What is a "close fight" are they always controversial?

[soul_survivor]

I had jacobs 114-113 watching it live with no sound. It's the first fight i ever watched without commentary.

I have to watch it again, maybe I'll score it differently the 2nd time.

Jacobs made golovkin fight at his pace for most of the fight and that's why I feel he won the close rounds.

Pacquiao vs marquez 1 and 2
Mosley vs de la hoya 1
Mayweather vs Castillo 1
Hopkins vs taylor 1

Examples of close fights, all had rematches.

Jacobs vs golovkin 2 needs to happen sooner than later

What does that mean?

GGG consistently was more active and landed more. Not only do the punch stats tell you that but also your own eyes, in particular Jacobs head snapping back from multiple jabs a round while Jacobs had small flurries in 4 or 5 rounds which largely landed on arms, gloves and shoulders.

So I'm curious, what does that all mean to you?

[hugh grant]

What does that mean?

GGG consistently was more active and landed more. Not only do the punch stats tell you that but also your own eyes, in particular Jacobs head snapping back from multiple jabs a round while Jacobs had small flurries in 4 or 5 rounds which largely landed on arms, gloves and shoulders.

So I'm curious, what does that all mean to you?

I think its just words for effect, words he doiesnt mean.
It wass GGG who controlled pace, cutting rin g off. No wonder Jacobs tired and slumped over ropes at end.
It was competitive but not controversial. If so called boxing fanbs are really struggling to score this fight, decisions should be abolished because judging a fight fairly is clearkly too difficult.
To win fight you have to ko your opponent or first one who gets exhauystef they can't continue

[-PBP-]

Me personally, I score it myself and give a window of reasonable scores. If the judges are in that range I live with the decision. If they are well out of that range, I will scream robbery.

In both examples you named, the scores were within my window so I respect the judges decision,

[bluebeam]

What does that mean?

GGG consistently was more active and landed more. Not only do the punch stats tell you that but also your own eyes, in particular Jacobs head snapping back from multiple jabs a round while Jacobs had small flurries in 4 or 5 rounds which largely landed on arms, gloves and shoulders.

So I'm curious, what does that all mean to you?

The fight was fought at jacobs pace, not Golovkin's pace.

If golovkin had his way, it would have been pressure, pressure, and more pressure. But it wasn't, it was nothing but jabbing coming from golovkin and that's because he wasn't allowed to fight at his pressure pace.

Punch stats show that jacobs landed more power punches than golovkin, so what did your eyes really show you? That golovkin won the jabbing contest? Cause that's about it.

I had it 7 to 5 for jacobs, based on your comment you had it 7 to 5 for golovkin. No big deal

So what are you trying to debate bro? I said it was a close fight and gave examples of other close fights that were decided by 1 round

[bluebeam]

I think its just words for effect, words he doiesnt mean.
It wass GGG who controlled pace, cutting rin g off. No wonder Jacobs tired and slumped over ropes at end.
It was competitive but not controversial. If so called boxing fanbs are really struggling to score this fight, decisions should be abolished because judging a fight fairly is clearkly too difficult.
To win fight you have to ko your opponent or first one who gets exhauystef they can't continue

Golovkin definitely didn't control the pace. This fight was the total opposite of every golovkin fight. There was no relentless pressure coming from ggg. And he got outlanded in the power punch stats. Which is a stat you all loved until it was a fighter that you all loved that got out landed. Now the jab stat is the important stat huh?


it was a close fight like I said and I gave examples of other fights that were close and similar. No robbery, but definitely warrants a rematch