After years of message board posting, most posters DKSAB!!!

Exactly. And that has absolutely nothing to do with "hitting without getting hit". A guy can hit his opponent more than his opponents hits him, and still lose. exactly.....say for instance if a fights stats are like this: Jones Smith Jabs: 45/ 200 23% 40/100 40 % powershots: 85/300 28% 75/ 150 50 % totals: 130/500 115/250 26% 46% A) If they both had similar punching power and similar affect the fight should be pretty close, considering some rounds would go to Jones being busier, which i dont necessarily agree with B) if Smith punches were more telling even though he threw less he should win. He showed better defense, landed a higher percent of his shots, and landed cleaner harder shots Notes: Credit shouldnt be given to swinging at air and not landing, that doesnt win rounds. Landing the most effective punches, possibly more total, and showing defense, and controlling the real estate in the ring wins rounds and fights

#2 Take second round of Mayweather\Mosley. The first 2 minutes you would think it Should have been scored an 10-8 round..that is until the the last minute where floyd took control of the fight and turned it around. Now at the end of that round I would want to be Floyd, but to others they might choose Shane. Shane only landed two really clean shots, and never dominated the round...Outside those two shots it was fairly even. Im not sure who landed more punches but it looked like Mayweather did. Unless he was battering Mayweather pillar to post, which he wasnt, then it would warrant a 10-8 round. With it being close as it was, Mosley punctuated the round more even though Mayweather ended stronger. Id score it 10-9 to Mosley if I couldnt score it an even round.

you can impose your style/will all that you want to, but if you're not busting him more than he's busting you then you aren't going to win......... Rockin':boxing: Exactly. And that has absolutely nothing to do with "hitting without getting hit". A guy can hit his opponent more than his opponents hits him, and still lose.

Get outta here. You think the sport of boxing is about "hitting without getting hit". lol cry some more

#2 Take second round of Mayweather\Mosley. The first 2 minutes you would think it Should have been scored an 10-8 round..that is until the the last minute where floyd took control of the fight and turned it around. Now at the end of that round I would want to be Floyd, but to others they might choose Shane.

what, it's not? That's exactly what it's about. This should be precious, what exactly is boxing about CatchweightKing?........... Rockin':boxing: Boxing, like any other sport, is about winning. Its about imposing your will and style over that of your opponent.

1) can you please tell me how you call yourself a boxing fan and dont know the difference between technique and tactics? 2) Most people dont know how to score a round. I think Max Kellerman said it best, the easiest way to score a round is to ask yourself who would you have rather been in the round or the fight. Rounds are won on ring generalship, defense, and clean punching. You dont give a close round to the fighter that throws the most punches. landing and missing dont win rounds landing clean punches does. If a fighter lands cleaner shots and throws fewer punches at a higher percentage they win the round, simple. 3) A lot of the people on here dont even know what a lineal champion is...smh 4) what a fighter does outside the ring has nothing to do with his accomplishments...idc if a fighter is an all an ass hole, who cares as long as he can fight 5) watch the fights and please form your own opinion and stop copy cating what you heard someone say...its hell of obvious to be continued..... LOL, trying to become an internet legend huh? This thread will be forgotten within 24 hours, nice effort though. :birthday:

1) can you please tell me how you call yourself a boxing fan and dont know the difference between technique and tactics? 2) Most people dont know how to score a round. I think Max Kellerman said it best, the easiest way to score a round is to ask yourself who would you have rather been in the round or the fight. Rounds are won on ring generalship, defense, and clean punching. You dont give a close round to the fighter that throws the most punches. landing and missing dont win rounds landing clean punches does. If a fighter lands cleaner shots and throws fewer punches at a higher percentage they win the round, simple. 3) A lot of the people on here dont even know what a lineal champion is...smh 4) what a fighter does outside the ring has nothing to do with his accomplishments...idc if a fighter is an all an ass hole, who cares as long as he can fight 5) watch the fights and please form your own opinion and stop copy cating what you heard someone say...its hell of obvious to be continued..... Get outta here. You think the sport of boxing is about "hitting without getting hit".

Tactics and skills go hand in hand. Chris Arreola had very good tactics against Vitaly but his skills weren't up to par. And the thing about TACTICS they are always easy to figure out in hindsight right? Like who would've thought that Canelo's TACTICS to outbox Cloud from the outside would actually work and now people again think that Canelo's shot at Mayweather is to rough him up on the inside and that's the best TACTIC? Canelo's skills are far better than that than to fall for this trap. Floyd might be in a surprise when Canelo decided to box him early like Zab did. Tactics and skills go hand and hand but they are not the same thing was my point. I get what you are saying, though. As far as the Judah fight, Mayweather was in for a shock when he had trouble boxing the faster, harder punching, shorter Judah from the outside. What Roger told him to do and what he began to do was switch tactics. He and his corner knew it would be harder to box Judah so they walked him down and roughed him up, they made him work...boxing from the outside was right up Judah's alley and pace of fight. As far as Canelo I was surprised, but the thing about adapting and changing tactics is doing it effectively and staying ahead of your opponent, which I dont think he will be able to do against Mayweather

While I agree with most of what your saying, boxing is a subjective sport. With more guidelines than rules. Thus leaving the door open for controversy and we as fans never get closure. With that being said your interpretation of how a round should be scored is no more valid than the next guys.

I've got a masters degree in pugilist specialism. :bukkake: :usa2: :boxing:

barry is that you? but i agree

Are you excepting applications into your fan club? ........... Rockin':boxing: lol, no man but its hard to have a decent conversation about boxing because most people dont know much of what the sport involves. I have been in combat sports since a child, followed boxing since I was 3 and boxed off and on for 5 years. Unless you go to the classic forums or history sights most people form their opinions on what someone else has said, knows little to nothing about the technique and tactics of the sport, nor the great champions of the past. Most the posters on these sights are nothing but fan boys. When I first started posting on *SB and on here years ago there were a lot of knowledgeable guys and no childish bickering like with GHANAFIGHTER, LANCE UPPERCUT was funny but knowledgeable, FARMBOXER was the ultimate devils advocate, and DREW was great, etc.

I've got a masters degree in pugilist specialism. :bukkake:

nsb, dksab...

First off, number 2 is a complete and utter joke. If you don't understand subjectivity, you don't understand boxing. And no, your interpretation of punches thrown etc is just your opinion. Your theory means that a guy who had landed a lot more, but also missed more, is always scored below a guy who has thrown a lot less, but missed a lot less. If you applied this to every fight, you'd be crazy. Some people score for a few hard punches scored, some people score for workrate/landing more punches, i.e power isn't a be-all, end-all. This is why Canelo/Trout is controversial, you have two different interpretations of scoring here, and both are just as valid. I may be playing the devils advocate here, but theoretically you need no defence at all to win a round. Also, can you tell me what you think a Lineal champion is? IN your view, obviously you must have reading comprehension problems....I said rounds are won by ring generalship, defense, and clean punching. Now if a round is close, if a fighter has thrown a lot more punches, but lands less or the same amount as the opponent, the opponent should win the round. why....Because the opponent has shown better defense, and landed at a higher percentage. the only way he doesnt win the round is if the other guy lands the more telling, harder shots in a round like that. a lineal champion is the man who beat the man...lineage if a fighter retires as champion, the number one and two contender fight for the title to bring lineage back to the weight class.... in some instances if that doesnt happen if the number one guy cleans out the division with out facing the number two guy he sould be recognized as the champion. For instance, if a fighter is the number one guy and holds one of the IBF, WBC OR WBA and cant fight the number two guy for some reason. If he unifies the three major belts he is the recognized champion. Also if the number two guy isnt fighting good competition his ranking will drop anyway as his contemporaries are fighting higher rated guys.

2) Most people dont know how to score a round. I think Max Kellerman said it best, the easiest way to score a round is to ask yourself who would you have rather been in the round or the fight. Rounds are won on ring generalship, defense, and clean punching. You dont give a close round to the fighter that throws the most punches. landing and missing dont win rounds landing clean punches does. If a fighter lands cleaner shots and throws fewer punches at a higher percentage they win the round, simple. 3) A lot of the people on here dont even know what a lineal champion is...smh First off, number 2 is a complete and utter joke. If you don't understand subjectivity, you don't understand boxing. And no, your interpretation of punches thrown etc is just your opinion. Your theory means that a guy who had landed a lot more, but also missed more, is always scored below a guy who has thrown a lot less, but missed a lot less. If you applied this to every fight, you'd be crazy. Some people score for a few hard punches scored, some people score for workrate/landing more punches, i.e power isn't a be-all, end-all. This is why Canelo/Trout is controversial, you have two different interpretations of scoring here, and both are just as valid. I may be playing the devils advocate here, but theoretically you need no defence at all to win a round. Also, can you tell me what you think a Lineal champion is? IN your view, obviously

I took a perfect shit this morning.