I had it 115-113 in favour of Vargas. However, it was, I thought, a highly misleading commentary by Raul Marquez and that Massengale fellow (who obviously isn't a true fight guy). It was as if they took the ball and ran with it when Vargas started to come on a bit. They ignored the fact that Nietes was landing a lot of sharp, clear shots, the sort of punches that impress the judges. To say that Vargas won by 117-111 as Raul Marquez did was ludicrous, but the score of that Florida judge Tom Nardone, 118-110 in favour of Nietes, was even worse. This was Nardone's first big fight, I believe, and it was almost as if he was determined to show that he wouldn't be swayed by the Mexican crowd in the way he scored the fight.
As I saw it, this was a tough, close fight that could have been a draw or could have been a close decision in favour of either man. I will say, though, that Nietes had the body language of a winner at the final bell, much more so than Vargas.
Talking of misleading commentaries (and a commentary team going with one guy almost from the off) I thought that McDermott and Fury was a very close fight (I actually thought it was a draw). I have a high opinion of Jim Watt, the Sky analyst, but he just seemed to be going overboard on McDermott's successes. There is now a big fuss over the verdict in the U.K., another TV-fuelled "controversy" in my opinion. For heaven's sake, Watt's final score was only 96-94 in favour of McDermott ---- one round away from a draw. Where is the "robbery"? The REAL controversy was the ref's bizarre 98-92 score in Fury's favour. It was as if he filled out his card beforehand. The SCORE, and not the decision itself, is what should be a cause for concern here, IMO.
I tell you, though, Kramden, whenever a fight goes to a decision you ALWAYS have to hold your breath, and as we both know, too often you can't trust the commentary to give an accurate interpretation of what's happening in the fight.
