Since when did?

OK, 114 views and 13 replies with no one that really disagrees with my point so the every time I hear this garbage brought up expect a strong argument from me.

I agree with you, but unless we can get a professional judge's comments, we're in the dark. Judges are human and capable of making mistakes also all humans have bias. That said a judge in a professional prize fight really should be trying to limit those things, if there are only small differences in who is the more effective fighter I can live with it and understand that scoring a fight is very subjective but if one fighter is clearly is more effective style is not a decent justification to take it away from them.

True, but a judge in a professional fight should not really prefer a certain style over another (if it needs to be a tiebreaker sure I can accept that) but if one man is clearly more effective style should really matter very little. I agree with you, but unless we can get a professional judge's comments, we're in the dark.

I think Glen Johnson said it best. We really need to get back to 1 belt or have a commissioner in boxing to hold these judges accountable for their decisions. That sat. fight was too blatant for my liking.

Perhap those judging the fights are mistaking aggression for effective aggression, and that is why the feel the need to favor the man who comes forward and throws punches (whether or not they land)? To them, maybe lots of movement and waiting for openings to counter aren't what they are looking for. Just some thoughts. True, but a judge in a professional fight should not really prefer a certain style over another (if it needs to be a tiebreaker sure I can accept that) but if one man is clearly more effective style should really matter very little.

This has been taking place since the true criteria for scoring fights has been forgotten and boxing writers with little understanding of the sport, and online idiots who think they have a clue about boxing. Fighting style is irrelevant to scoring fights. It flows in line with the concept of outworking an opponent, and giving rounds to fighters who are more active. A shame, really.

:lol1: So many threads are bait threads with a secret topic at hand... it gets to the point that you really can't just ask a question... there must be some kind of meaning behind it. I just want to know, the four criteria for scoring a fight are clean effective punching, effective aggression, ring generalship and defense. I do not see how fighting style makes a difference on one fighter being more effective then the other. I have thought this for a while although recent events have brought this to the forefront of my mind, so I guess you could call it a bait thread.

Why can I not ask a question? :lol1: So many threads are bait threads with a secret topic at hand... it gets to the point that you really can't just ask a question... there must be some kind of meaning behind it.

Perhap those judging the fights are mistaking aggression for effective aggression, and that is why the feel the need to favor the man who comes forward and throws punches (whether or not they land)? To them, maybe lots of movement and waiting for openings to counter aren't what they are looking for. Just some thoughts.

Is this a reference to Mayweather then? Why can I not ask a question?

Is this in reference to Froch-Dirrell? It is more general as I have heard it often. That is an example though. Acelino Frietas-Zahir Raheem is another one.

Is this in reference to Froch-Dirrell?