People need to make up their mind about jabs.

[Citizen Koba]

To me this is /thread complete.

No need to bump this for another 3 years.

Ha ha I'm quite sure I'll be rolling out that exact same answer once or twice a year for as long as I'm still able to post on boxing forums... some chit never changes..

[Marchegiano]

impressive list

[ELPacman]

Yeah I agree that a jab is mostly a tool used to setup other punches and control your opponent. Although, some fighters throw a jab out just as hard as a straight cross/hook which results sometimes in a knockdown (rarely a KO). With that respect, who cares as long as it's getting the job done? Either you scored a KO or got extra pt for knockdown.

My beef is when a fighter ONLY uses a jab to win a fight. Like, barely throws a hook/cross/uppercut and dances around for 12 rds. Can you really say they won a fight like that? It's cringe to watch.

Anyone remember Barrera vs Juarez? It was a thing of beauty the way Barrera used the jab OFTEN but mixed it up with power punches. It was like text book.

[_Rexy_]

I've never seen anyone say Klitschko won the Fury fight, or that he controlled it. He looked like a confused deer in the headlights, and the ref saved him from getting dropped in the 11th

[OldTerry]

Mayweather/Pacquiao: "Nah bruh, you can't win a fight with just a jab"/"The rat-a-tat jab, 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"

Canelo/Golovkin 1: "ggg's only consistent success was his jab, no body shots, very few actual clean shots to the head"

Wilder/Fury: "Fury lost those rounds, you can't win by jabbing and feinting"

Crawford/Khan: "yeah he was landing all night, but Khan's jab wasn't hurting Bud, Bud walked through them"

KSI/Logan Paul 2: "yeah, KSI was winging, but all Logan did was jab, he didn't win that"

Spence/Mikey: "Spence got exposed, he couldn't KO lil Mikey and all he could do was jab"

Postol/Ramirez: "All Postol did was land Jabs, nothing else. I don't think some fans realize that this is the pros not the amateurs"

Lomachenko/Lopez: "All Loma did was a pitty-pat jab and run, he lost 11-1"

Spence/Danny Garcia:: "Garcia won that, all Spence did was jab"

Ryan Garcia/Luke Campbell "you (Campbell) can’t win rounds with just boxing and jabbing"

Yet...

Canelo/Golovkin 2: "Golovkin was hitting Canelo with the jab all night long, he got robbed!/His jab is like a power punch"

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"

Mayweather/McGregor: "McGregor dominated the first four rounds with his jab"

Charlo/Korobov: "they almost ROBBED Charlo, he couldn't miss with the jab"

Lewis/Tua: "Lewis dominated Tua more than Ike Ibeabuchi, perfect jabbing"

Joshua/Ruiz 2: "well, tubby couldn't get past the jab, AJ boxed perfectly"

Romero/Marinez: "Marinez couldn't miss with the jab, they ROBBED him/Floyd paid off the judges!"

Charlo/Derevyanchenko : "Charlo just seemed more in control with his jab"

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

I believe they "Key" word here is effective. A really good and effective power jab can win a fight. It can hurt the opponent and keep him at bay at the same time. Weak jabs on the other hand should not be scored the same. So, can a jab win a fight? Sometimes yes and sometimes no.

[OldTerry]

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.

The ones who score the fight are the judges and their scoring is as much subjective as objective. So the eye test can certainly mean that the answer to all three of your questions is yes.
s "Punch Force" a scoring criteria? .

Is "Punch Velocity" a scoring criteria?

Is "Punch Weight" a scoring criteria?

[Combat Talk Radio]

I believe they "Key" word here is effective. A really good and effective power jab can win a fight. It can hurt the opponent and keep him at bay at the same time. Weak jabs on the other hand should not be scored the same. So, can a jab win a fight? Sometimes yes and sometimes no.

There's no such thing as a "power jab".

The ones who score the fight are the judges and their scoring is as much subjective as objective. So the eye test can certainly mean that the answer to all three of your questions is yes.
s "Punch Force" a scoring criteria? .

Is "Punch Velocity" a scoring criteria?

Is "Punch Weight" a scoring criteria?

Correct, which is why there's hypocrisy.

Judges said UNANIMOUSLY that Jeff Horn beat Manny. Horn threw very few jabs and Compubox said he was outlanded overall.

Yet Compubox says Keef outlanded Manny and the judges still gave it to Manny.

That's the problem. Compubox can't be both right and wrong.


SO, you fall back on the straight up:

What type of punch?

Did it land or did it not?

Not these 'eye test' metrics of force. They don't matter.

If you make them matter, Canelo has two clear wins over Golovkin; Bradley beat Manny two out of three times and Paul Williams lost against Sergio TWICE.

We need to be consistent. If Guy 1 was pumping a jab into the opponent's face to win the fight, Guy 2 should get the same credit for doing the same thing.

It doesn't matter how much force there was, did the opponent do or even try to do anything to stop it? If not, that's Effective Aggression AND Ring Generalship: your jab controlled the situation, no matter how hard it landed.

[Combat Talk Radio]

Yeah I agree that a jab is mostly a tool used to setup other punches and control your opponent. Although, some fighters throw a jab out just as hard as a straight cross/hook which results sometimes in a knockdown (rarely a KO). With that respect, who cares as long as it's getting the job done? Either you scored a KO or got extra pt for knockdown.

My beef is when a fighter ONLY uses a jab to win a fight. Like, barely throws a hook/cross/uppercut and dances around for 12 rds. Can you really say they won a fight like that? It's cringe to watch.

Anyone remember Barrera vs Juarez? It was a thing of beauty the way Barrera used the jab OFTEN but mixed it up with power punches. It was like text book.

That's EXACTLY what Paulie did against Artie in BKFC, yet people swear up and down that Paulie "clearly" won.

Hypocrisy!

[Marchegiano]

That's EXACTLY what Paulie did against Artie in BKFC, yet people swear up and down that Paulie "clearly" won.

Hypocrisy!

Add it to the list

[SN!PER]

Holmes vs. Spinks rematch

Some judges just can't appreciate a beautiful jab!