What Is This? The Amateurs?

[tyson]

It's possible to control a round without landing a hard punch. If Paulie M was outlanding someone 15 clean punches to 3, then as long as those punches weren't staggering him and he didn't seem hurt I'd give him the round.

Edited to add that I'm not suggesting that JC outlanded Hopkins by 15 clean punches to 3 in any round.

Yes, indeed it is.

Ring generalship is one of the 4 scoring factors.

But unless you are actually controlling the action, controlling the pace or dictating what should happen, you can't be considered the ring general.

People often mistake walking forward as ring generalship.
It's not. It's just mindless desperation if you can't be effective.

Even walking backwards and circling around, you can be the ring general.
Hopkins does this all the time.

[abadger]

OK, so you all say that clean power shots should have the most value, and I can agree with that, when the case is clear and one fighter is decisively landing them. We see this in a great many of Floyd Mayweather's fights, his opponents try their best but he routinely and controlledly(?) picks them off with his right jab, never really letting them get near, even if they throw more than he does.

The thing is, to be fair, that Hopkins is no Mayweather, and this was no Mayweather style performance. First of all, although Hopkins did land the cleaner, harder shots, this mostly happened when Joe was either on his way in to throw a flurry or on his way out from throwing a jab. In both cases Hopkins was tending to take at least something in return. Typically, i thought Joes jab landed with reasonable accuracy and when he flurried he quite often got Hopkins with a decent one amongst them. Also, when Joe was coming in, the exchange would typically end with a Hopkins initiated clinch, making all that happened before seem scrappy and hard to call. What i am saying is that if everything Joe threw was ineffective, and Hopkins clearly picked him off with the better shots, your argument for a Hopkins win would be fine, but thats not the way it was. To the judges it probably looked like a tit for tat kind of exchange with Hopkins probably landing the harder cleaner shots, but with Joe definitely throwing and landing more punches, some of which looked pretty good. This naturally (and IMO rightly), lead them to give the decision to Calzaghe.

Addison, you talk about using slow mo and going back over the fight, and I'm sure it will reveal what you say, but the judges didn't have that option and nor should they, they have to, and did, go by what they see on the night.

Tyson, you talk about mayweather getting the verdict for merely landing more blows on a Pavlik who slaps him around the ring. I don't think this is a realistic scenario, being slapped around the ring would be a clear demonstration of a punches effectiveness, and allowing that to happen to you would be a clear demonstration of the ineffectiveness of your own. Thus our hypothetical pavlik would get the verdict. The problem with tonights fight is that there was no such clarity clearly visible, so the judges made the call on what they did see, which is the fight that I described above, in which on balance, Calzaghe was the victor.

Thanks for reading, I know it was long.
________
Amateur Cams

[Killa Cam]

OK, so you all say that clean power shots should have the most value, and I can agree with that, when the case is clear and one fighter is decisively landing them. We see this in a great many of Floyd Mayweather's fights, his opponents try their best but he routinely and controlledly(?) picks them off with his right jab, never really letting them get near, even if they throw more than he does.

The thing is, to be fair, that Hopkins is no Mayweather, and this was no Mayweather style performance. First of all, although Hopkins did land the cleaner, harder shots, this mostly happened when Joe was either on his way in to throw a flurry or on his way out from throwing a jab. In both cases Hopkins was tending to take at least something in return. Typically, i thought Joes jab landed with reasonable accuracy and when he flurried he quite often got Hopkins with a decent one amongst them. Also, when Joe was coming in, the exchange would typically end with a Hopkins initiated clinch, making all that happened before seem scrappy and hard to call. What i am saying is that if everything Joe threw was ineffective, and Hopkins clearly picked him off with the better shots, your argument for a Hopkins win would be fine, but thats not the way it was. To the judges it probably looked like a tit for tat kind of exchange with Hopkins probably landing the harder cleaner shots, but with Joe definitely throwing and landing more punches, some of which looked pretty good. This naturally (and IMO rightly), lead them to give the decision to Calzaghe.

Addison, you talk about using slow mo and going back over the fight, and I'm sure it will reveal what you say, but the judges didn't have that option and nor should they, they have to, and did, go by what they see on the night.

Tyson, you talk about mayweather getting the verdict for merely landing more blows on a Pavlik who slaps him around the ring. I don't think this is a realistic scenario, being slapped around the ring would be a clear demonstration of a punches effectiveness, and allowing that to happen to you would be a clear demonstration of the ineffectiveness of your own. Thus our hypothetical pavlik would get the verdict. The problem with tonights fight is that there was no such clarity clearly visible, so the judges made the call on what they did see, which is the fight that I described above, in which on balance, Calzaghe was the victor.

Thanks for reading, I know it was long.

imo tha question is do u want quanity, or quality? i jus didnt see tha effectiveness of tha "punches" zakghe was throwin. compubox says he landed 100+ to hopkins...great, did they do anythin? cuz it sure aint look like it wen tha camera was on b-hop at tha end. quanity, or quality.

[Addison]

OK, so you all say that clean power shots should have the most value, and I can agree with that, when the case is clear and one fighter is decisively landing them. We see this in a great many of Floyd Mayweather's fights, his opponents try their best but he routinely and controlledly(?) picks them off with his right jab, never really letting them get near, even if they throw more than he does.

The thing is, to be fair, that Hopkins is no Mayweather, and this was no Mayweather style performance. First of all, although Hopkins did land the cleaner, harder shots, this mostly happened when Joe was either on his way in to throw a flurry or on his way out from throwing a jab. In both cases Hopkins was tending to take at least something in return. Typically, i thought Joes jab landed with reasonable accuracy and when he flurried he quite often got Hopkins with a decent one amongst them. Also, when Joe was coming in, the exchange would typically end with a Hopkins initiated clinch, making all that happened before seem scrappy and hard to call. What i am saying is that if everything Joe threw was ineffective, and Hopkins clearly picked him off with the better shots, your argument for a Hopkins win would be fine, but thats not the way it was. To the judges it probably looked like a tit for tat kind of exchange with Hopkins probably landing the harder cleaner shots, but with Joe definitely throwing and landing more punches, some of which looked pretty good. This naturally (and IMO rightly), lead them to give the decision to Calzaghe.

Addison, you talk about using slow mo and going back over the fight, and I'm sure it will reveal what you say, but the judges didn't have that option and nor should they, they have to, and did, go by what they see on the night.

Tyson, you talk about mayweather getting the verdict for merely landing more blows on a Pavlik who slaps him around the ring. I don't think this is a realistic scenario, being slapped around the ring would be a clear demonstration of a punches effectiveness, and allowing that to happen to you would be a clear demonstration of the ineffectiveness of your own. Thus our hypothetical pavlik would get the verdict. The problem with tonights fight is that there was no such clarity clearly visible, so the judges made the call on what they did see, which is the fight that I described above, in which on balance, Calzaghe was the victor.

Thanks for reading, I know it was long.

Yes, I just made a post in a different thread regarding that issue.

We need to take scoring to the next level to save the integrity of the sport. We lose Boxing fans every time there's a contentious outcome. Literally.

[-Antonio-]

I laugh at the "who looked more beat up" argument because I clearly saw a tired Hopkins milk a low blow call for everything it was worth to take a much needed breather. Calzaghe took over in the later rounds, I thought it was clear as day.

He landed the right jab plenty, and adjusted well I thought. The ugly ass flurries (which turn people off imo even when the land) werent the only reason he won. He landed plenty of straight lefts too.

[TommyGunn.]

Might want to look at it again. LOL!

My point is bro Nard never done a whole lot the second half of the fight, Calzaghe clearly out-punched him and from what im hearing the compu-box numbers were pretty one sided in every round except 1-3.

I think i actualy gave Nard the 10th, as you pointed out though i need to watch again.

My first impression, which is usualy very good was a clear cut ugly win for Calzaghe.

[Killa Cam]

I laugh at the "who looked more beat up" argument because I clearly saw a tired Hopkins milk a low blow call for everything it was worth to take a much needed breather. Calzaghe took over in the later rounds, I thought it was clear as day.

He landed the right jab plenty, and adjusted well I thought. The ugly ass flurries (which turn people off imo even when the land) werent the only reason he won. He landed plenty of straight lefts too.

u cant say its not some indication, every1s human, 100+ quote unquote punches were landed by zakghe...ud tihnk theyred be swelling, bruising, swollen eye SOMETHING...but no, you cant make a mans face swell/bruise from slapping them with gloves on ur hands for an hour.

weather he was milking it(2nd lowblow), or not...so? zakghe got tha same rest. and?

zakghe landed bout 6 good shots, tops. rest was inflation for his again quote unquote punch count...inflating, much in tha same way his record is inflated.

[Undefeated]

For once I agree with Addison.

All jokes aside.

Hopkins did what he had to do, and Calzaghe won, because he was moving forward. Its sad.

Like I said before.

Why won't a boxer just throw and miss alot of punches, so he can just win the fight?

[abadger]

imo tha question is do u want quanity, or quality? i jus didnt see tha effectiveness of tha "punches" zakghe was throwin. compubox says he landed 100+ to hopkins...great, did they do anythin? cuz it sure aint look like it wen tha camera was on b-hop at tha end. quanity, or quality.

My post answered this. In an ideal world quality would be the be all and end all, but this world is not ideal, and this was a scrappy fight.

If it were clearly demonstrable that Hopkins landed more clean, quality shots then he would win. It wasn't. What was clearly demonstrable was that Calzaghe threw and landed many more punches than Hopkins and that on balance, enough of them were of sufficient quality (which they were) to give Calzaghe the fight.
________
Green Crack

[-Antonio-]

u cant say its not some indication, every1s human, 100+ quote unquote punches were landed by zakghe...ud tihnk theyred be swelling, bruising, swollen eye SOMETHING...but no, you cant make a mans face swell/bruise from slapping them with gloves on ur hands for an hour.

weather he was milking it(2nd lowblow), or not...so? zakghe got tha same rest. and?

zakghe landed bout 6 good shots, tops. rest was inflation for his again quote unquote punch count...inflating, much in tha same way his record is inflated.

It's not even worth it.

I'll just say you have ******ed logic and leave it at that.