Why one judge had it for Oscar

Floyd was more hurt than Oscar apart from at one point of the fight. Floyd was more damaged than oscar. Oscar landed the harder shots. His punches were more effective because they were harder and caused more damage. when did you see floyd more hurt? when oscar hit his arms on the ropes? i did no see Floyd hurt more than Oscar. In fact I doubt Floyd was ever hurt at all, because Oscar is a terrific finisher, and he would have jumped on him. Oscar landed body punches, but if you wanna talk about how effective they were... the answer is in floyd being fresh as a rose in round 12, where oscar was buckled by a body punch by floyd. the only thing that Oscar really did offensively speaking (which i give all possible credit) is busting floyd's eye with the jab, in the early part of the fight.

Here's a snip from a boxing analyst's column: .... For the record, judges Tom Kaczmarek scored it 115-113 for De la Hoya while judge Chuck Giampa saw it 116-112 and judge Jerry Roth 115-113 for Mayweather. By the way, Kaczmarek, 79, authored the 29-page manual "You Be The Boxing Judge." "Of the three basic fundamentals in scoring a fight, a combination of clean punching and effective aggressiveness are the key factors," he said in the manual. "Whatever else is happening in the round, the fighter who is scoring clean solid punches, forcing the action and getting off first is going to win the round. Skillful ring generalship, which enables the fighter to control his opponent is also significant. "Good fighters usually possess a combination of good clean punching, effective aggressiveness and ring generalship. They score points and ultimately win rounds. If there is still not a clear winner, considering these factors, then good defense may well become the deciding factor." Now you know why Kaczmarek scored it for de la Hoya. On effective agression, I gave about 4 rounds to DLH, but most of the rounds were won by Mayweather with clean solid punches, getting of first & ring generalship.

Floyd was more hurt than Oscar apart from at one point of the fight. Floyd was more damaged than oscar. Oscar landed the harder shots. His punches were more effective because they were harder and caused more damage.

Floyd's punches were cleaner, Oscar's were more effective. Oscar did more damage with his punches and his aggression and punches were the more effective even though they looked scrappy. Also by didctating the pace of the fight De La Hoya bossed it on ring generalship too. based on what you are saying they were more effective? dictating the pace? going forwad and trying to flurry? trying to cut off the ring and succeeding once every round? which part of this was the "bossing of ring generalship" you are talking about? oh maybe having your weapons shut down one by one? first goes hooks? then the jab isnt effective anymore? in all this more rights are countered than landed? When I see a fighter whose weapons are taken off, I dont see any "bossing of ring generalship"? what i saw was "ineffective aggression"

Floyd's punches were cleaner, Oscar's were more effective. Oscar did more damage with his punches and his aggression and punches were the more effective even though they looked scrappy. Also by didctating the pace of the fight De La Hoya bossed it on ring generalship too.

Tom Kaczmarek scored it 115-113 for De la Hoya Kaczmarek, 79, authored the 29-page manual "You Be The Boxing Judge." "Of the three basic fundamentals in scoring a fight, a combination of clean punching and effective aggressiveness are the key factors," he said in the manual. "Whatever else is happening in the round, the fighter who is scoring clean solid punches, forcing the action and getting off first is going to win the round. Skillful ring generalship, which enables the fighter to control his opponent is also significant. "Good fighters usually possess a combination of good clean punching, effective aggressiveness and ring generalship. They score points and ultimately win rounds. If there is still not a clear winner, considering these factors, then good defense may well become the deciding factor." Now you know why Kaczmarek scored it for de la Hoya. Yeah, cuz he apparently has no regard for defense. Which even in that case is pure bullshit cuz he talks about clean punching and when the hell did Oscar land a clean punch? On the ropes? LOL those punches made Kassim Ouma look like Mike Tyson. I bet what he saw was the same thing many people saw - when Oscar threw a punch that missed or grazed Floyd and he moved his head back to avoid it, the ignorant/blind/fanatical/biased fucks thought that the punch moved Floyd's head because it landed cleanly. "Good fighters usually possess a combination of good clean punching, effective aggressiveness and ring generalship. Floyd landed 43% to Oscar's 21% - so he beat him in the "clean punching" and "effective aggressiveness" departments, and Oscar was following him around the ring, never being able to cut it to hinder Floyd's movement, so that means Floyd has him in "ring generalship" as well.

Victor Ortiz "Oxnard CA" I just wanted to represent VICTOR ORTIZ. He is the next up and coming boxer coming out of the Oxnard CA area. So keep an eye out and an ear open...

he really talks about 4 overall, if you had just tried to read it thoroughly. I read it, it says three "fundamentals". too bad, there are four fundamentals. if there is one, which is more fundamental is "clean hard punches", and nothing else.

if you dont know what are those four, I should not be arguing with you on this topic he really talks about 4 overall, if you had just tried to read it thoroughly.

I think you're trying to make a point, not just show us an interesting article It probably was uncalled for... My remark. But I gotta say. I'm not trusting the eyes or the wits of a 79 year old man on a boxing match. He probably couldn't even follow Mayweather's punches.

Effective aggressiveness, clean punches, ring generalship, and defense. Even when you consider all those, Mayweather still wins IMO. from what i understand, i think he doesn't include defense in his basic fundamentals of scoring... but he definitely mentions that it boils down to good defense if there is no clear winner.

have you even googled who he is? im not defending him, i just found the article interesting so i posted it but calling him the way you called him was uncalled for i think. Geriatric means nothing but an old person so it's not calling him "names" if the guy is almost 80 years old. Maybe he just needs a new prescription for his glasses.

so what are those four. did you rewrite his book? if you dont know what are those four, I should not be arguing with you on this topic

So 2 Judges HBO ESPN The Associated Press And the punch stats all score it for Mayweather.... against... A geriatric patient and Floyd's estranged father. have you even googled who he is? im not defending him, i just found the article interesting so i posted it but calling him the way you called him was uncalled for i think.

If that's his criteria, which I do not argue against, then HOW did he score it for DLH when his punches were ANYTHING BUT clean and his aggressiveness ANYTHING BUT effective? Yes, DLH was the one coming forward; yes, DLH was the one who threw more punches. None of those factors matter since Mayweather's Ring Generalship was dictating the pace and that's the reason why DLH was coming forward, to try to catch the man who was clearly controling where they were in the ring for 2:30 of every round! Also, while DLH did throw more punches, a punch that lands on a glove, shoulder, elbow, or forearm is NOT to be scored as a connected punch but as a missed one. If that's the case, how could you give DLH anything more than 3 rounds (ok, I'll accept 4 maybe...maybe, if you had a bad angle)???

so what are those four. did you rewrite his book? Effective aggressiveness, clean punches, ring generalship, and defense. Even when you consider all those, Mayweather still wins IMO.

i dont think he won the fight. But i dont think it was a dominant win for pbf

So 2 Judges HBO ESPN The Associated Press And the punch stats all score it for Mayweather.... against... A geriatric patient and Floyd's estranged father.

four, that's all i have to say so what are those four. did you rewrite his book?

Here's a snip from a boxing analyst's column: .... For the record, judges Tom Kaczmarek scored it 115-113 for De la Hoya while judge Chuck Giampa saw it 116-112 and judge Jerry Roth 115-113 for Mayweather. By the way, Kaczmarek, 79, authored the 29-page manual "You Be The Boxing Judge." "Of the three basic fundamentals in scoring a fight, a combination of clean punching and effective aggressiveness are the key factors," he said in the manual. "Whatever else is happening in the round, the fighter who is scoring clean solid punches, forcing the action and getting off first is going to win the round. Skillful ring generalship, which enables the fighter to control his opponent is also significant. "Good fighters usually possess a combination of good clean punching, effective aggressiveness and ring generalship. They score points and ultimately win rounds. If there is still not a clear winner, considering these factors, then good defense may well become the deciding factor." Now you know why Kaczmarek scored it for de la Hoya. four, that's all i have to say