Got a feeling that this article may prove to be conntroversial, but oh well, comment create debate as they say.
Just finished watching the big fight tonight. Firstly i think its only right to say well done to macklin, proper little soldier who really took the fight to a heavy favourite in his own back yard and came away with a better reputation than before he entered. Work rate, which was rightly praised by Barry McGuigan, was top notch, from the first bell coming out with several flurries to both head and body with power and accuracy, dominating the 5 year unbeaten champion for much of the early stages. However..........
Although pretty much every expert and commentator said Macklin should have won, only to be robbed by the home judges, i disagree.
It's true that Sturm was pretty much non existant in the first 3 rounds, i honestly believe that except for round 6 (i think) he was in control for larger periods of the contest than Macklin. As Mcguigan said, Macklin clearly won the first part, Sturm clearly won the last part, it all depends who you think won the middle section. For everyone on sky, Macklin won the middle parts, for myself, a quite different story.
One of the telling reasons why i say this is due to the quality and punch economy of Sturm in the middle rounds in comparison to Macklin. It's true Macklin threw more and was the busier fighter, however there were more telling punches thrown by Sturm in this section and the classier stuff was coming from the German. This is not to rule Matthew out, he certainly threw flashy combos, hidden amongst the other junk that was coming from him too. I think at one point Macklin's punch economy was 17% whereas Sturm's was 33%. For too long Macklin was handing out shots that werent really asking many questions, just making himself the busier fighter. In comparison to this, Sturm spent more time finding the correct punch, and therefore landing punches that were indeed asking many questions of our irish friend.
Tough call to predict, hence the split decision (and the fact that it's in Germany probably does mean anywhere else Macklin would have won, contradicting my view completely) but i believe that you should win the rounds more based on quality of punches rather than a work rate, and for this reason i think Sturm should have edged it by 1 or 2 rounds.
Over to you.....
Macklin Sturm
posted on 26/6/11
As you say it was a very difficult one to call.......you have to look at both Macklin's sheer workrate and compare it to Sturm's good defence and more efficient and telling shots.
I may have Macklin winning it by a round (maybe) but with margins that fine the fight can go either way. He definitely didn't lose by four like the third judge stated. Good luck to Macklin in the future though as he gave it everything.
posted on 26/6/11
I agree with everything you say OP, but if the fight had been held in the UK the result would have been reversed.
posted on 27/6/11
Workrate doesn't cut it with me. Accuracy and punch effectiveness are what I would judge on. That's the problem with modern boxing, Calzaghe 'outworks' with slaps and beats Hopkins, despite eating all of the hard punches in the fight. Froch 'outworks' Johnson despite eating all the hard punches, although he did land a few good punches. Judging is clearly going to be differ from judge to judge, and from location to location, but I will never consider workrate worthy of winning when the other fighter lands the best punches with better overally accuracy
posted on 27/6/11
i thought it could have either way. i couldn't call it. but a lot of the eye catching punches were landed by sturm.
fair enough macklin had the better workrate, and in no way disgraced himself, but definately agree that you should win the rounds more based on quality of punches rather than a work rate.
i look forward to the rematch
posted on 27/6/11
Sturm by three rounds. He outclassed Macklin. The fight would not have gone on for another round after Sturms 30 second demo at the end!