In a highly anticipated fight by boxing super fans, this past Saturday, the American Jermell charlo and the Argentine Brian Castaño, they faced each other in a unification match where all the world titles were at stake. Charlo he was monarch of the AMB, CMB Y FIB, while Chestnut had the one of the OMB.
It was a fight that had the appeal that the winner would join the selective group of “undisputed” boxers in history.
The combat was very entertaining. You could say that at times he dominated Charlo And of same away Chestnut. In a short and summarized description of the combat, we could say that the first half was dominated Chestnut; and the second half, Charlo.
In the end, the verdict was a draw. One of the judges saw a tie at 114; another judge saw win Chestnut very tightly, 114-113; but the other judge, Nelson Vazquez, scored a disproportionate 117-111, which contrasted with the closeness of the other two cards.
Was there robbery in the fight between Castaño and Charlo?
For this last card, there are those who say that “it was a disgusting robbery” against Brian Chestnut in favor of Jermell charlo. However, the reality is that it was not. We must remember, and we must insist, that in close fights, there is no space to claim theft. This, precisely, was a close fight.
It should also be seen that the judges can score differently, according to their perception or taste. For example, there were between two or three rounds in which Charlo he looked great and controlling the round by keeping his distance with jabs and thrashing for the majority of the round. Without. However, even though Charlo seemed to dominate most of the time of the round, came Chestnut and with 30 seconds left, he gave him a flurry of power blows that became the best of the entire round.
Which one should the judge give the round to? The one who won the majority of the chapter, or the one who closed the last few seconds strong giving good power shots? It is a very particular question because it will always depend on the style that each individual understands.
Of course, the ugly side of the fight was had by a character who was not even in the ring. And that was the Puerto Rican judge Nelson Vazquez, who saw Charlo win nine rounds now Chestnut only 3. In other words, something very far from reality. It is painful for you, since Vazquez He has a flawless career as a judge of nearly 200 title bouts without any controversy. It is precisely in the vote of Vazquez, where the main annoyance of the fan lies, because it simply overshadowed what was a great fight.
I am not offended by the tie
Personally, I am not offended by a draw. And it is that precisely, it coincides with my annotation, because I scored a tie on my card. I think if anyone deserved to win, that was Brian Castaño. He was the one who imposed his style, the one who sought the fight the most, who looked the most eager. And above all, he was a fighter who went against the tide, and against everything. Chestnut was in someone else’s yard, with a judge with temporary blindness as Nelson Vazquez; and against another judge, Steven Weisfeld, who scored in the 10th round, scored 10-8 against Chestnut, despite the fact that the Argentine never fell to the canvas.
That said, the tie retains a taste of victory for Brian Castaño. And on the other hand, it has a bitter taste of defeat to Charlo. But up to there. There is no theft in what happened in the ring between Charlo Y Chestnut, but it was a very close fight that ended in a “table”, and where many fans saw the Argentine win tightly.
Follow on Instagram Damien Ferrer, The Boxing Philosopher, for more analysis, opinions and boxing data.