Tweet
This thread is about how people take preconceived notions of how a fighter fights then apply that to how they judge a boxing match. In my opinion every boxing match should be judged in a vacuum. You shouldn't let your knowledge of past fights effect how you score present fights.
My point is that fights can be won on reputation alone and I suppose thats the inherent flaw in a judge based sport. If in a football game a team with a great passing game suddenly scores a lot with running plays they still win but in boxing it doesn't work that way. This gives an inherent advantage to any fighter who has been labeled defensive because if he's defensive he's just doing what he normally does and if he's more aggressive than usual he gets extra points yet when the normally aggressive fighter is less aggressive it's a bad thing and he's being "outboxed" even if he's actually landing the better punches! it makes no sense to me but i'm not a boxing expert like everyone else on boxingscene.
This isn't a floyd-pac scorecard thread so this is just an example because its fresh in my mind but in Floyd-Pac everyone(even me) had the preconceived notion that for pac to win he had to pressure floyd, throw a lot of punches and make floyd uncomfortable. Now he did that a little but according to most not enough to win, and thats the main problem. Why should a fighter have to fight a certain way to pull off a win? shouldn't a fight be based on the four judging criteria? I rewatched the fight closely and saw that it was actually pac landing the cleaner, harder, and more effective shots while it was floyd whose punches came up short, hit gloves, or simply didn't land very clean. I thought to myself ok that should have been a floyd round based on the pace, distance, rhythm but judging by the actual punches it should be a pac round.
I think this is also why there is a disconnect between casual fans and so called hardcores when it comes to scoring fights. its possible that the hardcores are so in their bubble that they can't see a fight between just 2 boxers but its a fight between Boxer A who is good at this this and this and Boxer B who is good at this this and that. Our complex breakdowns sometimes prevent us from seeing what is actually happening because it doesn't fit within our preconceived notions of what should be happening. I'm not saying casuals are right all the time of course but I am saying that they see things simpler and sometimes things are more simple than we realize.
so in summary pac won lol
My point is that fights can be won on reputation alone and I suppose thats the inherent flaw in a judge based sport. If in a football game a team with a great passing game suddenly scores a lot with running plays they still win but in boxing it doesn't work that way. This gives an inherent advantage to any fighter who has been labeled defensive because if he's defensive he's just doing what he normally does and if he's more aggressive than usual he gets extra points yet when the normally aggressive fighter is less aggressive it's a bad thing and he's being "outboxed" even if he's actually landing the better punches! it makes no sense to me but i'm not a boxing expert like everyone else on boxingscene.
This isn't a floyd-pac scorecard thread so this is just an example because its fresh in my mind but in Floyd-Pac everyone(even me) had the preconceived notion that for pac to win he had to pressure floyd, throw a lot of punches and make floyd uncomfortable. Now he did that a little but according to most not enough to win, and thats the main problem. Why should a fighter have to fight a certain way to pull off a win? shouldn't a fight be based on the four judging criteria? I rewatched the fight closely and saw that it was actually pac landing the cleaner, harder, and more effective shots while it was floyd whose punches came up short, hit gloves, or simply didn't land very clean. I thought to myself ok that should have been a floyd round based on the pace, distance, rhythm but judging by the actual punches it should be a pac round.
I think this is also why there is a disconnect between casual fans and so called hardcores when it comes to scoring fights. its possible that the hardcores are so in their bubble that they can't see a fight between just 2 boxers but its a fight between Boxer A who is good at this this and this and Boxer B who is good at this this and that. Our complex breakdowns sometimes prevent us from seeing what is actually happening because it doesn't fit within our preconceived notions of what should be happening. I'm not saying casuals are right all the time of course but I am saying that they see things simpler and sometimes things are more simple than we realize.
so in summary pac won lol
Comment