Australian sport is largely driven by the spirit of the ‘underdog’; where the general sports fan would rather the see the team OR individual who is expected to lose, win, rather than the converse. Jeff Horn’s victory over Manny Pacquiao is no exception to this rule and as an Australian, I was enthralled to see a humble school teacher step up and leave their heart in the ring against the worlds best. Nonetheless, since the announcement of the unanimous decision at the Battle in Brisbane, scrutiny from high-profile athletes and commentators around the world have smothered the Rocky Bellbowa like story, leaving a cloud of uncertainty surrounding how the fight reached the result that it did.
Before I delve into some analysis and subjective opinion, I thought it would be best to openly admit that I personally am not a boxing expert. Despite that obvious fact, as a viewer of the spectacle and someone with some knowledge of fighting, I wanted to offer a well-rounded perspective for those who believe that Jeff Horn should not have won.
How did the judges score the fight the way they did?
Simply, that is an unknown. Even renowned boxer Danny Green struggles to explain and understand the scoring system, merely emphasising it's complexity. In essence, it is a system which is deeply subjective, as the way one person views a fight can be completely contradictory to the way another individual views a fight. Nevertheless, there are a number of practical rules which are involved in determining a victor, of which I have selected three main criteria to explore to hopefully provide insight into how the decision eventuated.
- Ring Generalship
- Effective Aggression
- Defence
RING GENERALSHIP AND DEFENCE
Whether OR not you agree with the decision the judges made, it was obvious that Jeff Horn controlled movement inside the ring from the opening round. He continued to pressure Pacquiao with a relentless pace, forcing changes in positioning inside the ring. This was very apparent in the initial 4 rounds, as Pacquiao found himself positioned close to the sides of the ring due to the aggressive tactics of the younger Horn. Despite this, Manny masterfully avoided a large percentage of Horn’s offence as was to be expected, limiting the number of effective punches he incurred. Rounds 5 – 8 were a similar story, with most of the ring movement being directed by Horn, whilst Manny continued evading and countering when the opportunity presented itself. The main thing to take from the opening 8 rounds was that the pace was almost entirely one sided, and whilst Manny displayed elegant defence and effective countering, Horn also showed an impressive defensive repertoire – being far less one-sided than ring generalship.
The same cannot be said so much for ninth and tenth rounds, where Manny clearly outboxed Horn in round 9 to the point where the Referee threatened to end the fight if Horn continued to passively box. Although dominant in its display, NO knockdowns OR knockouts were scored, and hence at best received 10-8 scores from the judges. In isolation, these rounds can be seen to show superior fighting from Pacquiao, yet the earlier rounds whereby Horn controlled the pace cannot be diminished. The final rounds could be viewed either way, as both fighters had moments as they both fought to assert dominance in order to give themselves the edge. This makes it difficult to definitively judge an outright winner, giving the earlier rounds much greater impact on the final result.
EFFECTIVE AGGRESSION
It was clear from the outset that Horn was driving a lot of the offense in the ring, which can be confirmed by the post-match statistics which highlight the vast number of punches that Horn threw comparatively to Pacquiao. At the same time, the statistics also show that the effectiveness of Pacquiao’s punches were much higher; throwing more accurate yet less punches than Horn. Despite the statistics, the exchanges during the fight did not represent the statistics and hence it is difficult for the judges to gauge the effectiveness of each punch. In particular, Horn is shown to possess significant power and hence it makes it more difficult to discern an accurate representation. Despite the blatant ease at which the statistics can be interpreted, this is NOT the scenario in the ring, with the combination of all the above factors making the fight appear much more convoluted rather than black and white.
Conclusion
Despite what others may say, from watching the fight I honestly believe Horn did enough did win; he never ceased to continually pressure Pacquiao and he managed to force a largely scrappy, yet determined fight. As for the scorecard of 117-111, 115-113 and 115-113, the unanimous decision may have been slightly farfetched, especially the judges score of 117-111. Nonetheless, these were three judges of diverse backgrounds (Argentinian and American, NO Australian judges) all considered to be experts, and all of which managed to provide almost identical scores for the fight. They are by definition unbiased compared to the remaining media and hence their opinion as boxing experts and professional’s must be respected – whether you agree with what they saw OR not. In the end, even if you don’t agree with my opinion, there is a clause in the Battle of Brisbane contract which stipulates that Pacquiao can request a rematch, a challenge which Jeff Horn has already agreed upon if the former champion sees fit. Such a rematch could provide an opportunity to settle the card once and for all; either rewriting wrongs of the previous fight OR affirming the outcome (Connor McGregor vs Nate Diaz esque anyone?).
Please upvote and resteem if you found this piece insightful 😊
→ Follow
