They've been showing this fight on ESPN Classic non stop so for those of you that don't have it in your library check it out. I had not seen the fight since I watched it live and just recalled it being very close.

I scored it tonight and had it 115-115, a draw... 5-5-2 in rounds. I think it was the 5th and 10th that I scored even but I could be mistaken. So, if both of my even rounds went to the same fighter it would be a 115-113 card for either fighter. Good, competitive fight.

I thought that Winky gave away the 12th round, and it was funny how that reminded me of the Taylor fight. The 12th round in both of those fights costed him the win if you want to look at it that way. So how did you guys score Vargas-Wright if you recall?

7-5 vargas

Anyone else? If you don't remember your exact card just a generalization would be cool. Thanks.

I kind of remember watching that fight, but never rewatched it. From what I recall, I thought Winky slightly won, but remember Vargas being the "star" got the nod. Didn't Vargas steal the last round to get the victory? I do not remember the scores, I just remember Winky outworking him in the fight. I know Vargas never gave him a rematch, and this fight was a sign of things to come, cause Vargas looked soft in this fight and always balooned up between fights.

I scored it 7 rounds to 4 and 1 even for Wright

Winky landed more jabs and shots upstairs and Vargas landed more brutal body shots. I thought the fight could have gone either way. I think the official cards were 114-114, 115-113 and 116-112. I thought the 116-112 was a little wide, but like you said Vargas was the undefeated kid with the 17-0 (17 KO) record that was much more marketable. Clearly the judges gave the extremely close rounds to Vargas. Overall though, MOST of the rounds were close and competitive.

i had it the same . there were a few close rounds, but i thought 6 rounds were definitely wright rounds. i could see it being a draw, but no way was that a vargas win. though i will say that since vargas was the "champ", some of the close rounds could fall towards him, but i still saw 6 rounds where wright was clearly more effective.

Interesting. I certainly didn't see 6 rounds where either guy was CLEARLY more effective. I had it 5-5-2 in rounds like I said earlier but of those 5 for each fighter I wouldn't say that they were CLEARLY their round - an argument could be made for either fighter in the majority of the rounds. I'd like to see the official master score cards to see exactly how many of the rounds the judges weren't in agreement upon. I'd guess that at least 8 or 9 of the rounds had the judges being split in who they gave it to.

I've only seen this fight once, and it was a long time ago. This is one of those fights that I'd like to watch again.

I scored the fight for Wright about 7-5 or maybe 8-4. I thought the fight was a close but clear win for Wright.

I kinda kept that score to myself for years so many people where on Nandos jock going into his fight with De La Hoya even though IMO Tito exposed him after wright did, but it sucks that the business end of the sport is really what decides who wins the fights.

Wright by a point.

Jack

Long time since I saw this fight, I just remember Winky doing what he always does in big fights, which is coasting in the champioship rounds and then crying like a bitch after dropping a close decision. Vargas earned the victory and he deserved it. Fighters fight. That's something Winky Wright has never understood.

coasting worked for cotto, why shouldn't it work for wright?

Because Cotto is a young, charismatic power puncher who sports a large fanbase. Wright is a feather fisted slickster at the tail-end of his career who couldn't dream of selling out a barnyard of roosters on a chicken farm.

so it's not really a matter of who wins the fight, but of who is more marketable in the longterm? i see. i didn't know this was professional wrestling.

Sometimes it has to do with who's more marketable.

Close decisions like Vargas-Wright usually go to the younger, more marketable fighter if there's a significant difference.

Just look at Hopkins-Taylor and Mosley-Cotto as two recent examples.

Thank you, Brutal. Exactly the point I was getting at. I guess I just sort of expected it was common knowledge that in professional boxing sometimes close decisions will go to young, up-and-coming fighters who are marketable. Perhaps "the great equalizer" hasn't yet become acclimated with reality enough to grasp such an obviously simple equation.

haha. you're acting like that's okay. this sort of thing isn't a good thing and it's not fair. which makes boxing less of a sport.

but, wow. your amazing equation is blowing my mind. please teach me some more.

gee, i guess it's a good thing that tarver is old, otherwise hopkins might have lost that one too!

Actually no, but nice try. Hopkins won every round against Tarver, so that wouldn't be considered a CLOSE fight that could have gone either way. Marketability and drawing power is not a factor at all when you're talking a 120-108 or 119-109 type fight.

Mayweather-Castillo I would be a good example. Hopefully that helps.

thanks, i was really worried about that one!

okay. so cheating is okay if it's a close fight. got it. i didn't really see that in the rules of boxing and i've never heard any boxing officials or analysts accept that, but since you guys know so much more than those guys you must be right. i guess it's right under the rule that says that hometown fighters get the decision too.

Where does "cheating" come into this discussion? And hometown fighters get the decision? I think you need to reread the thread because you've just pulled two new topics out of thin air.

if a decision goes to someone because they're more marketable and not on the actual fight, then that is against the rules and is therefore cheating. just like if someone gets the decision because they are the hometown fighter. personally i'm not a fan of corruption in boxing, but you seem okay with it. good for you.

First of all, you need to actually read what I've written before you respond, Dick Tracy. I never said that it was okay, right, or acceptable for a young, up-and-coming fighter with marketability to get the nod over an aging veteran just because of the economics of the situation. I was simply pointing out to you that this was the reality of boxing today. I never said I agreed with it. And I don't. I was simply spelling out for you why Cotto can coast to decisions in boxing and Winky can't. If you don't like it, that's fine. Neither do I. Doesn't change the fact that my answer was correct, and indicitave of the reality of boxing today.

Thank you Warlord. I was about to reply with a nearly identical response but you beat me to the punch.

no, you said "fighters fight". but cotto didn't fight, he ran, but it's okay for him because he's more marketable. but you know, i don't want to keep you and cutiebodyshots from jerking each other off thinking about cotto skipping around the ring.

I think you need to find yourself a new sport to watch equalizer, because clearly you don't understand the sport of boxing very well. Shit, even your picture as someone recently pointed out is a pic of a low blow, but you whine about "cheating" above. Unbelieveable.

thank you. i was about to reply with a nearly identical response but you beat me to the punch.

all fighters deserve equal respect in the ring. not just the ones some people like more. it's too bad that boxing "reality" isn't like that. this sport is probably more suited for people like you.

Ouch

LOL...

Cotto today is much more of a draw and more marketable than Wright of the late 90's. Shit, of Wright EVER. Dollars and sense, simple stuff.

lol...

Winky has made it a habit in his career to coast late in a fight, even if/when the outcome of the fight clearly hangs in the balance, ala Vargas, Taylor, Hopkins, etc...

Cotto, who I am no fan of BTW, has never been accused of coasting in a fight, with the exception of his bout with Mosley. Cotto, for the most part, has been an exciting fighter who has provided exciting fights. If you can't see or understand the difference between Cotto and Winky's body of work, then I really do suggest you find another sport to watch. Or at least pay a little more attention to the one you do (claim to) watch.

as far as cotto is concerned, the exact same thing was said about him until pre-trinidad. nuff said.

i do pay attention. i've been a boxing judge for two state athletic commissions. what credentials do you have? oh, none? no shit. wright clearly won 6 rounds, so the most vargas should have earned was a draw. anything else is bullshit. you clearly need to pay attention more to what's happening in the ring and not so much on the pr and marketing. if you want me to teach how to score a fight let me know.

but that's got absolutely nothing to do with "judging" boxing which, outside of a knockout, is what determines who wins and who loses. not the marketability, the promoter, every single fan on the planet, or the fighter's paycheck.

Again, obviously you don't understand the business side of boxing.

Judging can be INFLUENCED by the factors you listed above, which is why a close decision may go one way or another. Having been a judge in the past surely YOU would know this. Then again that's probably BS. A judge with a low blow pic to go along with his name. Great stuff.

you're already in newbietown.

corrupt judges are influenced by the above factors. do you understand the business side of boxing? have you been involved in promotions? i worked for the state athletic commission, not the promoter or the boxers. trust me, writing on this message board doesn't make you an expert on boxing.

people keep saying things about my name and picture. i have a sense of humor. i don't take life so seriously. that might be the reason why i don't have thousands of posts on this site.

Then all judges are corrupt. Again, find another sport.



The business side of "boxing" is like the business side of ANYTHING. Decisions are often made based on what is most beneficial monetarily.



No one ever implied that it did, did they?



You don't take life seriously but you take judging fights seriously. LOL. Be consistent with your standpoint man. And what does a post count have to do with how seriously one takes life?

Again, Einstein, you're arguing a point that everyone else already understands. WE KNOW IT IS WRONG FOR JUDGES TO AWARD FIGHTS TO EXCITING, MARKETABLE FIGHTERS IF SAID FIGHTER IS UNDESERVING OF THE DECISION. But that does NOT mean that it doesn't happen. It does happen. And it happens frequently.

You asked WHY an exciting fighter like Vargas might be given a close decision over Winky Wright. And you were given an answer. Just because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean it isn't true. Now go back to the playground and STFU with your "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" bullshit. You've just been owned.

haha

if a fighter believes that he is ahead in a close and decides to coast, it is his own fault if he loses the fight. It is a gamble for fighters to take. A smart fighter knows how boxing is. So for a fighter like Winky to choose to coast in the championship rounds in a close fight that he believes he is ahead on is just stupid. Actually, it is stupid for any fighter to do, but i can understand if a fighter is hurt and/or gassed. In that case the risk is better than getting koed. But seeing as how the judging has been throughout history, no one gets a free ticket to coast. Plain and simple.

BTW, I was rooting for Mosley, although I wouldn't really call what Cotto did "coasting" so much. He just laid back but was still fighting well backing up. Coasting is what DLH did against Tito.