Hit and not get hit. There's a reason why 'hit' goes before 'not get hit'

[BmoreBrawler]

Your whole post before was about how boxing is about entertainment, and it is a "prizefight"...

You flat told me that De La Hoya deserved the fight because he was the aggressor.

All I'm saying is that when you say that fighters get extra points for being exciting and crowd-pleasing, it is the type of **** that makes bad decisions in boxing.

Chavez was the aggressor when he fought Whitaker, and he was clearly more exciting... did Chavez deserve the decision? **** no! Whitaker hit him, and didn't get hit back, but he never really committed to any specific punch.

Seemed earily similar to May 5th, except that Floyd was clearly not as dominant as Whitaker. He still did enough to win the fight though.

What I'm saying is that "hit and not get hit" ISNT it. Forget entertainment, forget excitement. Judges, no headgear, the label "prize fight". Period. Already proved it.

[joepal]

It's a race to death then... you can keep hoping that I die, while AIDS slowly shuts your ass down. Well, not your ass, that needs to be open access for your boy Jay Cutler.

Quit stalking me you *****.

[ThaHorseman]

That means that more emphasis should be placed on hitting your opponent. There's a reason why shots are scored and blocks are not. In boxing as well as b-ball.

Agree?

Actually defense is used to score fights, along with effective aggression, clean punching, and ring generalship. But thank you for starting a thread to prove how little you actually know about boxing.

[joepal]

Actually defense is used to score fights, along with effective aggression, clean punching, and ring generalship. But thank you for starting a thread to prove how little you actually know about boxing.

Are you ******ed? Aggression and clean punching are aspects of offense.

[ThaHorseman]

Are you ******ed? Aggression and clean punching are aspects of offense.

I never said they weren't. Try again.

[Mozza]

Actually defense is used to score fights, along with effective aggression, clean punching, and ring generalship. But thank you for starting a thread to prove how little you actually know about boxing.

Defense can only be used to nullify attack. If a fighter does not attack they can't win rounds.

[joepal]

I never said they weren't. Try again.

Sure you did. And even going by your four criteria, emphasis is placed on offense.

You lose. Again.

[joepal]

Defense can only be used to nullify attack. If a fighter does not attack they can't win rounds.

That's telling him.

[ThaHorseman]

Defense can only be used to nullify attack. If a fighter does not attack they can't win rounds.

Perhaps you need to brush up on your boxing history. Do a little search or something and you'll find that a certain boxer of the past has won a round without landing (could be throwing, i'm not sure of that) a single punch. See if you can't figure out who it is. That should keep you entertained for a while and help you obtain some knowledge.

[ThaHorseman]

Sure you did. And even going by your four criteria, emphasis is placed on offense.

You lose. Again.

You said blocks were not scored. I countered by saying that defense is most definitely part of the scoring criteria. I don't see how I "lost". I never said where the emphasis was placed. Try again (and you might want to stop with the assumptions, you're easy to pick apart that way)