People need to make up their mind about jabs.

[boliodogs]

You are just quoting a handful of opinions. Each fight is different and each jab is different. GGG's jab is a real head snapper and equal to many guy's power punches. Jabs that land clean and hard mean plenty. A light tap of a jab doesn't mean much.

[RetroSpeed05]

Any punch not a jab is a power punch. But Garcia vs Herrera fight Herrera jab busted Dannys face more then any of Dannys "power punches" did.

[Combat Talk Radio]

Not all jabs are the same, Golovkin's was far more superior than Jacobs'.

You are just quoting a handful of opinions. Each fight is different and each jab is different. GGG's jab is a real head snapper and equal to many guy's power punches. Jabs that land clean and hard mean plenty. A light tap of a jab doesn't mean much.

Any punch not a jab is a power punch. But Garcia vs Herrera fight Herrera jab busted Dannys face more then any of Dannys "power punches" did.

People. THERE IS NO FORCE MEASURE TO PUNCHES. CONNECT OR NO CONNECT. That's all.

A jab is a jab. Either it's effective (connects and nullifies) or it's not (doesn't connect, doesn't nullify).

Stop with your biased scoring metrics that don't exist. Fighter A who uses the jab to win the fight should be scored the exact same as Fighter B who uses the jab to win the fight. Otherwise you're BS'ing

[SilverMiles]

People. THERE IS NO FORCE MEASURE TO PUNCHES. CONNECT OR NO CONNECT. That's all.

A jab is a jab. Either it's effective (connects and nullifies) or it's not (doesn't connect, doesn't nullify).

Stop with your biased scoring metrics that don't exist. Fighter A who uses the jab to win the fight should be scored the exact same as Fighter B who uses the jab to win the fight. Otherwise you're BS'ing

What a stupid post. You can use your eyes and see the effectiveness of the punch.

Let me help you out.

If the jab lands and the other guy barely flinches, it was weak.

If the jab lands and the other guy head snaps back and his eyes cross it was strong.

You want to change the way scoring occurs because you can't keep up.

Revelated: Hey guys my name is Revelated and I wanted know if you guys could maybe keep this scoring simple. Like make it where all punches are equal so if would be more fair and simple and stuff.

Me: NO!

[Combat Talk Radio]

If the jab lands and the other guy barely flinches, it was weak.

If the jab lands and the other guy head snaps back and his eyes cross it was strong.

And does CompuBox care? No.

Is "Punch Force" a scoring criteria? No.

Is "Punch Velocity" a scoring criteria? No.

Is "Punch Weight" a scoring criteria? No.

You have

Ring Generalship
Effective Aggression
Effective Defense
Accuracy - Punches landed vs. punches thrown

Show me anywhere in that where there's a "Fighter A hit this hard" metric.

Now, you could throw harder jabs so you can control the pace of the fight by nullifying your opponent (Mayweather/Pacquiao). Or you could throw a lot of lesser jabs to keep your opponent off you (Tyson/Holyfield). In no circumstances does the power of the jab alone dictate a fight.

You either connect with it or you don't. Period point blank.

[hugh grant]

Floyd wins fight after fight with pot shottng pity patjabs. If it's good enough for him why not for ggg? Ggg jabs snaped head.
Ggg showing he's versatile not just hunting you down with power punches but he can impersonate Floyd as well once in a while depending on opponent.
Floyd does the same **** every fight

[bojangles1987]

There's a lot more to it than that.

Fighters like Golovkin and Wlad have jabs which land like power punches. Thurman used his more as a rangefinder and a rhythm breaker without really intending to cause damage. He didn't win the fight with his jab, he won it by landing effective power punches.

There is way too much context needed before you can judge the importance of a jab in scoring a fight.

[cork]

Mayweather/Pacquiao: "Nah bruh, you can't win a fight with just a jab"/"The pitty pat punches, it's not enough! It's not enough to win the fight!"

Garcia/Thurman: "Garcia won that, all Thurman did was jab and run"

Holyfield/Valuev: "The right man won, all Holyfield did was jab"


Yet...

Klitschko/Fury: "Klitschko won that fight, his jab controlled it!"

Golovkin/Jacobs: "Golovkin clearly controlled the fight with his jab, that's why he won doe"

Eubank/Saunders: "Eubank got exposed, Saunders' jab was in Eubank's face all night long"

Make up your mind. Either an effective jab wins the fight or it doesn't.

I'm not sure why you generalize the forum as a whole but I'm pretty consistent with how I look at fights. I haven't seen anyone saying Garcia beat Thurman btw nor did Thurman threw jabs during that fight.

[hugh grant]

If ggg didn't win his fight as his jabs don't count. Then Floyd has lost about half of his 49 fights

[Combat Talk Radio]

I haven't seen anyone saying Garcia beat Thurman btw nor did Thurman threw jabs during that fight.

Then you weren't paying attention shortly after the fight where people accused Thurman of barely throwing after round 3 and resorting to just light taps (jabs) on the backfoot.

Yet GGG does the same damn thing in round 8 and somehow he's dominant.