Timing Beats speed it's a myth isn't it ?

[-PBP-]

Bit of a backtrack there, now its only 'probably'

You can win a boxing match even if you landed less punches... pretty much condemning the 'hit and not be hit' theory. Golovkin took a few punches from Murray in their fight, knew it was necessary in order to stop his movement and land a bomb.

Like you said, boxing is about all styles, and ultimately about winning. If you need to take a few punches to set something up, then so be it.

Yeah but Golovkin hit Murray harder and more often than Murray hit him....hit and not get hit. Murray didn't do it as effective and that's why he got knocked out.

I actually retract the probably. The entire manner in which boxing is scored can be summarized with that phrase.

[bluebeam]

This seems to be the most pulled out line on nsb especially when it comes to Amir khan bit is it true ?

Sure it happens, Garcia v Khan for example but we've also seen guys parachute into the arena and gusu jump through the ropes out of the ring.

With hundreds of fights every year to are going to a bit of everything but this idea that a slow guy can regularly bet a much faster fighter with similar reach is simple not true.

Where are the examples ?

9 times out of ten the faster guy wins.

Tarver vs jones jr
Forrest vs mosley
Winky vs mosley
Marquez vs Pacquiao
Rigo vs Donaire
Cotto vs mosley

All definitions of timing beats speed.

With marquez vs pacquiao being the best example.

Pacquiao is way faster than marquez but it isn't as big of an advantage against marquez because marquez is a master of timing. He takes that speed advantage that pacquiao kills everyone else with and nullifies it.

[Robbie Barrett]

The biggest myth on here is that 'boxing is hit and not be hit'

I think people have confused the sport of boxing to the style known as 'boxing' (i.e being a 'boxer' as opposed to a 'brawler')

Boxing is about beating your opponent, in the ring, under the rules. If you have to take a few punches to land a bomb, so be it.

"Hit and not be hit" is how you win rounds, which wins fights.

[Shogunofharlem1]

Tarver vs jones jr
Forrest vs mosley
Winky vs mosley
Marquez vs Pacquiao
Rigo vs Donaire
Cotto vs mosley

All definitions of timing beats speed.

With marquez vs pacquiao being the best example.

Pacquiao is way faster than marquez but it isn't as big of an advantage against marquez because marquez is a master of timing. He takes that speed advantage that pacquiao kills everyone else with and nullifies it.

The fight before the ko fight is one of the best examples of that. Manny struggled many times trying to get inside without being hit. Despite the speed gap it wasnt ever easy.

[bluebeam]

The fight before the ko fight is one of the best examples of that. Manny struggled many times trying to get inside without being hit. Despite the speed gap it wasnt ever easy.

Yea imo I think that was the easiest fight to score out of the first 3.

I had marquez winning that fight

[bigjavi973]

Every fight, floyd,pac, roy jones, mosley, dhl etc etc ever won.

Fast guys win way more fights than slow guys.

both floyd & RJJ had some of the BEST timing I've have ever seen.

[b00g13man]

Is defence the only scoring criteria?

No, hence the hit aspect of "hit and not get hit".

[billeau2]

Every fight, floyd,pac, roy jones, mosley, dhl etc etc ever won.

Fast guys win way more fights than slow guys.

You have heard the expression "some days you beat the dog, other days the dog beats you?" well consider that professional fighters are all fast, some guys are faster, some more technical, so the chasm is not so great to begin with...

lets take a classic: Michael Nunn versus James Toney. Now the dog was getting beaten here, vis a vis Nunn's speed was catching James Toney, But toney, not exactly slow, but not as fast and fluid as Nunn, has great timing. And lo and behold, the stars aligned that night for the dog! and Toney caught Nunn with a big punch, courtesy of persistance and timing.

What I would bring to your attention is there are no slow guys here, there is guy who is a great counter puncher...timing being key, and a guy with greeat speed and movement...At that time? no one not named Jones would be catching Nunn cleanly and consistantly without the technical skills that a guy like Toney possesed. More to the point, if Toney does not deliver that big punch, then Nunn's speed wins.

So these comparisons are close. And even great skill needs lady luck to create opportunity, because there are no slow fighters to speak of! not at that level.

[techliam]

"Hit and not be hit" is how you win rounds, which wins fights.

So how do you explain the rounds that were won by fighters who landed less than their opponent? Prime example, Calzaghe vs Hopkins. Surely in your logic, Calzaghe won clearly as he landed more punches in most rounds. But thats not the case, as this isn't amateur boxing.

Effective punches are the key to victory. It doesn't matter if you get hit or not if your punches are effective enough to win the round. Sure fighters would rather not be punched in the face, but it may become necessary to do so in a fair few scenarios. I've yet to see a response substantiating the claim that 'hit and not be hit' is the essence to boxing. Its not. Its certainly an effective way to win, but its just one way.

[ianjamsie]

Depends on your definition of speed. I think you are all getting confused with the volume of punches.

The speed a fighter throws a punch is directly proportional to the power.

Impact energy = half mass times speed squared.