Can anyone remember any fights where...

Quillin-Angulo! After the first few rounds I couldn't believe that they had such a huge gap in punches landed as if they weren't counting when Angulo went to the body. Watch the fight there are times the punch tally is on the screen and Quillin wasn't throwing and punches are counting for Quillin while Angulo is throwing. Punch stats are not trustworthy and are no way to gauge a fight anyway because they don't show who landed the more effective punches. That's what I am wondering...it is hard to imagine a competitive fight where the numbers were that wide...thanks for the info.

So in other words you are just a casual boxing can. Conversation over now youngster. Go follow tennis. Sorry if I hurt your feelings man lol...maybe you are a big Angulo or Quillin fan lol...was just a joke my friend. But yeah I generally reserve my time for watching the good fights/fighters...if a great fight happens under the radar can always go back and watch the replay. Tennis is actually great entertainment at the top level...boxing at 90 feet as Jimmy Connors said...and probably the 3 greatest ever tennis players playing in this era now...pretty special times.

Quillin-Angulo! After the first few rounds I couldn't believe that they had such a huge gap in punches landed as if they weren't counting when Angulo went to the body. Watch the fight there are times the punch tally is on the screen and Quillin wasn't throwing and punches are counting for Quillin while Angulo is throwing. Punch stats are not trustworthy and are no way to gauge a fight anyway because they don't show who landed the more effective punches.

is clear you only put weight in his opinion when it suits your agenda... just like you do with compubox or other ****t... sorry man but your opinion is biased AF... by the way have you ever seen a judge making a note every time a fighter lands a jab? judges in pro boxing dont keep a count of punches landed, that is just delusional... Bro...you have to keep some kind of running tally of who is winning the round as the round goes on lol...come on man...may not be counting every punch....but you are definitely counting the punches generally and scoring them in your head...there is no real other way to correctly score a round bro. I try to keep it as real as I can man...we all have our biases but if I saw Canelo beat GGG 8-4 I would freely admit it...I would not give 2 sh.its about it to be honest...I didn't really care 1 bit who won either fight honestly, because while I like GGG I was just happy he was getting paid. I just saw him win both...so I call it like I see it and I thought they were both pretty obvious man. As far as agreeing with compubox or a judge's scorecard...it is the same thing for me...I just go by what I see and if I disagree with it I will say so. I was probably 'rooting' for Loma in his Linares and Campbell fights...but I had Linares basically even before the stoppage and Campbell basically even before the last few rounds. I promise you that when GGG-SD square off, and when Kov-Canelo square off, I will score the fights round by round, and without one care as to who I 'want' to win...I just don't really give a sh.it that much...if I see Canelo and SD win I will be sure to say it and to say the rounds they won as well.

Why do people think that is like a 'gotcha' moment when I mention that article? I am just telling everyone how a top judge says he and every other judge scores a fight...that all they look at are punches landed and their effectiveness...I am honestly surprised anyone on this site would actively score anything else, on that note. Obviously punches landed can be a bit subjective, and punch effectiveness even more so...so I could disagree somewhat with a 'good' judge from time to time...don't see how most fights could vary from a two round swing, say 7-5 either way...and usually I think a one round disparity is the only real acceptable difference between most cards...most fights have a clear winner and are not too difficult to score imo. Also most importantly, and I shouldn't really have to say this, but many times judges don't actually score what goes on in the ring, and instead more or less have their cards filled out ahead of time...there are a lot of corrupt/bad cards, especially for the home fighters, and especially for the cash-kings in Vegas. I don't really care at all what the judges say in many fights, when it seems obvious that they have an agenda...I just don't really see how anyone can score those 2 fights round by round and not score them quite clearly for GGG. Just my 2 cents there...but again, informing someone of how every judge scores fights...is not co-signing the cards of that judge or any other, as there clearly is some level of corruption in the sport/judging. is clear you only put weight in his opinion when it suits your agenda... just like you do with compubox or other ****t... sorry man but your opinion is biased AF... by the way have you ever seen a judge making a note every time a fighter lands a jab? judges in pro boxing dont keep a count of punches landed, that is just delusional...

how did that top judge scored canelo-ggg 2 ?? Why do people think that is like a 'gotcha' moment when I mention that article? I am just telling everyone how a top judge says he and every other judge scores a fight...that all they look at are punches landed and their effectiveness...I am honestly surprised anyone on this site would actively score anything else, on that note. Obviously punches landed can be a bit subjective, and punch effectiveness even more so...so I could disagree somewhat with a 'good' judge from time to time...don't see how most fights could vary from a two round swing, say 7-5 either way...and usually I think a one round disparity is the only real acceptable difference between most cards...most fights have a clear winner and are not too difficult to score imo. Also most importantly, and I shouldn't really have to say this, but many times judges don't actually score what goes on in the ring, and instead more or less have their cards filled out ahead of time...there are a lot of corrupt/bad cards, especially for the home fighters, and especially for the cash-kings in Vegas. I don't really care at all what the judges say in many fights, when it seems obvious that they have an agenda...I just don't really see how anyone can score those 2 fights round by round and not score them quite clearly for GGG. Just my 2 cents there...but again, informing someone of how every judge scores fights...is not co-signing the cards of that judge or any other, as there clearly is some level of corruption in the sport/judging.

Bro...you can't be serious lol...that is a top judge, explaining what he and other judges look for in judging fights...the other criteria other than who is landing more and better punches is just not actively scored, and should not be. If you choose to say otherwise, oh well, that is unfortunate how did that top judge scored canelo-ggg 2 ??

Tell me boxing genius. In your opinion, if boxer A) lands tens punches in a round on boxer B but no damage is done but boxer B) lands 5 effective and damaging punches on boxer A. Who wins the round? I think 'damage' done can be a bit relative...99.9% of punches don't lead to any visible damage ya know...it is a bit subjective as far as how effective one views a punch. As an example, some on here slight GGG's jab, but if it is snapping his opponent's head back, that would appear to be a damaging punch imo and a scoring punch...likewise Canelo landed some really good shots in some of the rounds where he got outlanded, and because he landed the best shot or shots, I think he won the round or at least made it a close 'pick em' round. I see your point in your analogy though...it's just that rounds like that are few and far between ya know...but yes punch effectiveness is really just as important as punch count.

In your opinion who won the Angulo-Quillin fights. That fights a clear example of one fighter landing more on another fighter but the lesser landing fighters punches were more effective and damaging. Who won that fight in your opinion? If I wanted to watch two never-was bums fight I would start an argument between Robbie Barrett and aboutfkntime Nah but in all seriousness I haven't seen that fight...I will try and give it a watch sometime...I wonder if I would end up having the punch stats as wide as I saw them on compubox...sometimes I think they get them really really wrong - Horn-Pac comes first to mind.

In most cases, he who lands more (at the end) usually won most of the rds. Winning rds and # of punches landed should go hand in hand. This^^^^ Plus just because a fighter is out landing another fighter doesnt mean shht when your punches ain’t doing damage and your opponents are. How does one win a rd ???? By landing more punches ??? Add them up and........ Also, if a guy is never hurt, does that mean the punches that landed didn't count ???? Yeah I'm not sure why some people are trying to be snarky about it lol. If you have a big punch margin at the end of the fight, generally speaking you are almost certainly winning a lion's share of the rounds on punch count...and in general most guys punch about as hard as each other...so all that being said, if one guy has a big punch edge at the end of the fight, it makes sense to think that he almost always won the fight. Surprised that needed to be said/explained on a boxing forum, but here we are :) lol

I hardly ever share a scorecard because when watching a fight I'm trying to figure out what the judges would score. So my scorecard wouldn't really be reflective of what I saw so much as what I assume the judges pointed for. Which can be vastly different. Which is why you never see me crying over a decision. I don't honestly run into many where I can't see their point of view. Muddies the waters and bad decisions could be worded as allows for multiple perspectives and paths to victory. Take Wilder-Fury for example. Fury's ahead on punch count and defense, Wilder owned the harder punches, the posture or generalship, and the aggression. I see both sides of that coin just fine. I see where Robert Tapper is coming from. Far as hit and don't get hit back goes, Tyson did better I see where Alejandro Rochin is coming from. Far as hit me I hit you back harder goes, Wilder did better I can see where Phil Edwards comes from when he claims both men had success but neither man was able to run away with the fight. According to compubox Fury outlanded Wilder by 7 punches over the course of the fight. On punch count alone he did win but if Alejandro favors power then on power alone Tyson lost. Say Phil is just a well rounded sport who wants to see the best man win. 7 punches ahead while being kd twice is a fair as **** draw. What we ended up with is like the fairest draw I've ever seen while fans on both sides embarrass themselves crying over their personal cards instead of even attempting to make sense of the official scores. So yeah....I don't actually score fights myself I try my best to guess what the judges scores will be. You don't ever see my crying over judgement because I don't really ever see anything that is indefensible. Which, is either a symptom of corruption or a symptom of allowing the judges free range of thought. Probably a bit of both. Most things are a mix of elements. Yeah I had Fury-Wilder a draw, as the logic imo that outlanding someone 8-6 on average in the first few rounds, but the other guy often lands the best shot or shots, then it makes sense that those opening 6 rounds in that fight were even and I scored them that way. I had Fury outboxing Wilder over the last 6 pretty much the whole time, but he also got dropped twice so a draw was fair and the right call imo...also, a 13 punch margin (not 7 just for the record) over the course of 12 rounds is hardly anything at all...one punch per round, and when you are the bigger puncher it is easy to imagine having an even fight in that scenario, especially when you have two KDs. My 2 cents is that trying to rationalize some judges' cards, when it is quite clear imo that some fights, unfortunately way too many, are scored corruptly or with bias (hometown bias etc)...well imo trying to rationalize judges' cards in that case just kind of silly, no offense intended. As I've said I think most fights are pretty easy to score...and a lot of 12 rounders do have many close rounds...I do feel that some fighters (BJS comes to mind) have a knack for winning close rounds and can turn a pick em round into a round you have to give them. But my 2 cents is that 95% of fights have a clear winner and a clear loser...Fury Wilder imo was one of the 5%... both GGG-Canelo fights were clear to GGG...Ward-Kov 1 was clear to Kov...think 5-2 for Kov was pretty clearly the right score before the stoppage in fight 2. So yeah I just would respectfully disagree that fights don't generally have a clear winner and loser, and I think the criteria for judging is clear enough as far as helping to designate who the better man is/was.

:lol1: Do you not know who I am? :lol1: Judging bias has codified since the WBC made up the 10 point system. It is, in effect, whatever they say it is. If I prefer dodging to blocking and I am the official judge then I'll score for the man who gives me better dodge work. If I prefer cuts to swelling damage will go to the man drawing blood. If I prefer posture fighting to punching a man into place I'll score generalship for the man who successfully moves the other man around the ring with posture alone I could be flippant about clean punching like you're being about the rest of the criteria. There's a reason why so many hate compubox. They think they have better eyes than the folks at compubox. They think they count clean punches more accurately. Because what you say lands clean may not be what i say lands clean. If I prefer direct powerlines to slapping shots and I am the judge I am well within my rights to score clean punching in favor of the structurally sounds punches. When a fight is over it'd behoove a fan to try to understand where the judges are coming from rather than *****, whine, and cry about how some statistic doesn't match their scorecard. It is whatever the judges are looking for. Always has been. I am not sure who you are to be honest, no offense. Man I just think 95% of fights end up with a clear winner...maybe it is just me, but after years of watching fights, I feel I can just tell when a guy is a in a fight, and when a guy is putting on a show and is coasting. A lot of 12 rounders are rather close fights, with about half clear rounds and half close rounds...deciding whose punches were more effective will always be rather subjective, but in general I think it is pretty easy to do...imo you split more or less the close rounds and then see who the better man is outside of that. I personally think that clouding up the judging criteria with anything other than clean punches and amount of punches muddies the waters and helps to allow for bad decisions...I feel that the assertion that some fights could have cards that read 8-4 for either guy muddies the waters as well, and again allows for bad decisions to be attempted to be explained away. My 2 cents is that 19/20 fights are not that hard to score and have a clear winner...1/20 are 7-5 either way fights...Lara/Hurd falls into this category for me...Floyd Castillo 1 as well.

i can understand watching a fight live and thinking certain things happened that didnt but when you rewatch a fight there is no excuse for missing things. like if you had ward somehow beating kovalev live. go rewatch it and pay more attention. he didnt and it really wasnt that hard to score if you are only focusing on punches. if you are focusing on how much you love ward then yes you could find enough rounds. i found 12 for him! well you think you win...but i have wards judges! you lose Lol yeah...that was honestly the worst decision in a big fight that I have ever seen...ironically it wasn't the worst robbery of the night...Hooker-Perez was worse...but I thought surely they will just let the best man win vs Kov-Ward...to have that spoiled by the 'corrupt' judging was sad for sure

:lol1: Do you not know who I am? :lol1: Judging bias has codified since the WBC made up the 10 point system. It is, in effect, whatever they say it is. If I prefer dodging to blocking and I am the official judge then I'll score for the man who gives me better dodge work. If I prefer cuts to swelling damage will go to the man drawing blood. If I prefer posture fighting to punching a man into place I'll score generalship for the man who successfully moves the other man around the ring with posture alone I could be flippant about clean punching like you're being about the rest of the criteria. There's a reason why so many hate compubox. They think they have better eyes than the folks at compubox. They think they count clean punches more accurately. Because what you say lands clean may not be what i say lands clean. If I prefer direct powerlines to slapping shots and I am the judge I am well within my rights to score clean punching in favor of the structurally sounds punches. When a fight is over it'd behoove a fan to try to understand where the judges are coming from rather than *****, whine, and cry about how some statistic doesn't match their scorecard. It is whatever the judges are looking for. Always has been. essentially what you are saying is that the judges aren't really focusing on punching because they dont konw what is landing. i couldnt agree more. also judging is easy for professional judges. which fighter is the a-side and will get me more work down the line? ok he must be doing something great cause im about to give him enough rounds to win!

Right...if I throw 1000 punches and land 100...but you throw 10 and land 5...I obviously win the fight. And also, isn't my defense in a way better than yours? Mine is so good you aren't even able to attempt to score on me. well you think you win...but i have wards judges! you lose

Lol thanks man...I don't always endorse compubox...but I do feel more or less they get it right...and when I cite punch stat numbers, I am generally saying what I saw in the fight...I don't personally write down the numbers, but I do count more or less during the round...and if I see compubox after the fight I can more or less remember if their numbers are close to mine. Notable exception that comes to mind is GGG-Canelo 2 in the 6th round...compubox had Canelo winning that round by quite a few punches...but I had it very close in terms of punches landed and in terms of whose round it was. i can understand watching a fight live and thinking certain things happened that didnt but when you rewatch a fight there is no excuse for missing things. like if you had ward somehow beating kovalev live. go rewatch it and pay more attention. he didnt and it really wasnt that hard to score if you are only focusing on punches. if you are focusing on how much you love ward then yes you could find enough rounds. i found 12 for him!

can someone explain to me how you win clean punching and yet lose the defense category? guess its an even fight right? one guy won the clean punching other guy won the defense... Right...if I throw 1000 punches and land 100...but you throw 10 and land 5...I obviously win the fight. And also, isn't my defense in a way better than yours? Mine is so good you aren't even able to attempt to score on me.

compubox is not accurate. please stop using it. compubox is so bad it had floyd landing 11 power shots against pac in round 3. he landed zero clean power shots in that round. :bad:its just people guessing. flat out. if the opponent blocked it or parried it thats a clean punch according to them. its bad. :thumbsdowwe should have known this because there was this poster named daggum on here who warned us about compubox all the way back during the calzaghe-hopkins wars. Lol thanks man...I don't always endorse compubox...but I do feel more or less they get it right...and when I cite punch stat numbers, I am generally saying what I saw in the fight...I don't personally write down the numbers, but I do count more or less during the round...and if I see compubox after the fight I can more or less remember if their numbers are close to mine. Notable exception that comes to mind is GGG-Canelo 2 in the 6th round...compubox had Canelo winning that round by quite a few punches...but I had it very close in terms of punches landed and in terms of whose round it was.

can someone explain to me how you win clean punching and yet lose the defense category? guess its an even fight right? one guy won the clean punching other guy won the defense...

This article explains a bias in judging not the criteria. Bro...you can't be serious lol...that is a top judge, explaining what he and other judges look for in judging fights...the other criteria other than who is landing more and better punches is just not actively scored, and should not be. If you choose to say otherwise, oh well, that is unfortunate