Who Dominated Trinidad the most?

[El Chicano]

There is no point for discussion; Bernard fought Tito when Tito was in his prime, an absolute wrecking ball and he basically shut him out. Nullified any attack the PR bomber had. Then, he TKO'd him. Yeah Winky pitched a shut out, but he was already damaged goods and coming back after a long layoff, plus he didn't even get a haircut for that fight. Roy won convincingly, but he lost more rounds to Tito than Winky and B-Hop did combined, even though he did knock him down twice. But he couldn't or chose not to finish him. Roy's to safety concsience. Bernard's win over Tito was the most dominant.

[Fox McCloud]

You do understand by rules that blocked punches arn't tallied as being punches scored don't you? I think every category should be weighed almost the same with defense being very important, its a skill every fighter wishes they were masters at, it prolongs careers while making a fighter do what he most wishes nobody sees from him and that is to look bad. Its embarrassing to a fighter to swing and miss throughout a fight. Thats why as bad as I think Winky wanted to complain about his decision with Hop, he didnt because him being an accurate puncher nobody made him look that sloppy before. Im one of Hop's biggest fans and based on clean punching, I think Wink probably should have gotten the nod in that fight, but based on all criteria it was a hard and tedious fight to score.

I think it is ****** to judge 100% by the book, to the point that you don't factor in damage from partially blocked punches.

I judge a round in a simple way... who took less damage in the round. If one fighter doesn't throw a punch, they are going to have a damn hard time winning.

[Bhopreign]

I think it is ****** to judge 100% by the book, to the point that you don't factor in damage from partially blocked punches.

I judge a round in a simple way... who took less damage in the round. If one fighter doesn't throw a punch, they are going to have a damn hard time winning.

Who took less damage determines a round for you? No disrespect but youre probably more suited to club fights or neighborhood brawls. Boxing is a sport within it, an artform. So therefore points are tallied. Thats why judges score by the criteria they do. One 147 pound fighter may be naturally bigger and stronger than his 147 pound opponent, therefore all things being equal he should win every round, seeing he can dish out the most damage. Since scores are kept in boxing and clean punching is not the only criteria, this gives the weaker opponent with all other things being equal a chance to win a fight.

[Fox McCloud]

Who took less damage determines a round for you? No disrespect but youre probably more suited to club fights or neighborhood brawls. Boxing is a sport within it, an artform. So therefore points are tallied. Thats why judges score by the criteria they do. One 147 pound fighter may be naturally bigger and stronger than his 147 pound opponent, therefore all things being equal he should win every round, seeing he can dish out the most damage. Since scores are kept in boxing and clean punching is not the only criteria, this gives the weaker opponent with all other things being equal a chance to win a fight.

No... all the other things are factored in when you judge just by damage. If the smaller fighter displays good defense, then the bigger fighter is going to have trouble connecting on the smaller fighter.

I think my way is a good way to judge (echoed by Harold Lederman), because it is absurd to give Cory Spinks as much credit for a landed punch than you would give for Ricardo Mayorga (which is exactly why that fight wasn't scored 120-108 for Spinks). Spinks had to land a lot to keep up, because Mayorga hurt when he hit.

Ring Generalship is factored in, because if you have your opponent moving in the direction that you want him to, you will likely have him pinned on the ropes, limiting his mobility, allowing you to land more damage than him.

I don't even know what the **** effective aggressiveness is to be honest... it just sounds like another way of throwing punches that land, which is clean, effective punching in my book.

It is all balanced out though... how often do you see a very powerful fighter have super fast reflexes? Not very often, which means that you are going to see one guy who hits harder, and another guy who hits more often, which makes a fight competitive.

But trust me, defense is important when I judge. I scored Taylor-Wright for Wright, mostly because I thought he was catching most of the shots that Taylor threw that made Lampley blow his load every which way.

[Silencers]

Winky Wright.

[Bhopreign]

No... all the other things are factored in when you judge just by damage. If the smaller fighter displays good defense, then the bigger fighter is going to have trouble connecting on the smaller fighter.

I think my way is a good way to judge (echoed by Harold Lederman), because it is absurd to give Cory Spinks as much credit for a landed punch than you would give for Ricardo Mayorga (which is exactly why that fight wasn't scored 120-108 for Spinks). Spinks had to land a lot to keep up, because Mayorga hurt when he hit.

Ring Generalship is factored in, because if you have your opponent moving in the direction that you want him to, you will likely have him pinned on the ropes, limiting his mobility, allowing you to land more damage than him.

I don't even know what the **** effective aggressiveness is to be honest... it just sounds like another way of throwing punches that land, which is clean, effective punching in my book.

It is all balanced out though... how often do you see a very powerful fighter have super fast reflexes? Not very often, which means that you are going to see one guy who hits harder, and another guy who hits more often, which makes a fight competitive.

But trust me, defense is important when I judge. I scored Taylor-Wright for Wright, mostly because I thought he was catching most of the shots that Taylor threw that made Lampley blow his load every which way.

Nice post. I think damage should be taken into consideration but shouldnt be the end all simply because of what I stated earlier in the fact that if one guy is just naturally stronger then because say he lands 3 solid punches in a round, to me it shouldnt nullify the guy who landed 10-12 clean, crisp jabs, but watching the course of a round, in my mind a case can be made for either fighter depending on the other criteria. I dont like when Lederman always says "clean effective punching" when the rule book simply states clean punching, it doesnt say effective, I think the term effective has mislead many into believing what Lederman says therefore relegated the way they judge fights moreso on damage, which effective translates to mean. I thought the Spinks/Mayorga fight was close because Mayorga WAS landing punches I thought, not necessarily that the hurt factor was involved, in which it really wasnt in this fight, even though he landed a good connect % of his power punches.

[Fox McCloud]

Nice post. I think damage should be taken into consideration but shouldnt be the end all simply because of what I stated earlier in the fact that if one guy is just naturally stronger then because he says land 3 solid punches in a round, to me it shouldnt nullify the guy who landed 10-12 clean, crisp jabs, but watching the course of a round, in my mind a case can be made for either fighter depending on the other criteria. I dont like when Lederman always says "clean effective punching" when the rule book simply states clean punching, it doesnt say effective, I think the term effective has mislead many into believing what Lederman says therefore relegated the way they judge fights moreso on damage, which effective translates to mean. I thought the Spinks/Mayorga fight was close because Mayorga WAS landing punches I thought, not necessarily that the hurt factor was involved, in which it really wasnt in this fight, even though he landed a good connect % of his power punches.

Thank you! I didn't explain it well before.

Maybe Spinks-Mayorga was a bad example.

But how about something like Taylor-Wright... Wright never really commits to his punches, so his punches aren't known to be ultra-damaging. Taylor really does commit to his jab and straight right, so when he lands the same punch as Taylor, you know Winky is walking away with the worst of it, and that definately needs to be taken into account.

To use a volleyball analogy, all the other scoring criteria can be seen as bumps and sets, but the points scored (which is equivalent to the damage) is the spikes. So, stuff like ring generalship, or defense (due to countering) can lead to the opportunity for an easier place to punch, and do damage. If you are excercising ridiculously good ring generalship by backing them into the ropes, and are slipping all the other fighter's punches, but aren't landing any shots or counters, it's really not doing you a whole lot of good in the fight. You need to be able to capitalize on the other things you are doing right in order to be effective in a fight.

Hey, this is a pretty good conversation, better than any I have had in a while.

[Bhopreign]

Thank you! I didn't explain it well before.

Maybe Spinks-Mayorga was a bad example.

But how about something like Taylor-Wright... Wright never really commits to his punches, so his punches aren't known to be ultra-damaging. Taylor really does commit to his jab and straight right, so when he lands the same punch as Taylor, you know Winky is walking away with the worst of it, and that definately needs to be taken into account.

To use a volleyball analogy, all the other scoring criteria can be seen as bumps and sets, but the points scored (which is equivalent to the damage) is the spikes. So, stuff like ring generalship, or defense (due to countering) can lead to the opportunity for an easier place to punch, and do damage. If you are excercising ridiculously good ring generalship by backing them into the ropes, and are slipping all the other fighter's punches, but aren't landing any shots or counters, it's really not doing you a whole lot of good in the fight. You need to be able to capitalize on the other things you are doing right in order to be effective in a fight.

Hey, this is a pretty good conversation, better than any I have had in a while.

I agree to an extent. First off I think Winky punches harder than many give him credit for, second I dont think it is Winky's fought if even though he landed like Taylor did, he isnt as naturally strong as Taylor, therefore because of that Taylor should get more credit? To me, again its not Winky's fought he isnt the "bigger man". I have seen definitions of the judging criteria before, I kinda skimmed over it and it explains stuff and some stuff I was schooled on, but effective aggression I dont remember what it said. But just because a fighter backs another fighter up most of the time, who's to say the fighter being backed up doesnt want to be backed up, this is the case with most slick counter punchers. Its their gameplan to be the matador in most of their fights. Chavez came forward against Sweet Pea all night to not much avail. But like you said that fighter needs to capitalize on coming forward for it to mean anything, we agree on that, not sure some judges understand that by the way they score sometimes.

[rebmogul]

im sure this post was made to try to degrade tito but i see no issue in losing to 3 hof.....he went out and sought out the challenge that many fighters avoid and lost....i give him props for being to one dimensional and still becoming an elite hof when it comes down to it.........

also, keep in mind, tito is a natural welter weight. he fought these 3 HOF's
by going way up in weight. PURE WARRIOR...

[Bhopreign]

also, keep in mind, tito is a natural welter weight. he fought these 3 HOF's
by going way up in weight. PURE WARRIOR...

Or pure capitalist? Just kidding, but I read somewhere before the fight that Tito was looking to make 15 mil. in the Jones fight, not sure where that money is coming from but Id take it.