Comments Thread For: Golovkin: I Don't Need To Fight Like Bivol To Get Advantage Over Canelo

[TheOneAboveAll]

Because scoring a round even only because it's close doesn't make sense to me. A fighter can win a round closely as well as clearly. Let's not get confused with close rounds and even rounds either, they're very far apart.

Additionally, a round is either even or it's not (you said a very even round), there are no varying degree's of even.

I do score even rounds when appropriate.

Couldn't disagree more. Your logic is off. When, according to you, is it appropriate to score an even round? When neither guy gets off his stool?? Not sure how long you've been watching the sport, but I would argue that the reluctance to score even rounds is perhaps the #1 culprit of controversial scoring. Especially at the world class level, there are MANY genuinely even/close rounds that should be scored as such. Forcing yourself to pick a winner of a very close round is silly, and it explains why so many fans regularly cry robbery after competitive fights. Scoring a genuinely close round even is not weak or indecisive. It's smart and reasonable. Letting the fight be determined by the clear rounds makes a whole lot more sense.

[War Room]

Couldn't disagree more. Your logic is off. When, according to you, is it appropriate to score an even round? When neither guy gets off his stool?? Not sure how long you've been watching the sport, but I would argue that the reluctance to score even rounds is perhaps the #1 culprit of controversial scoring. Especially at the world class level, there are MANY genuinely even/close rounds that should be scored as such. Forcing yourself to pick a winner of a very close round is silly, and it explains why so many fans regularly cry robbery after competitive fights. Scoring a genuinely close round even is not weak or indecisive. It's smart and reasonable. Letting the fight be determined by the clear rounds makes a whole lot more sense.

Disagree all you wan't, doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. Your knowledge is off.

I score an even round when it's fucking even my guy. 50/50 you get a even.

How is my logic off? You know what, you're rewriting even to suit your means and really argumentative mincing. It's NOT smart and reasonable to use it *******ly. Scoring properly is about knowledge, expertise, experience, and precision.

In the case of round 9, power reigns supreme in the pro's so Cleneloterol won. His punches had the bigger effect based on my vast experience inside & outside of boxing as well as professional level skill in scoring and learning as much as I can about the subject over the last 30 years of literal practice. If this was the amateurs, Lara would have won.

With that said =--->

[TheOneAboveAll]

Disagree all you wan't, doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. Your knowledge is off.

I score an even round when it's fucking even my guy. 50/50 you get a even.

How is my logic off? You know what, you're rewriting even to suit your means and really argumentative mincing. It's NOT smart and reasonable to use it *******ly. Scoring properly is about knowledge, expertise, experience, and precision.

In the case of round 9, power reigns supreme in the pro's so Cleneloterol won. His punches had the bigger effect based on my vast experience inside & outside of boxing as well as professional level skill in scoring and learning as much as I can about the subject over the last 30 years of literal practice. If this was the amateurs, Lara would have won.

With that said =--->

Nobody suggested scoring even rounds "*******ly." This is simply you strawmanning the argument to discrediut my very logical point that even rounds happen and when they do they should be scored as such. In all of my posts I have been clear that I am talking about very close rounds that are too close to call. This, OF COURSE, is subjective. I asked you to define "even" since you were so quick to distinguish even/close rounds, but you could not. Even so, you claim that only truly even rounds should be scored even. Go figure.

You claim that "scoring properly is about knowledge, expertise, experience, and precision." That would seem logical and reasonable to most people, but not for the ones who understand the sport and who understand how the scoring rules themselves are written. What are the scoring criteria in professional boxing? I think you'll agree that they are as follows: effective aggression, defense, ring generalship, and clean punching.

So how does a competent boxing judge apply these? Some of these criteria happen to be mutually exclusive and all subject to the biases and preferences of each judge. Are these criteria measured equally and given the same priority? Of course not.
What is EFFECTIVE aggression or ring generalship after all? Ask 10 fans and you will get 10 different opinions. Is flashy defense going to win a fighter rounds, ever? Not no, but hellz no. When you examine it, the only true scoring criteria (the Alpha and Omega criterion) is clean punching, but even that is subjective, so for you to assert that you have this round scoring business down to a verifiable science is just plain laughable. Boxing scoring is biased and screwy.

[War Room]

[QUOTE=TheOneAboveAll;n31548203]

Nobody suggested scoring even rounds "*******ly." This is simply you strawmanning the argument to discrediut my very logical point that even rounds happen and when they do they should be scored as such. In all of my posts I have been clear that I am talking about very close rounds that are too close to call. This, OF COURSE, is subjective. I asked you to define "even" since you were so quick to distinguish even/close rounds, but you could not. Even so, you claim that only truly even rounds should be scored even. Go figure.

When I read terms like very even round there are no such thing. You're using terminology as well as the effect of terminology loosely or in other words - *******ly. Thats a academic fact. *******ly means: in a way that is not precise or strictly literal; loosely. Close and even are being used loosely, facts.

So yea my guy, you're using terms loosely. Comprende?

You claim that "scoring properly is about knowledge, expertise, experience, and precision." That would seem logical and reasonable to most people, but not for the ones who understand the sport and who understand how the scoring rules themselves are written. What are the scoring criteria in professional boxing? I think you'll agree that they are as follows: effective aggression, defense, ring generalship, and clean punching.

Wrong, YDKSAB, I KEEP SAYING IT.

The literal scoring criterion is:

1. Hard & Clean Punching
2. Effective Aggression
3. Defense
4. Ring generalship

Which in it's antiquated form has been rewritten to:

1. Power
2. Clean Punching
3. Effective Aggression
4. Defense
5. Ring generalship

In that order and that's how I learned it from Jerry Roth. Power, knock an opponent down, get 1 point no matter what. Win the round, you got 2 points advantage via 10-8. Lose a round to punches landed but put your man in potholes with 30 seconds left, you win the round. That's how its done.

To know and fully understand power, a judge needs to know the fighters, have a lot of expertise, as well as experience. Not all necessarily inclusive (like it's not 100% necessary to know the fighter because being tough isn't a scoring criteria), but let's not mince, shall we?

Sometimes a punch looks and sounds like gangbusters, but it's not even g****busters and that's a fact you learn through experience and expertise. Not all boxers show the effect so you have to look very closely at the action to make a precise determination. This isn't neophyte level stuff.

What is EFFECTIVE aggression or ring generalship after all? Ask 10 fans and you will get 10 different opinions. Is flashy defense going to win a fighter rounds, ever? Not no, but hellz no. When you examine it, the only true scoring criteria (the Alpha and Omega criterion) is clean punching, but even that is subjective, so for you to assert that you have this round scoring business down to a verifiable science is just plain laughable. Boxing scoring is biased and screwy.

Effective Aggression = Controlling the action and part of that means landing punches. Unless the boxer is landing shots and not constantly getting countered, it isn't really 'effective'. Judges look for effective aggression, where the aggressor consistently lands punches.

Example: Oscar vs Mayweather
Oscar was aggressive, but becuse he missed on such a high frequency, he wasn't truly in control of the fight. You can't be missing my guy and be effective. Got it?

Why would I ask 10 fans about the inner workings of how to score a fight? If I ask 10 people why they sky is blue I'll probably get 7 different answers, what's the point kid?

WRONG, YDKSAB, this is 100% clear. Power is #1 and Clean Punching is crystal clear. Land cleanly and you get that noted by any competent judge. Why do you think amateur olympic gloves have white tips? Jesus Christ, have mercy on my soul...

Bias and subectivity are components of corruption. Are you OK?

Listen to Malignaggi or Atlas about corruption and scoring. You're just too young or incapable, unknown.

I've done all I can do here and I honestly don't need the last word. I got a $100 bucks says you do though. Like I said before =--->

[TheOneAboveAll]

[QUOTE=War Room;n31548255]

Nobody suggested scoring even rounds "*******ly." This is simply you strawmanning the argument to discrediut my very logical point that even rounds happen and when they do they should be scored as such. In all of my posts I have been clear that I am talking about very close rounds that are too close to call. This, OF COURSE, is subjective. I asked you to define "even" since you were so quick to distinguish even/close rounds, but you could not. Even so, you claim that only truly even rounds should be scored even. Go figure.

When I read terms like very even round there are no such thing. You're using terminology as well as the effect of terminology loosely or in other words - *******ly. Thats a academic fact. *******ly means: in a way that is not precise or strictly literal; loosely. Close and even are being used loosely, facts.

So yea my guy, you're using terms loosely. Comprende?



Wrong, YDKSAB, I KEEP SAYING IT.

The literal scoring criterion is:

1. Hard & Clean Punching
2. Effective Aggression
3. Defense
4. Ring generalship

Which in it's antiquated form has been rewritten to:

1. Power
2. Clean Punching
3. Effective Aggression
4. Defense
5. Ring generalship

In that order and that's how I learned it from Jerry Roth. Power, knock an opponent down, get 1 point no matter what. Win the round, you got 2 points advantage via 10-8. Lose a round to punches landed but put your man in potholes with 30 seconds left, you win the round. That's how its done.

To know and fully understand power, a judge needs to know the fighters, have a lot of expertise, as well as experience. Not all necessarily inclusive (like it's not 100% necessary to know the fighter because being tough isn't a scoring criteria), but let's not mince, shall we?

Sometimes a punch looks and sounds like gangbusters, but it's not even g****busters and that's a fact you learn through experience and expertise. Not all boxers show the effect so you have to look very closely at the action to make a precise determination. This isn't neophyte level stuff.



Effective Aggression = Controlling the action and part of that means landing punches. Unless the boxer is landing shots and not constantly getting countered, it isn't really 'effective'. Judges look for effective aggression, where the aggressor consistently lands punches.

Example: Oscar vs Mayweather
Oscar was aggressive, but becuse he missed on such a high frequency, he wasn't truly in control of the fight. You can't be missing my guy and be effective. Got it?

Why would I ask 10 fans about the inner workings of how to score a fight? If I ask 10 people why they sky is blue I'll probably get 7 different answers, what's the point kid?

WRONG, YDKSAB, this is 100% clear. Power is #1 and Clean Punching is crystal clear. Land cleanly and you get that noted by any competent judge. Why do you think amateur olympic gloves have white tips? Jesus Christ, have mercy on my soul...

Bias and subectivity are components of corruption. Are you OK?

Listen to Malignaggi or Atlas about corruption and scoring. You're just too young or incapable, unknown.

I've done all I can do here and I honestly don't need the last word. I got a $100 bucks says you do though. Like I said before =--->

Sigh. Yes, I will take the last word. I am fascinated by your self-confidence, my little chest thumping friend. Read up a bit about the Dunning-Kruger effect. For the sake of your own self-esteem, do not read that word vomit post back to yourself. I have taken sh.its that reason better than you.

[harry-greb]

Oh, I get it now. I saw your posts popping up, but I didn't realize you were one of his Ginger pube-stachers

Schoolyard insults??? That's all you've got??

[harry-greb]

How do you know that? Its definitely feasible, especially watching how Cinnabon's footwork has become heavy and lumbering, and his punch output has been reduced to that of a super heavyweight, also the worst gas tank at his weight class. One thing we know is that GGG will come in shape and punching in volume with bad intentions.

Canelo's footwork was never fast or bouncy. But neither is g's and he certainly doesn't have as fast footwork, as Bivol has.
Also, I'd have to look it up but i don't think his output has reduced drastically. He's always put everything into his punches, rather than overwhelm with output. His gas tank ain't that bad.
G struggles for breath in all his fights, he seems to fight through it though, but he visibly struggles to breath.
Also his volume greatly reduces when he fights Canelo. He's worried about what's coming back.

[harry-greb]

I am not of the ilk that because a fight is close that it could go either way. I believe there is one way to score a fight, not multiple, and if a round is close I notate it. I noted the close rounds which were rounds 5 & 9. I gave the 5th to Lara and the 9th to Canelo.

What I'm going to do right now is watch round 5 & 9 again just to be 100% transparent.

**EDIT**

Ok I'm back, round 5 is a clear round for Lara. Clean punches, outlanded Canelo and Canelo despite being aggressive, was ineffective.

Ok I'm back, so round 9 could have easily went to Lara because he landed more cleaner punches, but I gave it to Canelo based on power and power reigns supreme.



Take a close look here, Martinez and Moretti give Canelo the 5th and Roth gives Lara the 5th. Roth is the best judge I've ever seen and it's no surprise we both picked that round.

I also watched 5 and 9 yesterday.

I disagree with you on round 5.
I took some notes so bear with me...
Lara does well for the 1st 45 seconds, landing clean and making canelo miss.

At 2:17 canelo lands 4 hard hooks to the body. At 1:58 he lands another couple of hard body shots.
Al Bernstein on comms says that bodyshots are bothering Lara and I agree. (clean effective punching)
From there Lara lands some nice single potshots.

At 1:42 canelo lands a couple of shots around the side. Lara is complaining to the ref but there's nothing wrong with the shots. He just doesn't like it. Canelo's shots are by far the more effective.

From 1:20 to the end of the round, canelo's defence improved, he's catching laras punches on his gloves for the most part and still landing hard bodyshots.
He managed to catch up to Lara as the round went on, after a bad start.
Also u say Lara out landed canelo, but that's not true. According to combubox, they both landed 11 punches in Rd 5,.
But importantly canelo landed 11 power punches compared to 6 for Lara. Lara landed 5 jabs but as you say when your scoring Rd 9, "power reigns supreme".
So taking all that into account I'm very comfortable giving canelo round 5.
And I looked back over my 2 previous canelo V Lara scorecards, and I see I've given canelo Rd 5 every time.
A bit longwinded I know, but I had to give it a good examination. If you're still awake I'll get back to u with round 9. It's a closer round

[War Room]

I also watched 5 and 9 yesterday.

I disagree with you on round 5.
I took some notes so bear with me...

Great! Thanks for taking the time to look back to rescore and take some notes. Lets have an in-depth look at round 5.

At 2:17 canelo lands 4 hard hooks to the body. At 1:58 he lands another couple of hard body shots.

I only have 15 seconds so I couldn't capture every jab and bodyshot landed, but these are mostly the best shots as well as stuff you mentioned.



Canelo is already deep in the hole at that point by 2:17 whiffing really hard missing everything.

Canelo did land 2 good body shots at 1:58, still body shots though which get scored lower than headshots do (unless it's a knockdown).

As you can see, those 4 body shots you mentioned aren't all landing. We see clearly 2 to the back which aren't scored because they don't land in a scoreable area. The 2 we don't see, one looks blocked by the elbow, hard to know though. If anything, 2 body shots (not 4) and body shots do not count like head shots do (unless it's a knockdown), otherwise Malignaggi would have beaten Broner 118-110.

Al Bernstein on comms says that bodyshots are bothering Lara and I agree. (clean effective punching)
From there Lara lands some nice single potshots.

There is no indication the body shots are having an effect and those are 100% not clean punches, they land in an illegal zone my friend.

Those are blanket statements from Bernstein, nobody likes body shots, it's very general. But if you want to get molecular, illegal shots to the body will bother anyone.

At 1:42 canelo lands a couple of shots around the side. Lara is complaining to the ref but there's nothing wrong with the shots. He just doesn't like it. Canelo's shots are by far the more effective.

100% incorrect. Canelo lands 2 illegal shots as seen here. The ref tells Canelo get off that hip at 1:35, it's right here in video.

From 1:20 to the end of the round, canelo's defence improved, he's catching laras punches on his gloves for the most part and still landing hard bodyshots.
He managed to catch up to Lara as the round went on, after a bad start.

Also u say Lara out landed canelo, but that's not true. According to combubox, they both landed 11 punches in Rd 5,.

Reiterating, body shots score under headshots (unless it's a knockdown). Canelo 100% did NOT land 11 power shots. =--->



There are 4 power shots that land which is a -63.83% margin of error from Compubox. I can make an argument that shots 1 (for sure, maybe not in the landing zone) and maybe 4 (hard to see if it's blocked enough) don't land. Even the uppercut is partially blocked.

But importantly canelo landed 11 power punches compared to 6 for Lara. Lara landed 5 jabs but as you say when your scoring Rd 9, "power reigns supreme". So taking all that into account I'm very comfortable giving canelo round 5.

You absolutely cannot reasonably use Compubox. I've proven time and time again, they're waaaay off. If you want to use a punchstat, it has to be done by hand as I'm doing in this post. I just rewatched it in my editor and I have at least 9 power shots to the head that were not the jab by Lara so right there, Compubox is at a 33.33% margin of error.

You're right, power reigns supreme and the harder as well as cleaner shots come from Lara as seen in my videos.

And I looked back over my 2 previous canelo V Lara scorecards, and I see I've given canelo Rd 5 every time.

A bit longwinded I know, but I had to give it a good examination. If you're still awake I'll get back to u with round 9. It's a closer round

You have several operator errors, but that's ok. As long as you're trying to improve, mistakes are expected. Longwinded is fine, I'm willing to help anyone get better at scoring.

[harry-greb]

I am not of the ilk that because a fight is close that it could go either way. I believe there is one way to score a fight, not multiple, and if a round is close I notate it. I noted the close rounds which were rounds 5 & 9. I gave the 5th to Lara and the 9th to Canelo.

What I'm going to do right now is watch round 5 & 9 again just to be 100% transparent.

**EDIT**

Ok I'm back, round 5 is a clear round for Lara. Clean punches, outlanded Canelo and Canelo despite being aggressive, was ineffective.

Ok I'm back, so round 9 could have easily went to Lara because he landed more cleaner punches, but I gave it to Canelo based on power and power reigns supreme.



Take a close look here, Martinez and Moretti give Canelo the 5th and Roth gives Lara the 5th. Roth is the best judge I've ever seen and it's no surprise we both picked that round.

I agree with u on round 9. Could have gone to Lara. In my opinion, it was a tighter round than the 5th. Lara landed a couple of nice counter right hooks in close and pivotef away. Canelo was nearly exclusively targeting the body. According to compubox he landed more punches in the round and more power punches and as you yourself have said "Power reigns supreme".
I scored it to canelo. In my previous 2 scorecards I wrote swing round, so I have no issue with somebody scoring it for Lara