The REAL DEAL.....

[Achcauhtli]

http://www.theplayerstribune.com/mayweather-vs-pacquiao-state-of-boxing-a-fight-for-relevance/

I think he has some very relevant points!

Whats your take?

[-PBP-]

I replied to this in another thread

I disagree:

Canelo (the aggressor) got the decision over Lara
Froch (the aggressor) got the decision over Dirrell
Glazkov (the aggressor) got decisions over Cunningham and Scott
Adamek (the aggressor) got the decision over Cunningham
Williams (the aggressor) got the decision over Lara
Canelo (the aggressor) got the decision over Trout
Calzaghe (the aggressor) got the decision over Hopkins
Bey (the aggressor) got the decision over Vazquez
Rios (the aggressor) got the decision over Abril
Pac (the aggressor) got decisions over Marquez


The list goes on and I guarantee you that the aggressor gets the decision more times than not. To win like Floyd, you have to be next to perfect at what you do as one flurry from his opponent can cost him his round. That makes me appreciate even more what guys like Floyd and Hopkins can do. The outrage over scoring is because Floyd beat Pacquiao and people's feelings are hurt.

There is only one Floyd Mayweather and instead of criticizing the entire sport of boxing, and the 10s of thousands of fighters involved, people need to watch more boxing so they aren't forming opinions on the entire sport based on 1 out of 1,000 plus fights that take place throughout the year.

[Achcauhtli]

I replied to this in another thread

From what he expressed, it isnt just this weekends past fight, its boxing in general. Like i stated, he has some relevant points, not all though.

[CANELOLUJAH]

that webisite looked nice

[ironmt]

Great article, valid points

[puro dinamita]

that was a awesome article and he is stating alot of facts cause boxing matches have been getting little more disappointing it sucks how matthysse vs provo didn't get this much hype and they pour there all into that fight but these 2 dudes really didn't even try to put a great fight both were hesitant mayweather only threw like 2 punches then hug and ran away pac didn't do much either and the fans are hyping these dumb type of matches to an extent were we're ourselves hurting the sport but helping these greedy fat promoters

[Doctor_Tenma]

Deontay Wilder vs. Bermane Stiverne


What was wrong with that fight?

[Ryn0]

I don't like Wilder but Wilder-Stiverne wasn't a bad fight. Stiverne was hurt several times. I think Holyfield is wrong. Also while I don't like Klitschkos style he does huge numbers in Europe outside of America, and Holyfield in this instance forgets that there exists a huge boxing audience outside of America.

Aggressive fighters get close decisions more often than not, the biggest statistic of the fight was Floyd landing and throwing more punches. Pacquiao might have looked more aggressive but Floyd even when he was moving backwards was the effective aggressor. This is just how fights are sometimes.

There was no great complaint when Whittaker, Pep, Locche, Benitez were fighting and were defensive masterminds even Hopkins attracted more praise later in his career.

[arraamis]

I wished I had the time to comment on that very well written article. But I don't ... so I will just comment on aggression:

Aggression cannot be scored favorably if the fighter isn't landing anything on his opponent. Such ineffective aggression can actually be detrimental since it can and will be used to score in favor of the one who is using defensive skills to thwart incoming attacks.

A common scenario can be seen in bull-fighting. The bull is being aggressive but it isn't making contact with the Matador. The Matador is successfully stabbing the bull with spears and avoiding the charges of the bull and in the view of the audience, is clearly winning.

Therefore, it is ineffective aggression coming from the bull and overall the event is ruled in favor of the matador.

How can a boxing event be viewed differently, when the same principals apply?

[madsweeney]

I wished I had the time to comment on that very well written article. But I don't ... so I will just comment on aggression:

Aggression cannot be scored favorably if the fighter isn't landing anything on his opponent. Such ineffective aggression can actually be detrimental since it can and will be used to score in favor of the one who is using defensive skills to thwart incoming attacks.

A common scenario can be seen in bull-fighting. The bull is being aggressive but it isn't making contact with the Matador. The Matador is successfully stabbing the bull with spears and avoiding the charges of the bull and in the view of the audience, is clearly winning.

Therefore, it is ineffective aggression coming from the bull and overall the event is ruled in favor of the matador.

How can a boxing event be viewed differently, when the same principals apply?

In bull fighting, the bull is stabbed to weaken and then it is PUT DOWN. Your analogy is just like Holyfield's comparison of Ali/Foreman, not Floyd/Pac.