After years of message board posting, most posters DKSAB!!!

[therealpugilist]

1) can you please tell me how you call yourself a boxing fan and dont know the difference between technique and tactics?

2) Most people dont know how to score a round. I think Max Kellerman said it best, the easiest way to score a round is to ask yourself who would you have rather been in the round or the fight. Rounds are won on ring generalship, defense, and clean punching. You dont give a close round to the fighter that throws the most punches. landing and missing dont win rounds landing clean punches does. If a fighter lands cleaner shots and throws fewer punches at a higher percentage they win the round, simple.


3) A lot of the people on here dont even know what a lineal champion is...smh

4) what a fighter does outside the ring has nothing to do with his accomplishments...idc if a fighter is an all an ass hole, who cares as long as he can fight


5) watch the fights and please form your own opinion and stop copy cating what you heard someone say...its hell of obvious


to be continued.....

[Szef]

I took a perfect shit this morning.

[techliam]

2) Most people dont know how to score a round. I think Max Kellerman said it best, the easiest way to score a round is to ask yourself who would you have rather been in the round or the fight. Rounds are won on ring generalship, defense, and clean punching. You dont give a close round to the fighter that throws the most punches. landing and missing dont win rounds landing clean punches does. If a fighter lands cleaner shots and throws fewer punches at a higher percentage they win the round, simple.

3) A lot of the people on here dont even know what a lineal champion is...smh

First off, number 2 is a complete and utter joke. If you don't understand subjectivity, you don't understand boxing. And no, your interpretation of punches thrown etc is just your opinion. Your theory means that a guy who had landed a lot more, but also missed more, is always scored below a guy who has thrown a lot less, but missed a lot less. If you applied this to every fight, you'd be crazy. Some people score for a few hard punches scored, some people score for workrate/landing more punches, i.e power isn't a be-all, end-all. This is why Canelo/Trout is controversial, you have two different interpretations of scoring here, and both are just as valid. I may be playing the devils advocate here, but theoretically you need no defence at all to win a round.

Also, can you tell me what you think a Lineal champion is? IN your view, obviously

[Rockin']

1) can you please tell me how you call yourself a boxing fan and dont know the difference between technique and tactics?

2) Most people dont know how to score a round. I think Max Kellerman said it best, the easiest way to score a round is to ask yourself who would you have rather been in the round or the fight. Rounds are won on ring generalship, defense, and clean punching. You dont give a close round to the fighter that throws the most punches. landing and missing dont win rounds landing clean punches does. If a fighter lands cleaner shots and throws fewer punches at a higher percentage they win the round, simple.


3) A lot of the people on here dont even know what a lineal champion is...smh

4) what a fighter does outside the ring has nothing to do with his accomplishments...idc if a fighter is an all an ass hole, who cares as long as he can fight


5) watch the fights and please form your own opinion and stop copy cating what you heard someone say...its hell of obvious


to be continued.....

Are you excepting applications into your fan club? ........... Rockin'

[therealpugilist]

First off, number 2 is a complete and utter joke. If you don't understand subjectivity, you don't understand boxing. And no, your interpretation of punches thrown etc is just your opinion. Your theory means that a guy who had landed a lot more, but also missed more, is always scored below a guy who has thrown a lot less, but missed a lot less. If you applied this to every fight, you'd be crazy. Some people score for a few hard punches scored, some people score for workrate/landing more punches, i.e power isn't a be-all, end-all. This is why Canelo/Trout is controversial, you have two different interpretations of scoring here, and both are just as valid. I may be playing the devils advocate here, but theoretically you need no defence at all to win a round.

Also, can you tell me what you think a Lineal champion is? IN your view, obviously

you must have reading comprehension problems....I said rounds are won by ring generalship, defense, and clean punching. Now if a round is close, if a fighter has thrown a lot more punches, but lands less or the same amount as the opponent, the opponent should win the round. why....Because the opponent has shown better defense, and landed at a higher percentage. the only way he doesnt win the round is if the other guy lands the more telling, harder shots in a round like that.

a lineal champion is the man who beat the man...lineage

if a fighter retires as champion, the number one and two contender fight for the title to bring lineage back to the weight class....

in some instances if that doesnt happen if the number one guy cleans out the division with out facing the number two guy he sould be recognized as the champion. For instance, if a fighter is the number one guy and holds one of the IBF, WBC OR WBA and cant fight the number two guy for some reason.

If he unifies the three major belts he is the recognized champion. Also if the number two guy isnt fighting good competition his ranking will drop anyway as his contemporaries are fighting higher rated guys.

[AntonTheMeh]

nsb, dksab...

[Foreign Soil]

I've got a masters degree in pugilist specialism. :bukkake:

[therealpugilist]

Are you excepting applications into your fan club? ........... Rockin'

lol, no man but its hard to have a decent conversation about boxing because most people dont know much of what the sport involves. I have been in combat sports since a child, followed boxing since I was 3 and boxed off and on for 5 years.

Unless you go to the classic forums or history sights most people form their opinions on what someone else has said, knows little to nothing about the technique and tactics of the sport, nor the great champions of the past. Most the posters on these sights are nothing but fan boys. When I first started posting on *SB and on here years ago there were a lot of knowledgeable guys and no childish bickering like with GHANAFIGHTER, LANCE UPPERCUT was funny but knowledgeable, FARMBOXER was the ultimate devils advocate, and DREW was great, etc.

[HanzGruber]

barry is that you? but i agree

[therealpugilist]

I've got a masters degree in pugilist specialism. :bukkake: