"Finessing" your way through the fight

[cork]

I see what you're saying and I agree with it.

I'd like to bring up Hagler Vs. Leonard as an example of why Jacobs clearly didn't deserve a win, you look at Leonard how he fought off the backfoot, Leonard was flashy and so active, Leonard often always outworked his opponents with throwing in barrages huge numbers and he made his opponents swing wildly and miss. Leonard is a true showman who can really put his stamp on fighting on the backfoot, Jacobs had none of what Leonard had.

That is what saw Leonard deserve a win over Hagler, albeit some dispute the result I don't.

When you're eating shots whilst on the backfoot and not landing the crisper, flashier shots then what gives you the right to say you deserved to be the victor?

I scored the fight whilst I agree it was competitive and a good fight to watch I don't agree with the judges having it as close as they did, in fact, I think Golovkin clearly won this, just imagine If It was Floyd Mayweather doing this to someone a lot of people would say this is a routine win, but because it is Golovkin he doesn't get the same treatment.

Im not sure if your a ggg fanatic but im glad im not the only one who thought ggg handily won. I scores it 8-4 ggg and i was being generous to Jacobs. Ggg felt like he was in control the whole fight.

Im not sure how people saw ggg was flustered. He didnt have any wild swings and misses or looked flustered. He just has a different game plan against Jacobs then he normally does because he respected his power. This was almost lemieux all over again where ggg got stiff jabs through only difference was that Jacobs had a better gameplan so he moved a lot. I also felt like a lot of Jacobs punches were ineffective and this was afrer watching it 4 times.

[MDPopescu]

My bad then, I know there were others that had a similar feeling to what I said.... but anyway I scored it for Jacobs but most of the evidence points to a victory for Golovkin.

I should add that the impression Jacobs left me was augmented by the fact that he also fought cancer and I know how such a horrible fight may affect one's life for good...

[Porter's Dad]

Let's look at Hearns for example. He didn't come out try and use his reach and box Hagler. He slugged it out with him and paid the price. Granted, Hearns is a legend, looked at favorably by boxing fans and that fight is a classic that will be remembered even after we die.

But, would the boxing fanbase embrace a fighter today that went out like Hearns? Bradley went all out against Provodnikov and got booed after the decision. Paul Williams went hard after Sergio and his treat was a meme and a several pages of a similar "Broner be like Thread". Not to mention what a devastating loss would do for your potential earnings down the road.

Ultimately, a fighter needs to do what gives him the best chance to win and continue to make money in this sport. There's a negotiation between fighter and fan. A tug of war battle. "How much action am I willing to give you while not hurting myself in the long run?"

I was talking about the fight with my friend, who was frustrated with Jacobs for making the fight cagey. But I said I don't blame Danny for doing what he had to do - to engage fully with Golovkin would probably have got him knocked out. Danny's gameplan and aversion to risk-taking saved him from being KO'd or at the least a couple more KD's.

And whilst he ran and clinched, it wasn't as egregious as some other examples over the last few years.

But the broader point I am making is - a fighter can employ that particular style but we have to see it for what it is - a risk-averse strategy, and I really don't think a fighter should be rewarded for doing that if their own offence is muted by it. If you are not willing to take risks, it should be seen as such. This is the hurt business, not the safety business. Golovkin was coming forward, he pressed, he jabbed, he wasn't getting hit, he got the KD. He was the dominant force over most rounds.

So whilst Danny's performance was commendable, "finessing" his way through it was not enough, and it never felt enough.

[Sincingship]

Do people who watch it through and score multiple times do so with no audio?

[M Bison]

Im not sure if your a ggg fanatic but im glad im not the only one who thought ggg handily won. I scores it 8-4 ggg and i was being generous to Jacobs. Ggg felt like he was in control the whole fight.

Im not sure how people saw ggg was flustered. He didnt have any wild swings and misses or looked flustered. He just has a different game plan against Jacobs then he normally does because he respected his power. This was almost lemieux all over again where ggg got stiff jabs through only difference was that Jacobs had a better gameplan so he moved a lot. I also felt like a lot of Jacobs punches were ineffective and this was afrer watching it 4 times.

I'm definitely a fan of GGG, but I can score fairly, I rewatched the fight several times and I was paying close attention to what was landing.

I just don't see how Jacobs gets award the first 3 rounds and some people gave him 11 and 12, for me that is impossible.
I also scored the Badou Jack Vs. DeGale fight in favour of Jack, I thought Jack bossed DeGale and I don't particularly like Mayweather fighters but to me that fight I couldn't even defend DeGale.

Maybe you could argue he takes one round out of 1 to 5 but only 1.