Anything other than 8 rounds to 4 for Jacobs vs. Triple G is a TRAVESTY!

[BIG GUNZ]

Honestly, & this is coming from a guy that has GGG in his top 5 favorite fighters. I agree with the OP that Golovkin should have lost. I watched the fight twice & had him losing both times. 8 rounds to 4 is pretty accurate or 7 rounds to 5 at best for Jacobs. There were way too many rounds where Golovkin hardly even did anything. I'm still predicting Golovkin to beat Canelo though but the fight is very even at this point.

[Mr Objecitivity]

What criteria are you using to judge the fight? If we go by the main criteria, which is who landed the more cleaner and effective punches, then GGG did better in that department. Thus, he won the fight. Those other factors you've mentioned are either irrelevant (Jacobs keeping his composure) or are extremely vague / ambiguous (Jacobs befuddling GGG or 'outboxing' him). If there aren't any knockouts / knockdowns or lopsided rounds, then the next main criteria is clean and effective punches landed. The boxer who lands the more of those punches wins. Thus, those arbitrary and subjective criteria such as 'befuddling' and 'outboxing' become irrelevant.

GGG is a deserved winner. There was no robbery!

[Mammoth]

How did you guys score rounds 3, 7 and 8?

[Mammoth]

As it was, GGG was the clear agressor and had Jacobs on the backfoot and on the defensive.

Defensive fighters always lose then or.....?

[Vlad_]

Defensive fighters always lose then or.....?

I love how you quote a third of my post, and then add your twist. When did I say always?
No, not when they throw a lot of counters. The problem is Jacobs didn't counter a lot. That, and many of his shots were hitting glove/elbow...
He gave a good fight, but he won 5 rounds at most.

[Sidney Powell]

GGG 12-0 + KD, no debate

Jacobs got crucified

[Gate keeper]

What criteria are you using to judge the fight? If we go by the main criteria, which is who landed the more cleaner and effective punches, then GGG did better in that department. Thus, he won the fight. Those other factors you've mentioned are either irrelevant (Jacobs keeping his composure) or are extremely vague / ambiguous (Jacobs befuddling GGG or 'outboxing' him). If there aren't any knockouts / knockdowns or lopsided rounds, then the next main criteria is clean and effective punches landed. The boxer who lands the more of those punches wins. Thus, those arbitrary and subjective criteria such as 'befuddling' and 'outboxing' become irrelevant.

GGG is a deserved winner. There was no robbery!

Exactly...Jacobs landed a lot of loud shots to GGG gloves and shoulders but just because they're loud doesn't mean they count. GGG on the other hand landed a lot of quiet but effective jabs, especially in the early rounds, which is why Jacobs face was swelling by the 5th. How could that be for someone supposedly getting outboxed? I watched the fight twice and had 115 - 112 GGG just like the judges. I dare anyone show or point out all these supposed rounds where Jacobs outlanded GGG to the body and face, not arms and gloves.

[Mammoth]

GGG 12-0 + KD, no debate

Jacobs got crucified

Hahahaha........

[Mr Objecitivity]

Exactly...Jacobs landed a lot of loud shots to GGG gloves and shoulders but just because they're loud doesn't mean they count. GGG on the other hand landed a lot of quiet but effective jabs, especially in the early rounds, which is why Jacobs face was swelling by the 5th. How could that be for someone supposedly getting outboxed? I watched the fight twice and had 115 - 112 GGG just like the judges. I dare anyone show or point out all these supposed rounds where Jacobs outlanded GGG to the body and face, not arms and gloves.

Exactly! Those individuals are coming up with new criteria to judge a fight which aren't even part of the scoring system. Like, how the hell does keeping your composure win you a boxing match or how the hell does 'confusing' your opponent win you a boxing match when you are still taking more effective punches than vice versa? Makes no sense!

If anything, Daniel Jacobs was confusing himself with all the extra and unnecessary things he was doing. What does it even mean to 'outbox' an opponent? How do we define 'outboxing' someone? If we're going to use irrelevant criteria to score a bout, we might as well judge a boxing bout by who has the flashiest or sexiest looking movement in the ring (a new, invented criteria which I just invented right now).

[daggum]

Honestly, & this is coming from a guy that has GGG in his top 5 favorite fighters. I agree with the OP that Golovkin should have lost. I watched the fight twice & had him losing both times. 8 rounds to 4 is pretty accurate or 7 rounds to 5 at best for Jacobs. There were way too many rounds where Golovkin hardly even did anything. I'm still predicting Golovkin to beat Canelo though but the fight is very even at this point.

what does this even mean he hardly did anything??? once again you are judging him by some sort of fantasy criteria based on past fights instead of judging him against jacobs the man he was fighting. he outlanded him in most of the rounds and aside from a solid shot or 2 from jacobs every round he landed the cleaner flusher punches. he did more than jacobs. thats how you judge boxing