Should points be taken away for running?

[big_james10]

Mayweather-Mosley was not a track meet. Somebody lied to you.

People see what they want to see. They didn't see Floyd get hit after the second round, so the intellectually limited fans thought it was a track meet. There will be a thousand posts on this site on May 3 call Mayweather/Pacquaio a track meet.

[Aztekkas]

Perhaps.

Truth is these men are put in a ring to punch each other and use their assets to overcome the challenge at hand. If a man is at a power disadvantage then it wouldn't be advisable for him to sit in the pocket and trade with a bigger/stronger man, thus using movement and footwork to produce angles he could exploit could help him grind the opposition down into submission. However, if a fighter is using his footwork to simply evade the fight then it's not within the essence "boxing", since the sport is about punching... not tippy toeing across the ring all night.

Using footwork/speed in order to produce offensive options =/= using movement to simply evade confrontation. Sure, it could be used as a defensive maneuver in order to recompose yourself but in the sport of fists where every punch counts you have to atleast throw a jab as you do so.

Vasyl Lomachenko and Pacquiao both use their movement to punch holes through their opponents defense by exploiting angles, although they go about it in a different manner. Mayweather evades punches in order to create openings and retaliate with his own offense. People think fighters with movement are boring but fail to understand how their movement isn't in vain(for the most part), they are also attempting to produce openings for themselves since they are aware of their own inefficiencies in other departments.

However, some hipsters give way too much credit to fighters for using their superior footwork in order to evade confrontation all together.

[Cut Man]

Is it not a combat sport ******? Sure hit and not get hit, but key word HIT!

A fighter with good movement and defensive obviously also hits or else he would never win a fight.

I see nothing wrong with a fighter using every inch of the ring to his advantage

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Perhaps.

Truth is these men are put in a ring to punch each other and use their assets to overcome the challenge at hand. If a man is at a power disadvantage then it wouldn't be advisable for him to sit in the pocket and trade with a bigger/stronger man, thus using movement and footwork to produce angles he could exploit could help him grind the opposition down into submission. However, if a fighter is using his footwork to simply evade the fight then it's not within the essence "boxing", since the sport is about punching... not tippy toeing across the ring all night.

Using footwork/speed in order to produce offensive options =/= using movement to simply evade confrontation. Sure, it could be used as a defensive maneuver in order to recompose yourself but in the sport of fists where every punch counts you have to atleast throw a jab as you do so.

Vasyl Lomachenko and Pacquiao both use their movement to punch holes through their opponents defense by exploiting angles, although they go about it in a different manner. Mayweather evades punches in order to create openings and retaliate with his own offense. People think fighters with movement are boring but fail to understand how their movement isn't in vain(for the most part), they are also attempting to produce openings for themselves since they are aware of their own inefficiencies in other departments.

However, some hipsters give way too much credit to fighters for using their superior footwork in order to evade confrontation all together.

I agree. Movement is fine and I know a guy with no punch won't stand and trade. Why would he?

But when a guy just starts running without punching as you say, I think it is a foul. He is evading the fight and wasting the crowd's time.

[Beercules]

I can't cut off the ring so take points from the other guy

[El-blanco]

However, if a fighter is using his footwork to simply evade the fight then it's not within the essence "boxing", since the sport is about punching... not tippy toeing across the ring all night.

However, some hipsters give way too much credit to fighters for using their superior footwork in order to evade confrontation all together.

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

[The Gambler1981]

It's a sad time we live in.

Why would you even think that?

Because it is a fight if a guy is not good enough to make a guy stop moving then they aren't good enough to beat that guy pure and simple. If they deserve to win there is no problem because they will have caught the runner or the runner did not do enough punching so it is somewhat debatable.

Guys should play to win to the best of the ability and should be allowed to do as such if their opponent can't stop what they are doing that is not the problem of the guy winning.

[Bermuda]

Sometimes you have to take a step back or two or three etc.

Sometimes life will hit you with a big punch and you'll go "Ouch! That really stung!", and you might take a few steps back, but does that mean you quit the fight?? I don't think so at all. I think running away is an opportunity to regroup and say "Hey!! what went wrong there?!?!" and pick yourself up, learn, and get back in there. BACK IN THE FIGHT! Yeah!


- Bermuda

[boliodogs]

No. There are no rules against running. If there were guys like Algieri, Lara and Whitaker would need to alter their style as they ran quite a bit in certain fights. To much running will cost fighters rounds on the judge's score cards and popularity with the paying fans. I think no rules against running is fine because it would be very vague rules. The referee has the power to warn or disqualify a fighter who is running to excess.

[LA_2_Vegas]

No. If a fighter is using movement to control distance and set up their punches and are basically controlling the round they shouldn't be penalized. Likewise if a fighter is running but isn't the one controlling the fight then they should simply lose the round. What boxing needs is competent judges, not rule changes to appease the bloodthirsty crowd.

Good answer - on the one hand there is a group of people who think coming forward should be rewarding, and the other who think using movement . Competent judges are there to find the between and figure out, minute by minute, who is controlling the fight within the fight. Personally, I give more weight to effective aggression in the sense that it's also is part of "pace" that ring generalship includes - on my card, the onus is alittle higher for the fighter who is using movement as a primary weapon. By extension, I view it as the hardest style to master so those who can do this well and tread that line (and also go to war) are the ones who often becomes greats.

The referee should not be penalizing "running" - perhaps he was hurt by a punch ppl didnt really notice, or he is waiting for his 2nd wind to kick in, there could be reasons that even a normally aggressive fighter would be running

if someone is turning their back then yes...other ways of evading like flopping...lifting their leg for defense like the dude on FNF last night, excessive clinching to avoid the fight....but movement, even excessive, I think is a grayer area for me, and I see it as an area for the judges to decide. I think if we wanted excessive running to be cut to a minimum, then I think it could be corrected by good judging and the market( already happens)

I'm fine with the referee telling them to engage though