairly even, and then DA would really whack him hard, in combos.
If I thought Kotelnik were robbed, I’d be sick—I hate when guys travel all that way at huge expense and are cheated—saw it happen in Worcestor against a teeny Russian guy, just shameful, or Antonio Diaz v Omar Weis, terrible, terrible. But other than poor defense, I saw DA win the fight, in my eyes.
Alexanders punches simply were not landing.
He was punching air all night long.
Boxing writer: "Iran, what are you going to do when you retire?"
Iran Barkley: "Rob your house"
I watched the fight live
I thought Alexander won the fight by being, by far, the busier fighter. Kotelnik fought a really good fight, but there were 3-4 rounds where he just didn’t do enough to deserve consideration for the 10-9. Add in the good rounds where Alexander got the better of the exchanges, and I had it 7-5, alexander.
I also don’t really think it was a contraversial decision. As BoxAnne said above, any fight where Harold Lederman, Dan Rafeal, and Jerry Roth all agree with each other for the winner is a done deal in my book.
I don't care if Matthew, Mark, and Luke scored it 116-112.
For the last time, other peoples’ opinions are NEVER a substitute for having your own opinion. This form of argument is inane; just stick to “I thought Alexander won the fight” if you believe that.
All three having the same winner means something
I understand the flaw in it, because I too disagree with all three of them at different points in time. But I have never seen a fight in which I disagree with ALL three of them. Jerry Roth is, IMO, the best judge in the U.S; Harold Lederman the best judge out of any media outlet; and Rafael, while not being on the same level of the two aforementioned men, is a respectable source most of the time. Those three agreeing is a lot expertise and cannot be compared to three random judges, as Oligold did up above.
That's nonsense.
Every fan has a right to their own judgment about a fight, and the experts get things wrong sometimes. We are not obliged to go along with the so called experts when we disagree with them. Period.
Boxing writer: "Iran, what are you going to do when you retire?"
Iran Barkley: "Rob your house"
This reminds me of the Dirrell-Froch
Although Direll should have won, Froch looked like he did the right things to pull out the decision like not constantly clinching or running after being hit.
DA did the same thing in terms of volume and speed, but Kotelnik was the definite winner here in terms of effectiveness, ring generalship and whatever else you want to take into account.
Fascinating
that a lot of the posters here whose views i respect are on opposite sides with the scoring of this bout.
I look forward to seeing the dvd.
Though
most are on th Kotelnik side.
That Cliff Rold fella over at boxingscene had it a draw but said if anyone had better claims to victory it was Kotelnik.
Yeah, I read that report this morning, as I was interested to see how he scored the fight. I thought he had a pretty good take on things.
Bad Left Hook
"To the town of Agua Fria rode a stranger one fine day..."
He’s been around a long time, and is IMO one of the better boxing writers out there.
Bad Left Hook
"To the town of Agua Fria rode a stranger one fine day..."
I know you mentioned Graham Houston too.His previews are usually bang on the mark.
I held a grudge against the guy for a long,long time because he did a “Best Chins in Boxing” feature a few years ago but unbelievably never mentioned Ali!!!
I held a grudge for quite a while over that one……..Haha :)
Seriously i know he was well respected over here when he was editor of Boxing News before moving to America.
He still does previews for Boxing Monthly as far as i know but i started checking that Fightwriter website of his since you mentioned it.
Haha
I know your thoughts on BS Ted and i kind of agree but they are really fast with the news (true or otherwise).
I’m a bit suprised that Rold guy is on there to be honest.I thought he might have a better gig than that.I think he does a bit for The Ring too.
Yeah, they are a bit overwhelming with what they try to do. It's too complex for alot of people.
Maybe eclectic is a better word. I just don’t like the format and I particularly dislike the forum stuff which border on insanity with its hate, flaming, etc. It’s not for me. In fact, I am only posting on one other site these days and tha’s a tiny boutique one which a lot of ex-boxers post on. Other than that, BLH does it just fine for me. I haven’t posted on ESB or even looked at it in many months. But yes BS is very fast with the news.
Pray for Nick Charles
BS has lots of quality writers contributing, too. I avoid their forums like the plague for reasons you might expect me to avoid their forums (you stated them already), but by ignoring that you get a lot of really good boxing coverage there.
Bad Left Hook
"To the town of Agua Fria rode a stranger one fine day..."
by Scott Christ on Aug 9, 2010 11:47 PM EDT up reply actions
It seems that those arguing that Alexander won are mostly arguing that he won because so-and-so said he did. I don’t think that’s how you judge a fight. Or debate it, for that matter. You judge it with your own eyes and defend your judgment with reasoning. Not by saying that because so-and-so said so, it must be the case.
It wouldn’t be the first time that expectations and a hometown crowd have swayed judges and experts. Sometimes the television perspective is more neutral.
Boxing writer: "Iran, what are you going to do when you retire?"
Iran Barkley: "Rob your house"
Yes,
i agree.I don’t think you can get a better view than from tv personally,with all the diffenet camera angles,replays,etc.
Just reading Rafael and for some idiotic reason he is making a big deal out of the fact that Alexander threw so many more punches.
Who cares how many he threw???When they don’t land they don’t count.
I am biase because Harold is a personal friend of mine, but I think the Max and Pappa stuff gave the viewers
a sense of false hope. When 4 “experts” get it the same (or close to the same) and when one of them tells you early on why he is scoring the way he is, and then it happens the way he said it woud happen, well that’s all pretty compelling for me. As for boxing writers and their opinions, their opinions are not one iota better than that of a serious fan or poster.
Just my opinion—as a poster and not as a writer.
Pray for Nick Charles
Absolutely agree
Again, watching it live it looked like Alexander was in control for the majority of the fight. He got hit by some good punches, but Kotelnik wasn’t consistently throwing throughout the fight and it really hurt him, in my view. I can see the crowd playing a part with the oohs and aahs everytime DA landed a good punch, but he also usually landed the last punch in exchanges as well, which goes a long way as far as the perception on who got the better of it.
Kotelnik wasn’t consistently throwing throughout the fight
Punches thrown by round: 54, 60, 67, 60, 65, 75, 64, 77, 53, 69, 55, 64
He threw 763 punches in the fight. By contrast, against Juan Diaz the week before, JM Marquez threw 672 punches over 12 rounds. I don’t recall anyone decrying his lack of output. In fact, I can’t remember the last time a guy was averaging over 60 punches thrown per round, landing at a respectable clip with quality shots, and people reacted as if he were a statue out there. This was not Pacquiao-Clottey, where Pacquiao threw 1200 punches to Clottey’s 400.
Bad Left Hook
"To the town of Agua Fria rode a stranger one fine day..."
by Scott Christ on Aug 9, 2010 11:52 PM EDT up reply actions
I just watched the fight. Knowing the controversy I went in looking to score in favor for Alexander. I simply didn’t see it that way. I only had him winning four rounds, maybe 5 if you give him the 12th.
Also, I don’t find that what the announcers are saying makes an impact in how i view the fight. More often than not they are a bit behind me in their analysis. I’m sure that is a phenomenon most of us have experienced watching fights. We just have to think something about the fight and drunkenly tell our friends what we are seeing. The announcers have to see something and wait for a chance to say, and then say it a professional manner.
Judges, Experts, and/or Your Own Perceptions
Your own perceptions are surely the only thing you’ve really got, and that’s what I assess any fight based on. Often enough, my own assessments differ from those of the judges, and I still think what I think. But it’s rare that I disagree with 5 people of good judgment all at ringside; it would give me pause to do that, because I’m convinced you can see and hear the action better up close and personal than on my 40" screen, and, their perceptions agree with mine.
Plus, I thought Kellerman was being more provoking than anything else, although that doesn’t make him wrong.
Thank you for that--
I’m feeling otherwise outnumbered 100 t0 1. With or without commentators, judges et al, DA won the fight for me, some of the reasons are subtle; re others’ opinions, it’s the part about them being there next to the fight, not just who and what they are.
I only saw the last 4 rounds so I have no final tally, but I thought DA won three out of four in 9 through 12. Before the last round especially, Kotelniks corner was screaming at him to throw more punches, to take it to DA, but he didn’t. He just didn’t. Doesn’t matter if DA was pitty pattying Kotelnik, the Ukrainian simply did not throw enough punches to win that round. He has to get set to punch….so you freeze him when you jab at him cause he holds up his gloves and does not counter the jab.
Again, I don’t have all 12 rounds scored, but if the whole fight went like the last four, I would have said Alexander won fairly easily. But I know really know the whole story.
Rounds 1, 3, 4, and 5 were very similar, if I recall correctly
In 4 and 5, Kotelnik probably landed the best punch of the round, but wasn’t busy enough to carry the round.
voted Kotelnik
as i said in the post-fight analysis thread i thought kotelnik won the last 7 rounds of the fight, and in the end i only had alexander winning 3 rounds. the first round was how i thought the entire fight was gonna go down, but kotelnik did well in the 2nd round. the next three rounds were a bit of a haze, but i seem to be not impressed by anything devon was doing other than throwing 100+ punches in the 7th round
Texans 19-0 in 2010-2011 season PERIOD
by battle axe of doom on Aug 10, 2010 1:04 AM EDT reply actions
Finally watched it
I had it 115-113 Kotelnik, but I don’t think it was highway robbery. There were a few rounds I scored for Kotelnik, especially early, that could have gone the other way. But I agree that if the fight was in Germany, Kotelnik certainly would have won.
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanShots on Bad Left Hook
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
