People need to make up their mind about jabs.

[Combat Talk Radio]

Updated for Postol/Ramirez. More flip-flopping

[Combat Talk Radio]

Added Charlo/Derevyanchenko

[Combat Talk Radio]

Lomachenko/Lopez - people thinking it was an 11-1 blowout for Lopez due to dismissing Loma's jab. Classic

[Combat Talk Radio]

Added Spence/Danny Garcia since some people think Danny was robbed for some reason - and the only possible reason is their ignoring of the jab pumped into Danny's face all night long.

[Combat Talk Radio]

Garcia/Campbell added. More flip-flops

[elfag]

clean effective punching - to me that means punches landing cleanly. power punches count more but if the other guy isnt landing chit and the one guy is landing clean jabs, well then he won the round.

some fighters that won rounds with almost entirely jabs - a lot of winky fights and some wladmimir fights when he was very cautious after those KO losses.


now if one fighter only landed some jabs and the other guy landed clean power shots then that guy won the round

[_original_]

Context matters.

[TonyGe]

Jabs that land cleanly count just like any other punch.

[Citizen Koba]

clean effective punching - to me that means punches landing cleanly. power punches count more but if the other guy isnt landing chit and the one guy is landing clean jabs, well then he won the round.

some fighters that won rounds with almost entirely jabs - a lot of winky fights and some wladmimir fights when he was very cautious after those KO losses.


now if one fighter only landed some jabs and the other guy landed clean power shots then that guy won the round

I'd say the winner of a round should be the guy whose cumulative legal puches could be considered most effective. The type of punch is unimportant it's the overall effect that matters.... inevitably though there's huge room for subjectiveness even within those quite specific guidelines.

Compubox deciding to label non-jabs as 'power punches' has kinda created a false impression that such punches are intrinsically more valuable whereas there's nowhere in the boxing rules or scoring guidelines that suggests anything like that... A jab that appears to land with the same force as a cross or a hook and produce the same level of damage or effect should be weighed exactly the same as that cross or hook when evaluating the overall effect of punches for that round.

[YoungManRumble]

I'd say the winner of a round should be the guy whose cumulative legal puches could be considered most effective. The type of punch is unimportant it's the overall effect that matters.... inevitably though there's huge room for subjectiveness even within those quite specific guidelines.

Compubox deciding to label non-jabs as 'power punches' has kinda created a false impression that such punches are intrinsically more valuable whereas there's nowhere in the boxing rules or scoring guidelines that suggests anything like that... A jab that appears to land with the same force as a cross and produce the same level of damage or effect should be weighed exactly the same as that cross when evaluating the overall effect of punches for that round.

To me this is /thread complete.

No need to bump this for another 3 years.