Why do people overrate 'defensive' boxers today?

[Spray_resistant]

I see it sometimes on here and the presumption is that getting as little damage incurred as possible even at the sacrifice of good offensive work is superior to the opposite but the truth is that the best style is the one a fighter can consistently win with given his attributes and abilities.

[billeau2]

Not trying to be snarky - but did you read my post?

I did, and I was just going to ask something along the same lines. Your point is interesting but I don't see specifically how you see the abuse you describe. I mean I see things like the compubox which changes scoring, is the issue scoring?

[Boxing-1013]

Yeah, that's the issue with the 10 point must system. 12 close rounds can still be 119-109, while at the same time, you can have a fight that's 113-113 where both guys win six clear rounds. Problem is, the other scoring systems they used to use were worse lol California used to use a 5-3-1 system where you could win a fight while losing more rounds.

Ultimately judges like specific things. Harold Lederman was often called out for preferring guys who move forward, big fan of effective aggression, while other judges will prefer counter punchers, movement, etc. It's why promoters will choose judges who prefer the style that their A-Side fighter uses.

That's a very charitable way to think about it, lol. The cynic in me sees the corruption all around. I think most fights are straightforward enough. Maybe more 10-10 rounds should be given. I try to basically do that, and split the either way type rounds. In big fights, I feel like on average about 6 rounds are like that - either way type of rounds.

[Boxing-1013]

I did, and I was just going to ask something along the same lines. Your point is interesting but I don't see specifically how you see the abuse you describe. I mean I see things like the compubox which changes scoring, is the issue scoring?

I pointed out a few examples in my original post.

My issue overall is that many fans will say that a certain type of fighter is dominant etc in fights, when in reality they have 8 rounds or so in a given fight, which could be either way type of rounds. Logic tells you, to split those 4-4. But many will see the defensive fighter as winning all or nearly all of those rounds, because the bar for him is apparently low. I mentioned a few examples in my original post.

There appears to be no real logic behind which guys get that label. They can come from any background. Some guys can clearly knick rounds and win 8-4 fights, or even better. Sometimes guys get way too much credit though, for the reasons I mentioned in the original post.

[War Room]

OP has a TBI I think. He sounds concussed.

[Boxing-1013]

OP has a TBI I think. He sounds concussed.

I guess that's what an intelligent person sounds like to someone with a room temp IQ

[GhostofDempsey]

Most of it is in fact tribal. Certain fighters have loyal fans based strictly upon demographics, whether it's race, ethnicity, city of origin, etc. They may also have fans based upon their personality traits--some fans like trash talkers while others prefer a more humble/respectful fighter. Then there are those who rely too much on biased commentators and can't read between the lines. Then there are the small percentage of boxing fans who followed a fighter's career from amateurs all the way to the top.

Some defensive fighters are more exciting than others. The key is they have to match up with certain styles or big names in order to market the fight, which likely ends up being an over-hyped disappointment more often than not.

[Rockin']

We need to get back to scoring each round for the guy who does the best work in that round, and leaving it at that. No extra points for dancing around, or because the defensive fighter didn't get beat up.

What judge has ever given points for dancing around? You said 'best work' in the quote. The judge is to determine, in a close round, if a fighters defensive work was better than the other fighters offensive work (or vice-versa).

I don't think that you understand defense.

I do like your Dunn quotes doe ................Rockin'

[El_Maldito_Rey]

Some get overrated some don't. Demetrius Andrade I think is the most overrated fighter in boxing. He is not skilled enough to fight any elite competition. But can duck challenges really well.

There, fixed your post.

[Rockin']

That's a very charitable way to think about it, lol. The cynic in me sees the corruption all around. I think most fights are straightforward enough. Maybe more 10-10 rounds should be given. I try to basically do that, and split the either way type rounds. In big fights, I feel like on average about 6 rounds are like that - either way type of rounds.

Even rounds were discouraged by the ABC, judges were told to make a choice based on the criteria. 10-10 rounds are for those who simply can not make up their minds, or for those rounds that were razor thin.........Rockin'