Defensive mastery vs aggressiveness and the way you score fights

[jimmy webb]

Some of you have heard by now, about how a boxer named Willie Pep aka The White Sweet Pea, once won a round w/o throwing a single punch.

Another example is De La Joto vs Tito Trinidad in the last 4 rounds. De La Joto did a great job of not getting hit w/o landing anything while Tito showed a willingness to engage but futile in his efforts. But, many fans saw this as more of an act of cowardice, rather than a solid defensive effort and the official judges agreed with the fans.

My question to y'all. How can Pep be given a round simply because he did a great job of not getting hit(eventhough he supposedly did not throw a single punch). While De La Joto, using a different defensive tactic, but had the same result, he did not get hit either, atleast not with any scoring blows.

So, if y'all were the judges for those examples above, would you have given both Pep and De La Joto the same credit for doing a good job of not getting hit, and why would you favor Pep's performance over DLH's and vice-versa

Unfortunately, there's not a single vid of Pep vs Graves(the fight where he won a round w/o throwing a single punch). But, to give y'all an idea on how Pep fought, below is a HL vid...

https://<object width="425" height="...mbed></object>

Below is the vid of the now infamous last rounds of Tito - De La Joto

https://<object width="425" height="...mbed></object>

[B.U.R.N.E.R]

Did you just call him the White Sweet Pea? He was around before Sweet Pea was born.


His nick name was Will o' the Wisp. Stop trying to act like you know stuff.

[jimmy webb]

Did you just call him the White Sweet Pea? He was around before Sweet Pea was born.


His nick name was Will o' the Wisp. Stop trying to act like you know stuff.

Actually I knew that, I was just trying to be funny yo'. Chill, lol

[B.U.R.N.E.R]

Actually I knew that, I was just trying to be funny yo'. Chill, lol

Well its insulting. Sweet pea was good but he was no Pep.

"There are claims that Pep won the third round in his fight against Jackie Graves in a fight on July 25, 1946, without throwing a punch. The 'no-punch' winning round is disputed out of claims that Pep threw a punch. Pep supposedly tipped off a few ringside reporters before the bout and told them he would win the third round without throwing 'a punch of anger"

[Sparked_1985]

If you're avoiding shots and not countering, you're losing in my opinion.

How can you not be losing?

This is why I think justifiably Haye/Valuev was a split decision, and why Dirrell made his fight with Carl Froch far closer than it should have been.

I don't think you should be rewarded for being passive.

[tredh]

I heard no punch thing was a lie. You get points for EFFECTIVE AGGRESSION not just being aggresive big ass difference.

[Pugilistic™]

If you're avoiding shots and not countering, you're losing in my opinion.

How can you not be losing?

This is why I think justifiably Haye/Valuev was a split decision, and why Dirrell made his fight with Carl Froch far closer than it should have been.

I don't think you should be rewarded for being passive.

I agree with this.

The defense catergory in scoring fights is too make your opponent miss......but make him pay also. If you ain't countering, you ain't scoring points.

[jimmy webb]

I agree with this.

The defense catergory in scoring fights is too make your opponent miss......but make him pay also. If you ain't countering, you ain't scoring points.

But, what if the other guy is throwing punches but ain't landing either ?

Here's a hypothetical situation...

Fighter A is throwing wild punches, while Figher B is showing great defensive technique by making fighter A miss on every attempt.

The act of punching is technique in of itself, but, imo a defensive technique is a more difficult one.

[Wukillabeez78]

But, what if the other guy is throwing punches but ain't landing either ?

Here's a hypothetical situation...

Fighter A is throwing wild punches, while Figher B is showing great defensive technique by making fighter A miss on every attempt.

The act of punching is technique in of itself, but, imo a defensive technique is a more difficult one.

One technique isn't better than the other. There are punchers and there are counter-punchers. The fighter who lands the most, clean effective punches is going to win no matter whether they are initiating the action or reacting off of what their opponent is doing.

[Sparked_1985]

But, what if the other guy is throwing punches but ain't landing either ?

Here's a hypothetical situation...

Fighter A is throwing wild punches, while Figher B is showing great defensive technique by making fighter A miss on every attempt.

The act of punching is technique in of itself, but, imo a defensive technique is a more difficult one.

Fighter A is winning.

Fighter B is being passive.

You have to counter. Otherwise, basically, you're refusing to engage.