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

[Redd Foxx]

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.

You shot yourself in the foot there as Calzaghe won that fight. Choose a better example.
In fact, I'll give you one. Canelo Trout. Canelo landed few punches but they were more effective than Austin's so he won handily in the judge's eyes.

[soul_survivor]

Correctly timing a counter against a speedy guy also requires speed...so...

[techliam]

You shot yourself in the foot there as Calzaghe won that fight. Choose a better example.
In fact, I'll give you one. Canelo Trout. Canelo landed few punches but they were more effective than Austin's so he won handily in the judge's eyes.

Huh? I clearly said rounds - there are plenty of rounds where Hopkins won despite landing less punches. On top of that, the result is controversial, but thanks for trying to help anyway.

I was going to use Canelo-Trout, but the scorecards already seemed written before that fight ended, as least thats how I saw it. To this day I cannot see how anyone justifies 118-109 for Canelo. Truly awful

[Redd Foxx]

Huh? I clearly said rounds - there are plenty of rounds where Hopkins won despite landing less punches. On top of that, the result is controversial, but thanks for trying to help anyway.

I was going to use Canelo-Trout, but the scorecards already seemed written before that fight ended, as least thats how I saw it. To this day I cannot see how anyone justifies 118-109 for Canelo. Truly awful

I myself had Trout winning but would have understood a draw. But, since everyone seems to be against me on that and says Canelo "dominated", I used it as an example.

[icha]

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.

timing baby!!!

[Razcal26]

I myself had Trout winning but would have understood a draw. But, since everyone seems to be against me on that and says Canelo "dominated", I used it as an example.

I had Trout winning as well.

[RussB23]

It isnt a myth, you just have to be very skilled and be able to time any opponent. If there is a fight between 2 average fighters the faster guy should win. A good example is maypac, manny has very fast hand speed but he got timed whenever he got close the whole fight. Pretty much you have to have elite timing.

[bojangles1987]

You serious?

There are countless examples of timing beating speed throughout boxing history. Or to be accurate, superior skill beating speed. It happens on damn near every boxing card.

[IronDanHamza]

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

Fast guys win way more fights than slow guys.

Forrest and Wright negated Mosley's speed with timing.

Morales and Marquez with Pacquaio.

Montel Griffin with Roy Jones.

Obviously not every time because Boxing doesn't work that way but it's obvious that timing CAN negate speed.

[Larry the boss]

A myth?? lol...wow