"Offense Is No Longer A Skill Of Boxing"-Haters

[Ragnar Lothbrok]

It still doesn't change the fact that the state of someone's face does nt determin whether they won or lost the fight.

I.e Chavez-Taylor. Had that gone a few seconds longer and gone to a Decision, Taylor would have won. Despite looking a bloody mess and Chavez looking relatively fresh.

Pac shut Clottey out, dominated in every which way. Yet, Pac's face was more bruised and damaged than Clottey.

Which further reiterates the relevance of how someone's face looks and whether they won the fight.

I'm not comparing those fights in any way. I'm simply stating the stupidity of using 'Look at his face!' as any logic or reasoning. Something that you happened to agree with.

And not in any way, shape or form do you ever use someone's face to determin who won. You do not 'add it all up' and include that. You think the judges just have a quick look at the fighters face at the end in a cloe fight to see who edged it?

I'm a big fan of Mayweather, one of my favourite fighters. I dont' hate Pac though. I'm not a fan of him but I guess that means I despise him to NSB.

Pac certainly out threw Marquez but he didn't outland him. Not from what I saw anyway. Certainly not in terms of clean punches.

What you dont think how a fighter's face looks influences a judge? Of course it does & it has been talked about plenty during fights by analysts. & did i say you judge the outcome by the look of the fighter's face?

No. Do you judge who won by compu box no, but its there given to us to help us form an opinion & analysis of who won the fight.

The mother****ing point is, you add the judges scorecard, compubox, and how each fighter looked in comparison to the other,

wtf do you get?

A Pacquiao victory.


another thing, how did who looks more ****ed up NOT FALL INTO THE SUBJECTIVE equation of who won the fight? I mean when did we stop doing this?

When did this happen?

Whose face was more ****ed up? Floyd or Gatti? Who won the fight?

Its not the overall criteria but its a pretty damn good indicator of who won a fight.

[joseph5620]

I don't agree with how this guy explained his point, but on the whole I actually agree with what(I think) he's trying to say.

To so many slick guys with great defenses are very skilled. But guys who are more offensive are face first brawlers.

Chavez Sr is a great example of this. People have this notion that he was like Margarito. Beside the fact he was a pretty good defensive fighter, he was amazingly skilled offensively....and I mean SKILLED.

Nowadays the term the connotation with the term "skilled" is almost always attributed to defensive fighters.

Chavez was very skilled. But some people want to have it both ways by claiming so called offensive fighters have defense but quote " defensive" fighters have no offense.

[Ragnar Lothbrok]

What you dont think how a fighter's face looks influences a judge? Of course it does & it has been talked about plenty during fights by analysts. & did i say you judge the outcome by the look of the fighter's face?

No. Do you judge who won by compu box no, but its there given to us to help us form an opinion & analysis of who won the fight.

The mother****ing point is, you add the judges scorecard, compubox, and how each fighter looked in comparison to the other,

wtf do you get?

A Pacquiao victory.


another thing, how did who looks more ****ed up NOT FALL INTO THE SUBJECTIVE equation of who won the fight? I mean when did we stop doing this?

When did this happen?

Whose face was more ****ed up? Floyd or Gatti? Who won the fight?

Its not the overall criteria but its a pretty damn good indicator of who won a fight.

"What happened to your face? You should see the other guy."

[thatnickuh]

i dont think TS knows what complete means. yes pacquiao probably has the best offense.

Pacquiao's offense is overrated. How does he have the "best" offense when his jab, right hand, and ability to fight on the inside is subpar?

[joseph5620]

"What happened to your face? You should see the other guy."

Dude, since you mentioned Gatti he would have lost a lot of fights he won using that idiotic logic. Mickey Ward and Saad Muhammad too.

[Pugilistic™]

Malignaggi, Ward, Whitaker, Bradley, Mayweather


are all more complete than Pacquiao.


Uh huh........ but you are all discounting offense.


Boxing is the art of fisticuff combat. It originated from barenuckle boxing fighting until 1 person wins. no judges.

It was completely based on offense. Offense wins fights. Not defense. You can't win a fight diving and dodging throwing ***g0t punches that don't phase your opponent.

Ward and Bradley are not more complete than Pacquiao. They are point fighters in a sport that has deviated from the core appeal of boxing. KO's.


That is why Boxing is dying. Mayweather is only a draw because of his mouth. His fights are boring.




You can argue another way all you want. The fact is, historically boxing has always favored the offensive fighters. The point riders wouldn't even get marquee fights until recently, sport dying.

What did Cus say to Tyson? that's right.

At the same time, Americans no longer have fighters with true offense, so they've decided to debate boxing is about defensive abilities.


It's laughable.


Sorry son. If I see you dipping and diving on the streets your shirt will be yanked and you will be out cold within 5 seconds.


Real talk.

Ward, Mayweather and Bradley have more dimensions to their game than Pacquiao.

Just because Pacquiao throws more combinations and fights at a higher pace doesn't mean he is a more complete fighter.

When fans say those fighters are more complete they mean that they can fight more different ways than Pacquiao.

Mayweather/Bradley/Ward can fight on the inside, on the outside, off the ropes, etc and still be very effective where Pacquiao is most effective when his opponents aren't very good counter punchers. When they are good at counter punching, he might struggle.

I find it laughable that because the above fighters don't necessarily knock out their opponents means they suck and don't have an offensive game when it's clear to whoever watches them fight that they are all (especially Mayweather) excellent offensive fighters.

It's called boxing, not knockouts. The main art is too hit and not get hit, knockouts are a part of the sport, thats it.

[studentofthegam]

I never said it was JUST POWER


Power is one of the 3 major factors. Prime Roy had Power to go with his speed and timing.


If you don't have power, you don't have great offense. simple as that.

Power in boxing translated is speed and accuracy. YOu take a fighter like finito Lopez who is not the most powerful guy but his acurracy and speed result in knockuts. Then theres a guy like Mayorga who is considered to have great power and he couldnt beat a top guy if he wanted to. Accuracy is most important when it comes to offense.

[IronDanHamza]

What you dont think how a fighter's face looks influences a judge? Of course it does & it has been talked about plenty during fights by analysts. & did i say you judge the outcome by the look of the fighter's face?

No. Do you judge who won by compu box no, but its there given to us to help us form an opinion & analysis of who won the fight.

The mother****ing point is, you add the judges scorecard, compubox, and how each fighter looked in comparison to the other,

wtf do you get?

A Pacquiao victory.

another thing, how did who looks more ****ed up NOT FALL INTO THE SUBJECTIVE equation of who won the fight? I mean when did we stop doing this?

When did this happen?

Whose face was more ****ed up? Floyd or Gatti? Who won the fight?

Its not the overall criteria but its a pretty damn good indicator of who won a fight.

No, I do not. Otherwise Chavez would have been dominating Taylor on the score card.

Rodriguez would have dominated Wolak on the cards in the first fight (I felt Devlin won but that's neither here nor there)

The state of someone's face does not determine anything. As in literally, anything.

At the end of the 12 rounds, Fighter A might be cut to pieces, and eyes swollen shut. Fighter B may have nothing but a few marks. Fighter A can still be the winner , whether it's close or not.

Compubox is inaccurate, though.

From what I saw, I didn't see Pacquaio outland Marquez, Not even close. Outhrew? Yeah, he definitely threw more punches but I don't think he outlanded him at all.

"Its not the overall criteria but its a pretty damn good indicator of who won a fight"

It's not a good indicator. Not at all. Like I said, Fighter A might look a mess whilst Fighter B doesn't. It's not an indicator at all to who won the fight.

It's out and out stupidity to think it is.

[Ragnar Lothbrok]

Dude, since you mentioned Gatti he would have lost a lot of fiscal he won using that idiotic logic. Mickey Ward too.

another one. Im not saying you judge the outcome of the winner BASED on how one looks. Im saying that it can be used just as compu box numbers to help form an opinion and analysis of a fight. That's all.

I used that one example in regards to the pacquiao v marquez 3 fight ALONG WITH THE judges scorecard & compubox numbers to form a opinion that Pac won that fight.

That is all.

[IronDanHamza]

Dude, since you mentioned Gatti he would have lost a lot of fights he won using that idiotic logic. Mickey Ward and Saad Muhammad too.

Gatti doesn't even have a winning record on my cards based on the official 'How does your face look' criteria of judging Boxing.