Jacobs beat triple L

[Bigg Rigg]

The knockdown makes it almost impossible for Jacobs to have won that fight. He made it close at but still didn't win imo.

[McNulty]

How come they didn't make much of that all this crying by triple L is getting ridiculous just man up and be happy u didn't get a L as a decision.so Jacobs should be crying the same way triple L is?

Absolutely! I had both fights 116-112. Jacobs won, hands down.

[Mr Objecitivity]

No it's not, but which one do you think was p1ssing more blood? That's the damage that goes unnoticed too often.

It's COMPLETELY speculative to claim either one was more damaged than the other. Both had different types of damage. However, based on other methods of determining punch effectiveness, it was Golovkin who landed the more effective punches.

I could careless about who was pissing more blood. These are not visual cues, unless it happens at some point during the fight when judging the fighters.

[Metho_4u]

It's COMPLETELY speculative to claim either one was more damaged than the other. Both had different types of damage. However, based on other methods of determining punch effectiveness, it was Golovkin who landed the more effective punches.

I could careless about who was pissing more blood. These are not visual cues, unless it happens at some point during the fight when judging the fighters.

You are missing the point, which is the fact that when people were saying they felt Jacobs won it was "look at his face doe" the n it was Ward's face...NOW golovkin is the one beat up, but it doesn't matter to them and is unimportant

[Metho_4u]

The knockdown makes it almost impossible for Jacobs to have won that fight. He made it close at but still didn't win imo.

I have Jacobs up 2 rds minus 1 point for the kd 114-113 for Danny.

[Mr Objecitivity]

You are missing the point, which is the fact that when people were saying they felt Jacobs won it was "look at his face doe" the n it was Ward's face...NOW golovkin is the one beat up, but it doesn't matter to them and is unimportant

Actually, it is you who is missing the point. I've already stated that 'visible damage' is 1 out of at least 4 other methods to determine 'punch effectiveness'.

Comparing Golovkin vs Daniel Jacobs to Golovkin vs Canelo Alvarez in terms of Golovkin's and his opponent's punch effectiveness isn't mutually analogous.

Here is the thing: Golovkin NOT ONLY visibly damaged Daniel Jacob's face, but ALSO dropped him which Daniel Jacobs couldn't do to Golovkin, ALSO stunned him multiple times which Daniel Jacobs couldn't do to Golovkin, ALSO snapped his head back more often than vice versa and ALSO had him backing his whole body up due to his punches more often than vice versa. So there isn't a single criteria in the 'punch effectiveness' department in which he did better than Golovkin. None whatsoever!

So even if for argument's sake I accept that Canelo Alvarez inflicted more visible damage to Golovkin's body than vice versa (which I don't agree with by the way), Golovkin still snapped Canelo Alvarez's head back more frequently, Golovkin still had Canelo Alvarez backing up his whole body more frequently due to his punches and Golovkin still landed more total effective punches than Canelo Alvarez. So unlike Daniel Jacobs against Golovkin where there wasn't a single area where he was better in the 'punch effectiveness' department, Golovkin was better than Canelo Alvarez in multiple of those departments.

Anyway, I don't even agree that Canelo Alvarez inflicted greater damage on Golovkin than vice versa. At best, it's about equal. Golovkin suffered nearly no visible damage after his fight against Jacobs whereas Canelo Alvarez actually did have multiple marks in his face, even though he also marked up Golovkin's face too. However, he was still outlanded in the 'punch effectiveness' department.

So overall, the comparisons are faulty because Golovkin didn't just beat Daniel Jacobs ONLY because of Jacob's face being visibly damaged, but also because of other factors which determine 'punch effectiveness' such as stunning him, dropping him, snapping his head back more frequently and etc. Visible damage is ONLY one out of many other methods to determine 'punch effectiveness'.

[Metho_4u]

Actually, it is you who is missing the point. I've already stated that 'visible damage' is 1 out of at least 4 other methods to determine 'punch effectiveness'.

Comparing Golovkin vs Daniel Jacobs to Golovkin vs Canelo Alvarez in terms of Golovkin's and his opponent's punch effectiveness isn't mutually analogous.

Here is the thing: Golovkin NOT ONLY visibly damaged Daniel Jacob's face, but ALSO dropped him which Daniel Jacobs couldn't do to Golovkin, ALSO stunned him multiple times which Daniel Jacobs couldn't do to Golovkin, ALSO snapped his head back more often than vice versa and ALSO had him backing his whole body up due to his punches more often than vice versa. So there isn't a single criteria in the 'punch effectiveness' department in which he did better than Golovkin. None whatsoever!

So even if for argument's sake I accept that Canelo Alvarez inflicted more visible damage to Golovkin's body than vice versa (which I don't agree with by the way), Golovkin still snapped Canelo Alvarez's head back more frequently, Golovkin still had Canelo Alvarez backing up his whole body more frequently due to his punches and Golovkin still landed more total effective punches than Canelo Alvarez. So unlike Daniel Jacobs against Golovkin where there wasn't a single area where he was better in the 'punch effectiveness' department, Golovkin was better than Canelo Alvarez in multiple of those departments.

Anyway, I don't even agree that Canelo Alvarez inflicted greater damage on Golovkin than vice versa. At best, it's about equal. Golovkin suffered nearly no visible damage after his fight against Jacobs whereas Canelo Alvarez actually did have multiple marks in his face, even though he also marked up Golovkin's face too. However, he was still outlanded in the 'punch effectiveness' department.

So overall, the comparisons are faulty because Golovkin didn't just beat Daniel Jacobs ONLY because of Jacob's face being visibly damaged, but also because of other factors which determine 'punch effectiveness' such as stunning him, dropping him, snapping his head back more frequently and etc. Visible damage is ONLY one out of many other methods to determine 'punch effectiveness'.

Seriously, if you want to believe this


Is worse than this [IMG]http://www.************.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/ggg8-1.jpg[/IMG]

Guess it's not an allowed site, but it's at boxin_news24


There's that one too
That's fine, but the punches landed was way off, as Robbie has a thread already showing missed punches counted in a pathetic way... you and I know compubox is not a reliable system

[Chollo Vista]

Actually, it is you who is missing the point. I've already stated that 'visible damage' is 1 out of at least 4 other methods to determine 'punch effectiveness'.

Comparing Golovkin vs Daniel Jacobs to Golovkin vs Canelo Alvarez in terms of Golovkin's and his opponent's punch effectiveness isn't mutually analogous.

Here is the thing: Golovkin NOT ONLY visibly damaged Daniel Jacob's face, but ALSO dropped him which Daniel Jacobs couldn't do to Golovkin, ALSO stunned him multiple times which Daniel Jacobs couldn't do to Golovkin, ALSO snapped his head back more often than vice versa and ALSO had him backing his whole body up due to his punches more often than vice versa. So there isn't a single criteria in the 'punch effectiveness' department in which he did better than Golovkin. None whatsoever!

So even if for argument's sake I accept that Canelo Alvarez inflicted more visible damage to Golovkin's body than vice versa (which I don't agree with by the way), Golovkin still snapped Canelo Alvarez's head back more frequently, Golovkin still had Canelo Alvarez backing up his whole body more frequently due to his punches and Golovkin still landed more total effective punches than Canelo Alvarez. So unlike Daniel Jacobs against Golovkin where there wasn't a single area where he was better in the 'punch effectiveness' department, Golovkin was better than Canelo Alvarez in multiple of those departments.

Anyway, I don't even agree that Canelo Alvarez inflicted greater damage on Golovkin than vice versa. At best, it's about equal. Golovkin suffered nearly no visible damage after his fight against Jacobs whereas Canelo Alvarez actually did have multiple marks in his face, even though he also marked up Golovkin's face too. However, he was still outlanded in the 'punch effectiveness' department.

So overall, the comparisons are faulty because Golovkin didn't just beat Daniel Jacobs ONLY because of Jacob's face being visibly damaged, but also because of other factors which determine 'punch effectiveness' such as stunning him, dropping him, snapping his head back more frequently and etc. Visible damage is ONLY one out of many other methods to determine 'punch effectiveness'.

Did you ever see Algeri vs Providnikov?

This guy was knocked down, not once, but SEVERAL times....AND {drumroll} look at his face



No way he won right

[mathed]

How come they didn't make much of that all this crying by triple L is getting ridiculous just man up and be happy u didn't get a L as a decision.so Jacobs should be crying the same way triple L is?

[IMG]https://media.*****.com/media/ZEVc9uplCUJFu/*****.gif[/IMG]

[Ray*]

Nah he didn't, it was also a close fight but if i remember i had it by two points to GGG.