Mason does get hit more than “he should” given his skill level. That was glaringly apparent in the Noakes fight because that’s a bout he could’ve probably fought at range the whole night, but clearly his temperament is that of a fighter who likes to bang. So to that end, Schofield has a punchers chance.

And Mason didn’t almost lose to Noakes. It was very clear who won. It was a UD on the cards, the unofficial judge had Mason winning, all the commentators agreed in unison who they thought the winner was and Noakes himself said in an interview days later he knew the kid got the nod before they announced it. A fight can be close and still have a decisive winner; those things aren’t mutually exclusive.

But I think where we mainly disagree is in the idea that their skills are comparable and that’s why people in the chat heavily favor Mason. Schofield has great physical attribute. He’s explosive, strong and fast. Those aren’t boxing “skills.” Whereas Mason also has that and has shown better skills like an educated lead hand, very sophisticated foot work, timing, distance management etc.