1nonlymre

The best one work I can come up with.... THEN because I simply can't say NOW. However, if it was 2005-8 all over again?!?!!! Think about it. It pretty much sums things up.

Erik Morales called Marco Antonio Barrera a motherfucker but in Spanish No he didn't. There is no such word in Spanish. He may have said, "Chinga tu madre" but that isn't the same. That means 'F@#$ your mother." He didn't call Barrera a 'F@#$ your mother'. See? Doesn't make sense.

From the article I linked (I found it interesting). Apply it to your scoring and see what you get now. Here's the scoring criteria, as noted in ring tv website: The criteria for scoring a knock down is not based on the premise that the fighter who scores the knockdown automatically is awarded a 10-8. The correct criteria that is taught by Duane Ford in his ABC certification classes for boxing judges is: If Fighter A is winning the round and scores a knockdown and continues to win the round after the knockdown, then Fighter A is awarded the round 10-8. However, if Fighter A is winning the round and gets knocked down by Fighter B, then Fighter B is awarded the round 10-9. The key is: Which fighter won the round without the knockdown? Thus, most fans and TV commentators are incorrect in automatically scoring a 10-8 round for a fighter who scores a knock down without taking into consideration who won the round without the knock down.

I originally had it 114-112 (eight rounds for Fury against 4 rounds for Wilder). I gave originally gave Wilder rounds 2, 3, 10 and 12. However, after thinking about it, I may have scored it incorrect. I now feel, that although Wilder got knockdowns in rounds 9 and 12, that's all he did in those rounds. Take those moments away, and he lost those rounds. And the knockdowns did not end the fight in either occasion, so I have Fury winning those rounds, making it 10-9, with a point deducted for the knockdown, making it a 9-9 round for both the 9th and the 12th. If Wilder wins those rounds and get the knockdown then it's a 10-8, but that wasn't what happened. So with that, my new scorecard total is as follows: 116-110 for Fury. Fury won 10 rounds Wilder won 2 rounds AND, Wilder was the benefit of 2 knockdowns Take away those knockdowns and the score is now 118-110.

I originally had it 114-112 (eight rounds for Fury against 4 rounds for Wilder). I gave originally gave Wilder rounds 2, 3, 10 and 12. However, after thinking about it, I may have scored it incorrect. I now feel, that although Wilder got knockdowns in rounds 9 and 12, that's all he did in those rounds. Take those moments away, and he lost those rounds. And the knockdowns did not end the fight in either occasion, so I have Fury winning those rounds, making it 10-9, with a point deducted for the knockdown, making it a 9-9 round for both the 9th and the 12th. If Wilder wins those rounds and get the knockdown then it's a 10-8, but that wasn't what happened. So with that, my new scorecard total is as follows: 116-110 for Fury. Fury won 10 rounds Wilder won 2 rounds AND, Wilder was the benefit of 2 knockdowns Take away those knockdowns and the score is now 118-110. So I quote myself and suggest folks read this article: https://www.ring*tv.com/122349-when-does-a-knock-down-not-result-in-a-10-8-round/ (minus the asterisk) By using what is mentioned in that article, Rounds 9 and 12 are scored 10-9 for Wilder. Not 10-8, as I don't believe he won those rounds absent the knockdowns. So, with that in mind, my final tally is as follows: 116 - 112. Fury, where Fury won 8 rounds and Wilder won 4 rounds.

Oooh, oooh.... So which one is Pacquiao and which one is Mayweather this time!?! I'm so excited to know!!!!

There's only been one moment like that, where I actually got out of my seat and freaked out. That was when Julio Cesar Chavez dropped Meldrick Taylor in the 12th. Me and my friends all yelled at the tv and cheered like crazy. Up until that moment we knew Chavez had lost the fight, then suddenly, one hell of a glimmer of hope!

Tonight's episode of INside MMA talks about this guy as well. They seemed to be okay with the idea of the forfeit. The other guy took the fight with 4 hours notice and was being completely beaten in every way possible. Pantangco fought again a week ago and choked a guy out in a triangle with little work. He's got talent and is a finisher. He has the "killer instinct" that people seem to think doesn't exist in him, but at the same time he has compassion. The main loser in this matchup? The ref, for not stepping in and calling it sooner.

lol Exactly. What's the point of competition just be realized that there is no money involved her, it an amateur fight. I can understand the kid easing up aging ruising to victory against an overmatched opponent. But giving up the win because you feel sorry for him? Time to find a new line of competition, son. I get that and I picked your quote but many have a similar sentiment. It should be noted that there is no purse involved and it is an amateur bout. It was a total mismatch, and the winning fighter knew he was a mismatch in high proportion. If a prize fighter does this then shame on him or Shane in the red fornnot seeing the defeated fighter. However, in this case the red failed. Winning fighter was beating the other guy at will and realized he could unnecessarily hurt this guy. Good on him.

They asked for 40%.The WBA said no. If Jacobs was gonna vacate because of the 25% why didn't do it then? K2 is in the catbird seat. All they gotta do is go to purse bid & no matter what GGG gets 75%. What's the hold up? After calling for an early purse bid now they want an extension. They're fighter is getting 75% why the hell the want to extend it? Serious question. Is Jacobs obligated to fight if it goes to purse bid? If he's signed no contract and is not happy with the post purse bid amount his 25% would afford him, he could simply back out, right?

I really hope to hear something come Monday like the thread said. Once I hear it officially announced I will be amped. Should be a good scrap and a good gauge of where Jacobs and Golovkin are now.

GGG looks like Pee-Wee Herman in that pic doesn't he?

Significant drop from Cotto fight. Must have been all west coast because no one on the east coast was talking about this fight. So now we've had 2 straight MW ppv's flop. Can these 2 just fight already. Maybe coka dela fishnets tries to make a Manny fight in May to get the numbers back up. I don't find this unusual at all. I think most, if not all PPV, will be very underwhelming compared to say the last 5 - 10 years. The Pacquiao and Mayweather models are the main reasons for the fallout. SO much build up for such a letdown. Their careful selection of opponents led to a $100 sparring match with little of the promised action. The end result? Boxers nowadays (for the most part) want to play that same "risk/reward" model the Pac and May milked for years. Unfortunately, the "risk/reward" model has quickly fallen victim to the "fool me once..." parable. And that's a fact. You won't see high PPVs as the norm again until the sport, as a general, abolishes the low risk / high reward mentality, by both the promoters and the fighters.

excellent thread and an excellent thought process. I believe this is why the fight has to happen, both fighters have a lot of questions need to be answered. Can talk to deal with a defensive master like Floyd Mayweather? Can Floyd Mayweather deal with the onslaught that packet will give him? These are the questions that must be answered and original poster put some valid points. Both Mayweather and Marcus are completely different types of counter punchers. And that cannot go without with very little debate. I for one would love to see this fight happen and I know it has to happen for the sake of boxing. I would dare saying that it's almost a 50 50 fight. Great post. Thank you.

Prove you handle.

My apologies this isn't stimulating enough. Maybe I should have included a few 'doe's' or 'A-sides' or 'pawns' in what I wrote.

I know it sounds dumb, but why the hell should pac stick around just because there is "hope" that maybe may weather will come around. Jan 31st is enough time. Now if may weather would come and say yes I agree lets just sort these last few details out, that's another thing, but to blatantly stay silent without letting pac camp know anything man fugg that. Move on... That's why I suggested two points. Concessions, if you will, by both sides, not just Pacquiao. 1) Transparency on the negotiations and progress of that to Pacquiao's side. and, assuming said transparency and forward progress... 2) A willingness for Pacquiao to extend the deadline in lieu of said progress, but still allowing him to move on with enough time for the 5/30 plan b date. Personally, I think a realistic extention would be 2 weeks. Say, Valentine's Day. Any more waiting beyond that would give dangerously short time for proper training for a 5/2 date (assuming Manny would not have begun light training by then anyway).

And I repost on my own thread. I suggested that Mayweather's side become transparent and that Pacquiao would then move the cutoff date. Done. And Done. I'm not bragging, but it just seemed like the logical thing to happen for this fight to come to fruition. That is, assuming, that it isn't already a done deal and the events of the 27th are all for show. What say you folks?

Ok, so I scored it for Provo by 2 points. However, I was very surprised with HBO's commentary. Even Ward seemed to flip flop at times. But be that as it may.... I'm not upset with the decision, though. Now, let's talk effective punching... For me, I define effective punching as landing punches on your opponent to nullify and diminish their effectiveness and gameplan. I didn't see that with either guy last night. Provodnikov landed shots and Algieri seldom slowed down or not punched back. Conversely, Algieri's shots did not stop Provodnikov from coming forward. So the effective punching is not a factor for me so much in this fight. So then, I have to ask myself, who landed more shots in any given round? That's what I had to go by. Who I think landed more per round. Not b based on punchstats either, but who I thought landed more. Again, although I thought Provodnikov won by 2 points, I'm not surprised it went the other way with 2 scorecards, as some rounds were difficult to definitively score. Especially using my definition of "effective punching" noted above. Provodnikov seems to have let it go. I point to round 10 or 11, just after Roach told him to go for the ko. He came out more aggressive, throwing more, and at that time Algieri's boxing had no effect and he had to get defensive. This was the only time, other than the first round, that I saw Provodnikov dish out some effective punching and that did not even last the entire round. But hey, Provodnikov can learn from this... He young, Bambi (doe). <--- couldn't resist. Hate it when people say 'doe'. So uncivilized and juvenile.

read the question and options: Is Floyd Mayweather jr. a warrior? 1)Without question. Floyd will do whatever it takes to win. it's not about "finish". 2)he will jump on his bicycle and won't commit, even if in trouble. it's about what Floyd will do if he losing rounds.I'm sure he'll go on the attack if feel that he loses. Actually, I haven't intentionally taken part in the poll. Instead, I opted for "Choice #3": My opinion of what it means to be a "warrior" in boxing and comparing that opinion against Floyd's style post "retirement". That's all. BUT... I'll entertain the initial question as best as I can. Here's the premise: Floyd is in trouble somehow and is forced to respond. How do I think he'll respond? I think he'll go on an offensive tirade should he be placed in that position, like a cornered animal. The trick, though, is putting him in that position. Can Maidana be the one to force that? I hope so, because I would love to see Floyd in that situation.

Well, I'll end my posting on this thread with this: IF, and that's a big IF.... If Mayweather engages like he's implying that he will I hope that he carries things through like I believe he can and knocks out Maidana. Or at least gets the TKO from a ref or corner stoppage. By my definition, this will seriously improve giving the guy the title of "warrior". He said he's not going to move around much and stay in the pocket. We'll see about that. I'm curious to see if he goes to the body a lot as I think he will. Anyway...I'm out on this thread as it appears it's going waaay off topic. At least until Sunday.

Only Warriors can do what they do for a Living, so boxing for a living Automatically MAKES YOU A WARRIOR because it takes bravery to get into that ring. They are all Warriors, they just have different styles! Warrior is not really just some guy going toe to toe every time he fights and eating punches he can avoid. That is like a Bull Fighter standing in front of the Bull and getting Gored just to prove he is TOUGH? That being said the sport is called "BOXING" not "WARRIORING" (yeah not really word but...). Their is not extremely benefits of what some classified as being a "WARRIOR IN THE RING" which for some people they classified that as fighting like a complete Idiot, neglecting their defense, eating punches and throwing punches Following my quoted post with the bold area might imply that I feel warriors are all Gatti-like fighters. Not true. I never implied that at all. Rock em sock em styles are entertaining, but, again, do not automatically translate into Warriors. Look, as many fighters say, it's not smart to get beat up for a win. The idea it to hit and not be hit. I understand that perfectly well. I merely stated that, by my definition, a boxer gains the warrior status when he can systematically set up a knockdown or knockout with minimal damage to himself (via excellent defense)...then, pursues the knockout to punctuate things. Floyd does all but the latter. Simple and easy. Is he brave? Yes Is he good at what he does? Yes Does he fatigue and frustrate boxers? Yes Does he minimize his opponents' outputs? Yes Does he tend to leave boxers extremely vulnerable? Yes Does he finish them off when they are in that position? No Thus. No 'warrior' title for him. P.S. - My definition of warrior is mine. Please don't try to split hairs trying to discredit my definition.

Here's my two cents: A warrior is someone who will handle a war he is in as well as that same person bringing forth a war. We see Floyd do the first, but not the second. Like when his father and uncle talk about Floyd whipping somebody's butt....obviously they're idea of a butt whoopin is different than mine. The frustrating thing about Floyd is that that he sets up a war but never pulls the trigger. He's constantly setting things up and is content with that. Basically an all around "warrior" is a good defensive warrior and a good offensive warrior. Floyd has the former and not the latter. I believe he could be but chooses not to.

More of a Warrior than anybody on this Forum that is for sure. Understand not liking certain fighters for WHAT EVER REASON but to question a guys Toughness, especially one who BOX for a living is just IGNORANT! I don't need Mayweather going toe to toe and eating punches that he can easily avoid, just to prove to a casual fan who only been watching box within the last 5 years, that he is a "WARRIOR". LMFAO at the thought of some guy that never been a ring before or punched in the face trying to decided who is a Warrior and who is not is just HILARIOUS to me http://i.qkme.me/3rxoan.jpg Well, at least for me, it's not a question of toughness. Floyd is tough. Those two shots he took from Mosely proved that. But that fight proves my point. Floyd is an artist in terms of defense (not getting hit) and setting things up for the finish. (Frustration and the right hand). He got clocked real well by Mosley, got dazed, recovered quickly and took control of the fight from that moment on. But, he didn't assume the role of "finisher", he simply held Mosley primarily at bay, landing at will, but only allowing his will to only go so far. A complete warrior will assume the role of "finisher" when things have been set up as well as Floyd does. Once upon a time, at 130, Floyd was like that. But no more. And it's truly frustrating, and sometimes boring, to know exactly that -- especially while watching his fights over the last few years. Therefore, the title of warrior eludes him because he doesn't typically attempt to finish guys off when he can. A defensive finisher is a warrior, and is irrelevant of toughness. By my definition you have to be tough to be a fighter. I have full respect of anyone and everyone, regardless of talent, who enters the squared circle. BUT, at the same time, by my definition, Floyd is just short of being a warrior because he he's had many of his recent fighters in some form of trouble and refuses to engage in order to finish them off. I offer him the title of "Greatest Defensive Fighter" of this time. But warrior? No, I cannot, in good conscience do that. And that's not a reflection on my thoughts of Mayweather as a person, but rather, against his elected style.

By my definition, still not a warrior. Everything I've said before still applies. Great defensive fighter when he chooses to be (Rounds 7 and 9 especially). But he is no closer, and I require that before calling someone a warrior. As for this fight, it's not a fight to base much of anything on. I believe Floyd's lack of pressure for the first half of the fight was a calculated risk. I believe it involved Maidana getting tired for the second half. It's a risk, and a lucky one that didn't backfire on Floyd this time around. Very calculated, and very lucky. Floyd would have to evaluate whether or not to take the same route against another similarly gamed opponent. You see, this fight was a fight of distance...Maidana took over on the inside with little distance; Floyd took over on the outside with arm's length distance. But, back to the topic. No, he's still not considered a warrior by me. And he may never be with his style of fighting. Again, "The Best Defensive Fighter of Our Time", but warrior? No.

I don't call this being a coward. Why should you expect that a guy should get himself beaten up badly (as you say) just so that you can have had the satisfaction of seeing it. I have been watching and reading boxing news arguably longer than anyone on this site. But lets just go back to the period when Mayweather was a 130 lb champion. It was a well-known fact, and often mentioned by analysts, promoters and writers, that Mayweather had what they called in print and on the air, his "Brains Trust". They would be discussing Mayweather's safety-first system of only having opponents where they'd spotted weaknesses that he was capable of exploiting. He slipped up badly with Jose Luis Castillo who really beat him well, up and down the ring. They had been fooled by the fact that he was supposed to have been very shop=worn, from being Julio Cesar Chavez' chief sparring partner for 7 years already. (He had only scraped a draw with Stevie Johnson when he was nearly twice his size and maybe 20 lbs heavier). The judges' decisions were a fraud on Castillo and on the betting public. Just consider how much money would have been lost by the bookies if Castillo had got the decision.......... And on the "Brains Trust' point. Oscar used to be referred to as having one of them. They nearly slipped up badly with Ike Quartey. They DID slip up with Trinidad because they knew he'd had bad trouble making the weight for at least 2-3 years, and already had 15 Welterweight title defences the last 3-4 whilst already fighting as a light- middleweight too. So it was a well known fact, and he easily could have missed making the weight. At the weigh-ins, Trinidad would look like a skeleton with his ribs and bones sticking out. Anyway, I don't blame Mayweather for not wanting to be beaten-up, I just don't like him, his manner, nor his life-style, but I couldn't care less. As far as his boxing goes, when he doesn't take a Hopkins approach (fouling on the ref's blind side) I appreciate his skill, but if I were fighting him and got an elbow in my throat, I'd do the very same and get my corner to complain to the ref. He's talked himself into being regarded as "The Greatest" just like Muhammed Ali did (it began as a PR stunt)....and neither of them has been -in my opinion at least. Ironically, I tend to write long posts but never read when others do. However, this one I did read, and this one I did enjoy. Good points, my man...good points.

Mayweather fights title holders not contenders, you've got to go back to 06 to find the last guy that didn't have a major title whom Mayweather fought. I could very well be wrong, but I don't think Guerrero had a title when they fought, did he? Maybe he did...and Pacquiao has some form of title off the win against Rios, I think. NOt that it matters, but if a title is a prerequisite to fight FLoyd then that part is likely covered.

Well, I'm not totally against Broner being able to win. There were some times in the fight when he boxed well. No too many, but there were some. The question is not what Broner needs to do to Maidana....he obviously needs to totally box form the outside. No, the real question is what will Broner be able to do to keep Maidana from landing on him. Maidana will land at some time. And if Maidana comes in with some lateral movement, it's all over for Broner. Should be entertaining, though. I just don't see Broner being able to easily crack Maidana's code this time either. I see Maidana tagging broner, and this time, instead of just standing there, Broner will attempt to fight back, leaving himself open for punches and making the fight easier for Maidana. Exchanges will always need to be initiated by Broner and kept at a distance. Otherwise, it will likely be good night for Adrien.

Here's the thing. This thread seemed frivolous at first, but it got me thinking. I think the main problem with judging, even with the professional judges, is that folks tend to score a round as it progresses. I'm guilty of this as well. I think it's best practice to judge a round once it is completed or deemed completed (in the case of a stoppage on cuts). Once the round is finished you evaluate the round and award the dominant fighter ten points. I believe knockdowns trump the dominance at this point. In determining dominance, you first look to the any and all knockdowns of the previous round. DOing this may negate knockdowns if both fighters go down. Otherwise, whoever had the greater amounts of knockdowns get the automatic nod for that round, giving them ten points. Let's say fighter A is thus dominant. Fighter B's score is based on how many times he was knocked down. Fighter B already has 9 points, if he was knocked down once he gets 9-1; if knocked down twice he gets 9-2, etc. Then after taking account dominance and knockdowns you then factor in the lesser scored fighter's performance in the round. This too can negate a knockdown. So, if Fighter B is knocked down but is otherwise dominating the round he can salvage one more point, while still losing the round (10-9). After all that, you lastly take into account any deducted points due to fouls, resulting in a final score for the round. So, to summarize: A full three minute round ends wit one of two scenarios: A) No knockdowns or B) With one or more knockdowns If you have scenario A, you judge the dominant fighter based on the criteria of 1. Clean punching 2. Effective aggressiveness. 3. Ring generalship. 4. Defense. That fighter gets 10 points, the other fighter gets 9 points. You then assess any point deductions due to fouls as determined by the referee only. Pretty straight-forward Then you have scenario B: *Note: Knockdowns trump everything in this example. Whoever has the most knockdowns gets 10 points. If both fighters are equal in this, the knockdowns negate themselves. If Fighter A has a knockdown advantage he wins the initial 10 points (leaving the scoring at 10-9) at that point at the end of the round. The number of non-negated knockdowns results in a greater advantage for Fighter A by taking points away from Fighter B in terms of the number of non-negated knockdowns. Then, you look at fighter B based on the following criteria: 1. Clean punching 2. Effective aggressiveness. 3. Ring generalship. 4. Defense. If fighter B excels in these points against Fighter A, then one of the knockdowns against fighter B can be negated and they would gain back one point. There you go. One last caveat, if fighter b fights well enough to make the round a 10-10 after the knockdown you you've got one hell of a fight on your hands! :)

Since it is just a thought experiment, let us just say it is round 12, and the fight is dead even. Who wins this round wins the fight. Fighter B winning the round (and thus the fight); is that fair? There's some amount of subjectivity involved with this system, for sure. But that subjectivity ends with determining which fighter dominates the action. From that point on, it's a matter of following the steps I outlined. There has to be some sort of consistency and the system isn't perfect but there's no room for whether a decision is fair or not if you follow the outline I mentioned.