If you thought Danny won....
Collapse
-
-
Not sure how I feel about your use of a 10-10 round in the 1st. I think if you look closely at that round, there is a clear winner by way of ringmanship and punch output? I had GGG edging that round, maybe only by a couple of jabs, and certainly close, but 10-10 should be rare and is a copout. 10-10 in this case just means that you don't know enough about boxing to be able to score
Here are the scoring directives from NYAC:
"In each round, such judges shall observe (1) clean hitting, (2) effective aggressiveness, (3) defense, and (4) ring generalship...
"(1) Round ends, no clear winner 10-10 (Rare); (2) Close round/Winning of the round by effective boxing – 10-9, etc. etc."Straw man.
I said, "10-10 in this case just means that you don't know enough about boxing to be able to score"
Applying the directives given, there is a clear victor of the first round. And it ain't Jacobs...
If you have a problem with the directions given to judges on how to score, that's a different issue, and I would agree with you if you were to say that the judging system as a whole is not perfect. Certainly, that is true. Following the procedure for scoring, as directed, however, I cannot understand how anybody could give Jacobs the 1st round or call it a 10-10 (as you have).
GGG landed one or 2 more jabs, and was in control of the positioning within the ring for the most part. As I say, punch output and ringmanship (as directed for the judges to score on) make GGG the clear winner of the 1st round. Calling it 10-10 is wrong, in my opinion.
You clearly know something about boxing. I'd ask you, how can you justify calling the 1st round a 10-10 when one of the boxers has landed more punches than the other and has shown superior ringmanship? According to the directives, you have to give to GGG??Comment
-
I didn't write mine down (unless you count the sticky thread) but I did keep an open mind and at the end, had no doubt Jacobs took it. I even told my friend about it before the decision was read because it seemed pretty obvious.
Wasn't like a Ward/Kovalev were I have one guy winning but it was close enough that I could see it going the other way in some people's eyes.
And, FWIW, I gave the 1st round to Golovkin.Comment
-
This is pretty revealing. A lot of people like to dispute or disregard the punch stats. If people want to disregard jabs and look at power shots, they are crazy(to make a better case for danny) . He was hurt three times and would have most likely been knocked down or out in the 9th had the uppercut connected 30 sec earlier . The effective power shots were all ggg. Gggs jabs hurt danny more than any punch danny hit him with. Hbo was selling a rematch and many believed their bs. Ggg didnt need any of the last 4 rounds in truth.Overall Punch Stats
Round 1: Jacobs (8/26) 30.8%, GGG (9/32) 28.1%
Round 2: Jacobs (6/29) 20.7%, GGG (10/27) 37%
Round 3: Jacobs (12/44) 27.3%, GGG (14/41) 34.1%
Round 4: Jacobs (11/27) 40.7%, GGG (33/71) 46.5%
Round 5: Jacobs (14/33) 42.4%, GGG (22/54) 40.7%
Round 6: Jacobs (14/41) 34.1%, GGG (14/41) 34.1%
Round 7: Jacobs (18/49) 36.7%, GGG (13/42) 31%
Round 8: Jacobs (18/58) 31%, GGG (20/59) 33.9%
Round 9: Jacobs (16/47) 34%, GGG (23/64) 35.9%
Round 10: Jacobs (24/65) 36.9%, GGG (22/59) 37.3%
Round 11: Jacobs (19/60) 31.7%, GGG (20/58) 34.5%
Round 12: Jacobs (15/62) 24.2%, GGG (31/67) 46.3%
So out of the 12 rounds, GGG landed more punches than Jacobs in 9 of the 12 rounds or 75% of the rounds. GGG landed more punches than Jacobs in rounds: 1,2,3,4,5,8,9,11,12
Out of the 12 rounds, GGG landed at a higher % than Jacobs in 8 of the 12 rounds or 67% of the rounds. GGG landed at a higher % than Jacobs in rounds:
2,3,4,8,9,10,11,12
So GGG landed more punces than Jacobs and at a higher % than Jacobs in rounds: 2,3,4,8,9
These are all rounds that trfcdan86 gave to Jacobs. Ugh.....dunno but I'm not buying it. GGG won this fight across the board. It was "close" but clearly the correct man won the fight, especially when you throw in the KD as well.Comment
-
-
Comment
-
You asked for something, people gave it to you, then you whined that they gave it to you. You sound biased as ****.Comment
-
You are reading this out of context... do u enjoy getting mad? Be mad at the words on the internet!!!!!!
I was questioning his certainty, not his opinion, when all 3 judges had it 29 28 ggg after three and because ggg significantly oulanded him the first 3 rounds combined...Last edited by boxing_pundit85; 03-19-2017, 05:40 PM.Comment
-
I'll bite.
Round 1: G did NOTHING this round. Nothing. Jacobs didn't do much but he did more.
Round 3: Jacobs was more effective with his jab this round.
Round 6,7,8: This is the sprint where Jacobs bumped the aggression, started throwing combinations.
Round 10 and 11: Jacobs backed off and started outboxing G. This is where G started to get frustrated.
115-112 Jacobs.
The two rounds I question on the judges' scorecards are rounds 1 and 8. G did NOTHING both rounds. They gave it to him because he was coming forward while ignoring that he was getting tagged on the way in.Comment
-
Comment
Comment