Since when are smaller fighters( Pacquiao) expected to cut the ring off on larger com

And who has been able to run away from him? Algieri? With 6 knockdowns? Floyd? With turning his back or squeezing for dear life? The more correct observation is that Pacquiao does not "corner" or "cage" his opponent. He needs some room to operate. But he definitely gets himself in front the opposition. Floyd used basic footwork to beat pac man u should look at the fight again, hugging with a southpaw vs ortho is usually more but in that fight it was only 19, Floyd wrapped up when he was out of position. he stood in front of pac man for the majority of the fight ive watched it several times, and Floyds simple footwork is the reason Pac lost the fight so ur argument holds no weight. Algeirie???????? it was an eilite ATG vs Nevermind....

pac man is a great fighter no doubt but he cant cut off a ring to save his life And who has been able to run away from him? Algieri? With 6 knockdowns? Floyd? With turning his back or squeezing for dear life? The more correct observation is that Pacquiao does not "corner" or "cage" his opponent. He needs some room to operate. But he definitely gets himself in front the opposition.

And that is why its subjective. You dont know what the **** either fighter is tying to do. You are subjectively interpreting what both fighters are trying to accomplish. My personal example I always use comes from being a southpaw. I will frequently let my opponent take the outside angle that they so desperately want. Inevitably some moron will be telling me that I need slide right. You cant sit there and pretend that you have any ****ing clue what the fighter is trying to accomplish in the ring. All you can gauge is if they are begin effective at landing and not getting hit. Ring generalship lets all sorts of bias seep into the judging. Furthermore a fighter can be accomplishing 100% of his game plan and still be losing because its a bad game plan while his opponent might be only accomplishing 75% of what he is trying to do and still be winning because its a good game plan. RING GENERALSHIP IS BULL****! I see your point and I agree for the most part. I also do stuff in the ring to set up traps, and make my opponent feel more comfortable and lull him into punches or wandering into a spot I want. But at the same time, much of the scoring criteria is "subjective" in that way. Like for example some cats will label everything not a jab a "power punch". I only count a power punch if it was a truly hard blow. Realistically you can change speed and power on your punches, check hooks for example, I throw them really soft but fast. I am not trying to hurt my opponent as much as I am trying to stop him in his tracks and / or trying to set something up or hide a follow-up shot. I think scoring in general is subjective and debatable in that way and I don't like that it's like that, but what can we really do about it? I try to be as fair and objective as I can when scoring a fight but no two cards are hardly alike and even when they are, the two people scoring could be scoring towards the same fighter for different reasons. That's why I want stoppages - leave no doubt.

To me it isn't that subjective, ring generalship is controlling the ring and making your opponent do what you want him to do without punches or excessive foot movement. And that is why its subjective. You dont know what the **** either fighter is tying to do. You are subjectively interpreting what both fighters are trying to accomplish. My personal example I always use comes from being a southpaw. I will frequently let my opponent take the outside angle that they so desperately want. Inevitably some moron will be telling me that I need slide right. You cant sit there and pretend that you have any ****ing clue what the fighter is trying to accomplish in the ring. All you can gauge is if they are begin effective at landing and not getting hit. Ring generalship lets all sorts of bias seep into the judging. Furthermore a fighter can be accomplishing 100% of his game plan and still be losing because its a bad game plan while his opponent might be only accomplishing 75% of what he is trying to do and still be winning because its a good game plan. RING GENERALSHIP IS BULL****!

pac man is a great fighter no doubt but he cant cut off a ring to save his life

Because it sounds strikingly similar to what Ford was saying right before he was fired. Why should anyone? If you are landing more and being hit less what the **** does it matter if you are or are not "cutting off the ring"? Not the bold. Thats the problem. The most subjective measure in any sport. IN the Duane Ford school of judging you can lose the round by any objective metric imaginable and still win the round because of "ring generalship". 'Ah the back foot fighter put on a boxing lesson. Other guy wouldn't cut the ring off.' To me it isn't that subjective, ring generalship is controlling the ring and making your opponent do what you want him to do without punches or excessive foot movement. Ring generalship is what Fury did to wlad. Feints, small head, shoulder, and hand movements that control what your opponent does. small steps. being first without being first. Being in control.

Where do you get that from my post? Because it sounds strikingly similar to what Ford was saying right before he was fired. I was just addressing who should cut off the ring. Why should anyone? If you are landing more and being hit less what the **** does it matter if you are or are not "cutting off the ring"? clean, landed punches Ring generalship effective aggression Not the bold. Thats the problem. The most subjective measure in any sport. IN the Duane Ford school of judging you can lose the round by any objective metric imaginable and still win the round because of "ring generalship". 'Ah the back foot fighter put on a boxing lesson. Other guy wouldn't cut the ring off.'

If you are small with short reach and not stronger than your opponent, how do you cut the ring off if the guy is intent on running? Watch Duran-Leonard 2. Compared to Duran-Leonard 1 when Leonard was NOT intent on running. Exactly. There are reasons boxing has the tale of the tape. It's a measure of how stats factors in how a fighter fights. Reach, height, weight are factors.

So even if he is landing more shots because he is not fighting the fight you think he should be fighting then the back foot guy wins the round? That is the same kind of thinking that got both Ford and Ross fired. Where do you get that from my post? I didn't say that anywhere. I didn't once speak of how I score a round, lol. I was just addressing who should cut off the ring. It's off topic, but my scoring criteria is: clean, landed punches Ring generalship effective aggression

Sorry but that is bull****. You cant test it yourself. Place your fingers on your shoulder over the lateral deltoids and abduct your shoulder ever so slightly. You will immediate feel your lateral deltoid contract. I couldn't care less at this point. There's no disputing that rotator cuff muscles are recruited when punching. My original statement was that i don't believe pac had a severe rotator cuff injury because he was throwing the right hook often, and with reckless abandon at times. That's just my opinion, you're entitled to yours....but I'm done going back and forth with someone who believes their engineering degree trumps what my doctor said in regards to my own shoulder injury.

Whoever is the fighter who isn't fighting off the back foot and using lateral and backward movement is supposed to cut the ring off if he wants to reach his opponent more efficiently. So even if he is landing more shots because he is not fighting the fight you think he should be fighting then the back foot guy wins the round? That is the same kind of thinking that got both Ford and Ross fired.

because as he told me, one of the rotator cuff muscles actually starts the movement before the deltoid is recruited. Sorry but that is bull****. You cant test it yourself. Place your fingers on your shoulder over the lateral deltoids and abduct your shoulder ever so slightly. You will immediate feel your lateral deltoid contract.

You are such a dumbass. The funny thing is you actually think you are smart.

Yeah, smh. He just called me the worst poster on NSB for saying that the Canelo vs GGG fight should happen next but that Mayweather and Pacquiao are better names on his resume(as wins) and will draw more revenue for Canelo :lol1: Looool. He's a straight up clown. I especially liked the part when Manny used to be an inside fighter.

If you are small with short reach and not stronger than your opponent, how do you cut the ring off if the guy is intent on running? Watch Duran-Leonard 2. Compared to Duran-Leonard 1 when Leonard was NOT intent on running.

You appear to be black, you got the features even though it's hard to tell. But yeah you are an Uncle Tom, you are overly critical of black fighters and get on your knees for non blacks. Subservient. I dont know what's worst. The fact you keep using words incorrectly or that you're using prejudice terms (thus being prejudice) and don't know it. I do know that both are shameful.

I've been boxing since 2006. I will run circles around you when it comes to boxing knowledge and acumen. You sharing a (wrong) opinion doesn't make me wrong. You've literally said nothing here. Don't quote my post if you are just going to post the same drivel. I answered your question to the T and literally nothing here refutes what I said. http://i.giphy.com/72UnCE6AFcFBS.gif Look we're all wrong sometimes. And this happens to be one of those sometimes for you. Keep your head and keep training, maybe one day you'll be good enough (another 10 years prehaps)to critique Manny on his dominate performance against Algieri. and explain to him why he lacks fundamentals after a 12 round shutout. And please don't resort to what Kev did and use words and phrases you don't understand. You're a awesome poster I respect and most times agree with.

Like I said Manny won every single round against larger Algieri and Mosley. Why should he be expected to change his strategy and hunt down the larger Algieri when he won every round. Instead we should be taking about Algieri and his lack of aggression. He had the size and strength to push Manny back but ran around the ring. Another issue is posters getting running and fighting on the back foot confused for one another. The ass backwards thinking on this site is astonishing. He only won every single round against a physically bigger man and dropped him six times. But he lacks fundamentals. He should cut off the ring better. Bunch of weirdo basement dwellers. You can shake your head until it falls off, but beating up your little cousin at your uncle gym doesn't constitute as boxing experience. I've been boxing since 2006. I will run circles around you when it comes to boxing knowledge and acumen. You sharing a (wrong) opinion doesn't make me wrong. You've literally said nothing here. Don't quote my post if you are just going to post the same drivel. I answered your question to the T and literally nothing here refutes what I said. http://i.giphy.com/72UnCE6AFcFBS.gif

Whoever is the fighter who isn't fighting off the back foot and using lateral and backward movement is supposed to cut the ring off if he wants to reach his opponent more efficiently. It doesn't matter who is the bigger or longer fighter. Size and length just make things easier. Do you even box, bro? If I shook my head any harder I would hurt myself. Like I said Manny won every single round against larger Algieri and Mosley. Why should he be expected to change his strategy and hunt down the larger Algieri when he won every round. Instead we should be taking about Algieri and his lack of aggression. He had the size and strength to push Manny back but ran around the ring. Another issue is posters getting running and fighting on the back foot confused for one another. The ass backwards thinking on this site is astonishing. He only won every single round against a physically bigger man and dropped him six times. But he lacks fundamentals. He should cut off the ring better. Bunch of weirdo basement dwellers. You can shake your head until it falls off, but beating up your little cousin at your uncle gym doesn't constitute as boxing experience.

Its antonishing that a much smaller fighter is held to such high standards. It also shows the ignorance of some of the posters on this site. If an taller, longer, and natually fast fighter doesn't want to be caught than guess want he isn't going to be caught. It takes alot of energy as the smaller fighter to constanly cut of the ring agaisnt bigger opponents whos are also fast and running. What Spence said was incorrect. It doesn't make him a bad person but it shows he has a lot to learn. Spence had a good size advantage and an Algieri who wasn't moving very often. Plus Spence had the lenght to cover ground quickly once he had Algieri hurt and the strenght to break clinches. And just for reference ( since i know some of you are blind with hatred towards Pacman) i'll list other fighters well known for cutting the ring off at lower weights but struggled when moving up. Roberto Duran Chavez Sr. Azumah Nelson Whoever is the fighter who isn't fighting off the back foot and using lateral and backward movement is supposed to cut the ring off if he wants to reach his opponent more efficiently. It doesn't matter who is the bigger or longer fighter. Size and length just make things easier. Do you even box, bro? If I shook my head any harder I would hurt myself.