If Floyd wins via UD or SD, boxing LOSES.

[ElGranLuchador]

it really depends on the way maywether wins if he actually doesnt show fear of a guy smaller than him and engages even a little ill be happy

[BmoreBrawler]

Oh, you mean like, effective aggressiveness, which would give rounds to someone who fought all three minutes of the round, instead of just flurrying for 15 seconds each round, or ring generalship, once again, which kept the fight in the middle of the ring for all but 15 seconds each round. How about defense? Connect percentages seem to indicate that one fighter avoided more punches, and it was not Oscar. How about clean, effective punching? Like punches that keep a guy from getting off for 2 minutes and 45 seconds of each round, or the ones that were not even partially blocked? Floyd managed to at least partially block a lot of shots, and a lot of shots from Floyd hit Oscar square.

Are those the aspects you are talking about? Or just the fact that Oscar is the good guy?

Actually, Floyd didnt fight for most of the first 7 rounds, all he did was the occasional jab to the body and some jabs to oscar's gloves, all of which were incorrectly counted as landed punches by punchstats.

How about defense...irrelevant, you dont win rounds by simply not getting hit, you have to outhit your opponent.

Floyd was not an effective puncher in that fight, dont give in to the bogus punchstats. Oscar was as ineffective as floyd, but what won the fight for him in my mind was that he was the aggressor and pressured for enough rounds to win(7).

Stop with these ridiculous insinuations that I dont know what im talking about, because I do.

[Fox McCloud]

Actually, Floyd didnt fight for most of the first 7 rounds, all he did was the occasional jab to the body and some jabs to oscar's gloves, all of which were incorrectly counted as landed punches by punchstats.

How about defense...irrelevant, you dont win rounds by simply not getting hit, you have to outhit your opponent.

Floyd was not an effective puncher in that fight, dont give in to the bogus punchstats. Oscar was as ineffective as floyd, but what won the fight for him in my mind was that he was the aggressor and pressured for enough rounds to win(7).

Stop with these ridiculous insinuations that I dont know what im talking about, because I do.

Yes I know you know what you are talking about... but I thought that your comment at me was equally as insulting to my intelligence.

Anyways, I guess it really is what Emanuel Steward said after the fight. The scores were very good all the way across, considering some judges put heavy stock into aggression, and some feel the counterpunchers have just as much relevance in winning a round. It certainly seems to reflect the difference of our opinions, and probably why we like the boxers we do in the first place, because our opinions gravitate us towards the boxers that most accurately reflect our philosophy on scoring.

[Joartcc3]

This kind of winning will only sink boxing further more into the mire after that abominable DLH-Floyd fight. With millions of people again watching, another boring Floyd victory might just be the straw that will break the camel's back.

In that case, R.I.P. boxing. Pleasure knowing you guys.

The problem with this is that as the fight gets nearer and nearer it is becoming obvious that the coward Fake Floyd will run like a chicken all night.

Fake Floyd has no sense of honor and his taunts that he will attack Hatton is a BIG LIE. Fake Floyd has been lying all his career.

Because this is a fight on American soil it will be on Fake Floyd's terms,

The ref will look to favor Fake Floyd.

The judges will give Fake Floyd the decision no matter what. Unless Hatton KO's or multiple KD's Fake Floyd which is unlikely as Fake Floyd will run like a chicken all night.

If this fight is similar to the DLH fight in which DLH should have won, then AMERICAN BOXING IS DEAD.

[Joartcc3]

Yes I know you know what you are talking about... but I thought that your comment at me was equally as insulting to my intelligence.

Anyways, I guess it really is what Emanuel Steward said after the fight. The scores were very good all the way across, considering some judges put heavy stock into aggression, and some feel the counterpunchers have just as much relevance in winning a round. It certainly seems to reflect the difference of our opinions, and probably why we like the boxers we do in the first place, because our opinions gravitate us towards the boxers that most accurately reflect our philosophy on scoring.

YOu are an insult to the word INTELLIGENCE.

And don't even bother, in HUMAN STANDARDS, EVERYTHING WILL BE AN INSULT TO YOUR INTELLIGENCE. Or lack of it.

[BmoreBrawler]

Yes I know you know what you are talking about... but I thought that your comment at me was equally as insulting to my intelligence.

Anyways, I guess it really is what Emanuel Steward said after the fight. The scores were very good all the way across, considering some judges put heavy stock into aggression, and some feel the counterpunchers have just as much relevance in winning a round. It certainly seems to reflect the difference of our opinions, and probably why we like the boxers we do in the first place, because our opinions gravitate us towards the boxers that most accurately reflect our philosophy on scoring.

I enlightened you, I didnt insult you with outlandish comparisons.

What it REALLY is is what Emanuel Steward said DURING the fight, "Most of Floyds shots are being blocked".

You might be right that theyre treating counterpunches as equal, which to me is insane because it discourages forwards movement and encourages stalemates and tentativeness on the part of the fighters. I think that as far as scoring goes, it is the opposite of what you said. The fighters we like(for whatever reason) influences how we score. I guaruntee you that you didnt score Spinks/Taylor for Spinks, but Spinks WON by the logic that Floyd beat DLH. My philosophy on scoring I dont think is related to who I like, its related to what is best for boxing and historical standards.

[satori555]

if you walk forward and get your ass handed to you you should still win like delahoya did cause he was braver

[Fox McCloud]

I enlightened you, I didnt insult you with outlandish comparisons.

What it REALLY is is what Emanuel Steward said DURING the fight, "Most of Floyds shots are being blocked".

You might be right that theyre treating counterpunches as equal, which to me is insane because it discourages forwards movement and encourages stalemates and tentativeness on the part of the fighters. I think that as far as scoring goes, it is the opposite of what you said. The fighters we like(for whatever reason) influences how we score. I guaruntee you that you didnt score Spinks/Taylor for Spinks, but Spinks WON by the logic that Floyd beat DLH. My philosophy on scoring I dont think is related to who I like, its related to what is best for boxing and historical standards.

You knew I wasn't legitmately asking what judges were for in the sport of boxing... so any answer you made was something that answered an obvious question. Either you think I'm an idiot, or your answer to the question treated me as so.

Scoring for fighters we like is NOT what I was saying. I was merely saying that we watch boxing, and figure out what we feel wins rounds and fights. Whether it be landed punches, aggression, ring generalship, whatever. With that being figured out, we find the fighters that do that, and pick them to be our favorites. So... people DO score fights for their fighters, but that is merely because their fighters do generally most often satisfy their scoring criteria.

Also, Taylor-Spinks and Mayweather-De La Hoya were not the same fight, and they were also not even close to as competitive as the other. Spinks ran a lot of the time, or just threw shots out, without the goal of connecting, he just merely wanted to look busy. Mayweather, however, either threw lead left hooks (which should satisfy some of your aggression criteria) or counterpunched. To be honest, I didn't see a lot of activity from Oscar in a lot of the rounds. I saw him stalk Floyd all round, until Floyd got on the ropes, and then Oscar went ****ing insane and threw like a trillion punches, and a lot of them were partially blocked, at least.

On the other hand, there were some rounds that Oscar clearly won, with his jab alone.

I think that is where our scores differed most likely... whether Oscar should be winning some of those close rounds on aggression alone. I've never understood the aggression scoring criteria to be quite honest. Effective aggressiveness is the name of the game, and I think it gets almost completely diminished when effective is taken away.

[BmoreBrawler]

I think that is where our scores differed most likely... whether Oscar should be winning some of those close rounds on aggression alone. I've never understood the aggression scoring criteria to be quite honest. Effective aggressiveness is the name of the game, and I think it gets almost completely diminished when effective is taken away.

Not quite sure about the rest of what you posted, but this part I'd like to address. Aggression without effectiveness is relevant when neither fighter is effective, see PBF vs ODLH May 5th 2007.

[Fox McCloud]

Not quite sure about the rest of what you posted, but this part I'd like to address. Aggression without effectiveness is relevant when neither fighter is effective, see PBF vs ODLH May 5th 2007.

Didn't you just lecture me for that earlier today?

And no, I would have given those rounds to Floyd, because Floyd's punches got through a lot more cleanly than Oscar's... I have a hard time seeing an actual "even" round, in any fight, ever. If I ever did, I wouldn't give it to the aggressor, I would call it 10-10.