How did you score Golovkin vs Jacobs

[DARKSEID]

Opinions differ and you can drive yourself crazy trying to shove yours down the throats of others. Rounds can swing in either direction resulting in not one exact score but a range of reasonable scores.

If it's an entertaining fight and the scorecards are within that reasonable range regardless of who wins, then there should be no complaints.

I think the only thing that differs is vision lol You're either seeing the shots land or you're not.

And there's a lot of blind posters on this site.

[DARKSEID]

I know there are some rounds that are hard to call, when both guys are landing about the same amount of shots and are doing about the same amount of damage.

But In this fight, Golovkin clearly was landing more and clearly landing harder. I'm not blind and I watched the fight over and over, so I don't know how anyone can say Jacobs won at least 7 rounds.

[-PBP-]

I think the only thing that differs is vision lol You're either seeing the shots land or you're not.

Which brings me to my next point. There is no way in hell a ringside judge can effectively gauge what is landing and what is not. The scoring system is flawed, complete BS, subjective and they probably get it wrong 40% of the time. It's not a matter of right or wrong. It's a matter of reasonable. And last night was a great night of boxing because the scoring was reasonable for all of the fights.

This **** is not baseball. It's figure skating. You watch a performance take place and judge it based off who is performing better.

These post fight threads make me laugh. Everybody wants to be the expert on fight scoring when you can't guage what's effective and what's not, you're not taking the punches. Some can't even tell if a punch snapped his head back or the fighter rolled with the shot.

Watch Duran fight. They penalize him for getting hit when in actuality, he's rolling with the punch to take steam off of it. And y'all got replays and 45 different angles. A judge gets one live crack at it.

[Eastcoast]

I scored 6 apiece with the knock down as the difference. It was a tight fight with a ton of swing rounds. Only round that weren't swing rounds were 4 for GGG and 6 & 10 for DJ.

GGG/DJ
1--10/9 (tight)
2--10/9 (tight)
3--10/9 (tight)
4--10/8
5--10/9 (tight)
6--9/10
7--9/10 (tight)
8--9/10
9--10/9 (tight)
10--9/10
11--9/10 (tight)
12--9/10 (tight)
114/113

[Eastcoast]

This poll is crazy, nearly a perfect bell curve! Inverted in the middle, but great symmetry.

Needs to be a rematch- December '17, February '18 or March '18. Let Golovkin knock off BJS & Canelo in June/Sept and get Danny a big fight as well vs Lemieux/Lee/Eubank/Charlo/N'Dam.

[DoktorSleepless]

I scored it 115-113 Jacobs. 7 rounds to Jacobs, 4 rounds to GGG, and one 10-10 round.

[TintaBoricua]

Which brings me to my next point. There is no way in hell a ringside judge can effectively gauge what is landing and what is not. The scoring system is flawed, complete BS, subjective and they probably get it wrong 40% of the time. It's not a matter of right or wrong. It's a matter of reasonable. And last night was a great night of boxing because the scoring was reasonable for all of the fights.

This **** is not baseball. It's figure skating. You watch a performance take place and judge it based off who is performing better.

These post fight threads make me laugh. Everybody wants to be the expert on fight scoring when you can't guage what's effective and what's not, you're not taking the punches. Some can't even tell if a punch snapped his head back or the fighter rolled with the shot.

Watch Duran fight. They penalize him for getting hit when in actuality, he's rolling with the punch to take steam off of it. And y'all got replays and 45 different angles. A judge gets one live crack at it.

^^^Perfectly put.

It is a matter of REASONABLE scorecards.

And judges get ONE crack at it. No replays, NO do-overs.

All these posters being outraged over close scorecards and when a decision doesn't go to their fighter. I've been leaning lately towards that there aren't robberies, it's just that boxing is highly subjective. And given certain circumstances, there's a tendency to lean towards bigger stars/undefeated boxers.

Not saying that it's broken, but it's exploitable.

Case in point: I've always been a Floyd fan and watching the fight with Pacquiao live I thought he won it (Mayweather either 9-3 or 8-4).

Now, take into account First Take's Skip Bayless (used to be on it anyway). I think the grand majority of things he says boxing related is Pac-Floyd (or some permutation involving one of the two). In any case, I think 98-99% is just cringe-inducing "WTF you talking about?!" statements. However, if there was a SMALL takeaway from his salty rant the weekday after the fight that I thought had a sliver of truth to it, it was the following:

"If you take this fight and put it in a vacuum, where you don't know who Pacquiao is and you don't know who Mayweather is...Pacquiao wins it. It's just that the Mayweather mystique is so great."

I don't know if Pacquiao wins it, but it would've perhaps been scored a lot closer.

I'm not declaring it now, I've long been saying it. Mayweather-Pacquiao was perhaps Mayweather's most significant win, but it wasn't a masterclass or one of his best performances. It was a bland fight. Not blaming him, but I don't think he was necessarily imposing or authoritative as most Floyd fans would have you believe.

Furthermore, Bernard Hopkins once said in an interview (regarding Leonard-Hagler) that he thought Hagler won it, but because Leonard was THE guy and he appealed to the public, it would be easier for him to win a decision versus some other guy; that who you are and the public's perception all plays a role into the outcome of a fight. (From the book: Four Kings)

Boxing is subjective, whether people want to accept it or not.

ON TOPIC:

I watched a Russian telecast of GGG-Jacobs at 3:30 am a few hours after the live telecast. I had Jacobs edging it 114-113.

Jacobs winning: 1,2,3,6,7,10,11
GGG winning: 4,5,8,9,12

With the point deduction from the knockdown, 114-113 for Jacobs. There were a couple rounds in there that I felt could've gone either way, though. It wasn't a robbery. It was a competitive fight, and the scoring was reasonable.

[deanrw]

The first time I watched it I had Jacobs winning 11 rounds to 1
The second time I watched it I had Golovkin winning 11 rounds to 1

Watching it for the third time now fellas, wish me luck

[HanzGruber]

re watched it again, jacobs won even more clear to me

[Madison Boxing]

115 112 ggg and i genuinely think I'm giving Jacobs the benefit of the doubt, could easily have been 116-111. Landed very few memorable shots. At least ggg was landing jabs and pressing the action. If you fight on the defensive you better make sure your clearly landing memorable shots. Jacobs didn't do that and he was outlanded in 9 of the rounds. Robbery cries are simply laughable.