Competitive and interesting has nothing to do with who was winning. I started by saying Jones clearly won 50-45, meaning there is, in fact, no question as to who was winning. It's like you're trying to change what I said. Who is having the comprehension issues? I'll state again Jones beat Glover 50-45, no argument there. To spell it out further, Glover's game was go for a knockout. Live and in the moment, for the first few rounds, he had done better at closing the distance than prior opponents. Nothing had come of it yet, hence Jones winning, however there was interest for what happens if just one clean shot lands. Jones eventually completely neutralized Glover's game and went to work in the 4th and 5th rounds, however (again live and in the moment) Glover had brought intrigue in the opening moments of the bout. At least watch the bout again, trying to place yourself in the frame of mind of a live viewer. That way we can at least keep this revisionist history problem to a minimum. Please remember that I'm the one talking about the fight itself, while you've only provided blanket statements, one that I am challenging has been inflated. You're the one who needs to watch out for revisionist history. I've described the rounds, pacing, and frame of mind. Over to you.

You still haven't really addressed anything I said. You've spent 2 comments now rambling about unrelated non-sense. All I've tried to do this entire time is have a logical and thoughtful discussion, specifically talking about a point and backing it up. Your last sentence summed up what you're doing far better than I. Your attempt at insults hasn't moved the conversation along any further.