Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should Ineffective Aggression Be Regarded As A Major Scoring Criteria?

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #51
    Originally posted by SplitSecond View Post
    With lots of bodyshots. What was so ineffective about Canelo's aggression compared to Lara's potshot every minute?

    Lara barely led even, you can't give him the effective aggressor category. Canelo by a landslide.
    Fair enough, but canelo did miss alot of punches also.

    Comment


    • #52
      Originally posted by AllEyesOpen View Post
      The answer to the question is no, it should not.

      But I disagree with the ts assuming that it does not already happen, fact is to many judges already give credit for ineffective aggression. IMHO a lot of the times you see a scorecard that doesn't match reality or the other scorecards it's usually because they felt one fighter deserved the credit as the aggressor regardless of how ineffective it was.

      Effective Aggression is in the eye of the beholder.
      Completely agree.

      And lol at officially scoring "ineffective" aggression. By these rules, I reckon you scored it as "ineffective aggression" in favor of Fury and Klit when they punched their own face?

      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by sicko View Post
        Are some fans getting that desperate that they want to change rules to give their overrated favorite fighter an advantage over fighters that fans know their favorite fighter can't beat

        Landing Clean is how your score points. You don't get points for swigging at Air and at someones Guard
        Originally posted by therealpugilist View Post
        ^^^^^^^
        That line reminded me of this. Floyd swinging at air and punch stats saying "close enough":

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by ADP02 View Post
          That line reminded me of this. Floyd swinging at air and punch stats saying "close enough":

          This .gif should live forever to be used whenever anyone uses CompuBox as proof of anything.

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by bojangles1987 View Post
            This .gif should live forever to be used whenever anyone uses CompuBox as proof of anything.
            Should make it a sticky.

            Comment


            • #56
              No but there definitely needs to be better balanced judging between aggressor and defenser.

              Because ineffective aggression is more visible than ineffective defense.

              I dont think Floyd did well against manny because mannys defense matched floyds or even outperformed and he was also better aggressor.

              But most people couldnt see that floyds defense game wasnt working out,

              Comment


              • #57
                Originally posted by ADP02 View Post
                That line reminded me of this. Floyd swinging at air and punch stats saying "close enough":

                Well, damn. Good catch. But don't act like Floyd didn't land anything else all night.

                Comment


                • #58
                  This can't be a serious question.

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    Originally posted by ADP02 View Post
                    That line reminded me of this. Floyd swinging at air and punch stats saying "close enough":

                    WTF lol, did they really just give him that, to me only real way to judge punch stats in any fight is to slow mo the video and count every punch that landed yourself.

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      Originally posted by Vilicious86 View Post
                      Well, damn. Good catch. But don't act like Floyd didn't land anything else all night.
                      Floyd landed at times but some rounds went the way that punch stat count went. Incorrectly scored. Floyd takes advantage of everything, as one should get by now and the Vegas judges are no different.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP