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

[IronDanHamza]

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.

Using compubox to form an opinion is pretty dumb. But understandable, to a degree.

But, using the state of someone's face is just outright dumb. Not even understandable at any level.

How someone looks or how badly their skin marks as opposed their opponent is not a form of judging criteria.

[Ragnar Lothbrok]

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.

Disagree. How a fighter looks is a INDICATOR. You cannot deny this. Ive already stated that its NOT THE DECIDING FACTOR INTO JUDGING the winner, but merely another subjective tool just like compubox to form a opinion and analysis of who won the fight.


Just ask yourself this, If you took a picture of all fights in the history of boxing between the two fighters who just fought and decided who won just based on who looked worse, not the scorecard,


Wouldnt that one LONE INDICATOR would get more than a few decisions right?


Of course it would. Its been used since the beginning of time before boxing.

It would probably be the rule, not the exception.

[IronDanHamza]

Disagree. How a fighter looks is a INDICATOR. You cannot deny this. Ive already stated that its NOT THE DECIDING FACTOR INTO JUDGING the winner, but merely another subjective tool just like compubox to form a opinion and analysis of who won the fight.


Just ask yourself this, If you took a picture of all fights in the history of boxing between the two fighters who just fought and decided who won just based on who looked worse, not the scorecard,


Wouldnt that one LONE INDICATOR would get more than a few decisions right?


Of course it would. Its been used since the beginning of time before boxing.

It would probably be the rule, not the exception.

You would probably get more right then you would wrong, sure.

But you would still get a legit percentage of them wrong.

Which is why it's stupid to use that as any kind of indicator.

[cixthree]

Paulie: "I'm more skilled than Pacquiao. HE ON ROIDS!"


Just because one guy is more gifted than he is naturally he's on roids.


that is just straight up penis envy.


it's like one guy hearing about someone having a huge dick and saying MAN THAT'S FAKE.

Have u taken the time, sat and and broke down film or do you just watch fights?
... Well if you have then you can answer me something, what year did Manny become more "gifted" than Floyd or Paulie?

And to the TS...
Cell phones were invented to do one thing also, what can your phone do and is it better than the first phone?
What's scientific about 2 guys banging each other till one falls from taking too much (unnecessary) punishment. I thought it was called the sweet science, not the stand and trade.
Your whole argument is flawed based on your preferred style of boxing. You like fighters who just go for it, I get that. But don't think every fighter that does not fight like your fav fighter ain't a fighter (or ain't better/can't beat your fighter).

Manny is a one trick pony man, a bunch of combos in and out (not to much else he does effectively).
We've seen what makes Manny look good, rite in from, come forward, no head movement fighters.
We've also seen how to kill Mannys offense, movement, jab, counters.
Lesson...

If your team misses 20% of there shots, plus the other team blocks another 40%.
But the other team is shooting 60% to 70%, allowed to shoot freely (cause team A has no D).
Who wins that game?
Offense is entertaining to those who can't see past the hairs on there noses, defense is for the us who know its a science.

[Ragnar Lothbrok]

You would probably get more right then you would wrong, sure.

But you would still get a legit percentage of them wrong.

Which is why it's stupid to use that as any kind of indicator.

Of course you would get it right more than wrong.

i would think the percentage would be around 60-70%. Look its not a OFFICIAL indicator in professional boxing but it is an indicator that is primal and innately inside all human beings.

What would be stupid is denying it.

[Pacroid]

Fucck defense boxers can handle brain damage

[F l i c k e r]

offense is a skill. It's just people overrate the fuck out of a person when they throw literally only straights and all to the face.

I don't care how fast your are, or how powerful you are. There isn't that much skill involved if your throwing rock em sock em robot punches and headhunting.

You want to see a great offense skill set? Go watch Andre Ward or Nonito Donaire.

[-MAKAVELLI-]

i like defensive fighters...i can appreciate that aspect of the sport...but if im dishing $65, i wanna see fireworks

[Slip Stream]

Offense can be a great weapon if it can be executed without getting pummeled in the process. Offense for the sake of offense and coming forward is ******ed. I've heard Ali's style of the "rope-a-dope" described as Ali winning and losing at the same time, because even though his opponents tired from punching him and he won, he still eventually lost because of the physical toll it took. Taking punches makes zero sense if the object is winning with as little damage as possible, the sport of boxing evolved from mere bare fisted brutality to a refined form based on defense and brains.

Fighters that are exciting and more offensive minded, are cool to watch but what are they trying to accomplish and what are we cheering for if they get pummeled to the head and still get their hand raised?

[Brockton Lip]

Some good points in this thread from both sides but people do seriously underrate offense on here. It happens all the time. Since we have a lot of defensive fighters today that are winning (at least in the U.S.), people jump on the defense bandwagon and talk about how great it is.
People dont realize it takes a lot of skill to be a good offensive fighter. Getting inside on a larger opponent, creating openings for your punches, etc.

Skill in offensive fighting is often overlooked and currently today in America there is a huge bias towards defense likely due to Mayweather winning and constantly talking about defense and skills. Its common on message boards these days to see people repeat what someone like Mayweather says, talk about defense, and pretend to have skills and know what they're talking about.