Sturm vs. Geale: Leonidas Shouldn't Be Stunned After Split-Decision Loss
When the decision was first read by Michael Buffer, I was shocked that Daniel Geale was the winner by split-decision over Felix Sturm in their middleweight unification bout on Saturday.
On second thought, it made perfect sense.
The fight was very close and could have gone either way. Because many believe Matthew Macklin was robbed of a victory against Sturm in Germany, this adds up.
The judges were under a microscope for this fight. When that happens it genuinely has an effect that favors the underdog. In this situation, that was Geale.
He fought a solid fight and, as I said, many of the rounds could have gone either way. I had the fight scored 116-112 for Sturm.
How did you score the fight?
The official scorecards had one judge giving Sturm the bout at the exact same score I had. The other two gave it to Geale with the same score.
It may seem like a large disparity, but it wasn't. Almost every round was a pick-em. Most would think that meant Sturm would get the benefit of the doubt.
That probably would have been the case, if awareness for home-field advantage in Sturm's favor wasn't at the forefront of our minds.
The judges may have gone a little overboard in an effort to avoid the expected biased results. The fight was too close for any decision to be called ridiculous, but Sturm shouldn't be shocked he came up short.
When a fighter is engaged in as many close fights as he is, he's bound to lose his share. Sturm's inactivity gives busier fighters opportunities. He just doesn't ever seem to put combinations together.
I'm not sure if he's overly concerned with conserving energy, but it has dogged him in the past. I'd have to say that tendency had a lot to do with the outcome of this fight as well.
Follow Brian Mazique and Franchiseplay on YouTube and Twitter for reactions, analysis and news from the world of sports and sports video games
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?