is it outdated to have to land shots to win a fight?

[Madison Boxing]

im being serious cause im getting this impression after the aftermath of this fight and ive had it after other controversial fights. Is landing punches some secondary criteria for winning a fight now? Does it not count who landed more.

I hear bull**** about 'but so and so showed good defence' 'they were awkward' 'they made him miss'.

I feel like tearing my hair out at the ******ity of this. Who gives a **** if you dodge a few shots? If you dodge 9 shots but the 10th punch gets through and you havent thrown a damn thing in response, youve lost that exchange.

the name of the game is 'hit and not get hit', not 'dont hit and dont get hit'

I think this kind of ****** reasoning and emphasis on making someone miss is exacerbated further when a fighter dodges punches with a flashy defence, rolling with the punches making them miss obviously. Yeah cool, good reflexes bro but you could have achieved pretty much the same ****ing result by blocking the punch with your glove. Maybe that expends slightly more energy when the opponent misses completely (i better say that before the pugilists on here bash their keyboards saying im an idiot) but that shouldnt be seen as a scoring advantage in itself.

I think some of you try to be too clever for your own good and ive made this point before that 'casuals' seem to score fights and make better assessments of fights than the supposed resident nsb experts.

Obviously the anti golovkin brigade were never going to score the fight for ggg so thats not a shock but ive seen a lot of crap from many posters.

If someone outlands someone 10 out of 12 rounds and has them backing up all fight they win the fight. Theres no argument for canelo to have won, dont make out that one side is being unreasonable and unfair by suggesting its a robbery. You lot arent acting as the 'voice of reason' youre sounding like clowns. In the real world youd get laughed at if you voiced that opinion.

rant over!!!!

[muslimer12]

Agree 100%

[Diego Rodriguez]

An overwhelming majority (and I mean huge percentages not 51%) of people who saw that fight know Golovkin won. That includes the press who scored the fight, boxers and trainers who watched the fight and the fans who witnessed it. There isn't a controversy about who won the fight. The only real controversy is how the judges and specifically one judge could get it so wrong.

There are guys with no L's on their record who have more controversial fights than this.

[SeekDaGreat]

im being serious cause im getting this impression after the aftermath of this fight and ive had it after other controversial fights. Is landing punches some secondary criteria for winning a fight now? Does it not count who landed more.

I hear bull**** about 'but so and so showed good defence' 'they were awkward' 'they made him miss'.

I feel like tearing my hair out at the ******ity of this. Who gives a **** if you dodge a few shots? If you dodge 9 shots but the 10th punch gets through and you havent thrown a damn thing in response, youve lost that exchange.

the name of the game is 'hit and not get hit', not 'dont hit and dont get hit'

I think this kind of ****** reasoning and emphasis on making someone miss is exacerbated further when a fighter dodges punches with a flashy defence, rolling with the punches making them miss obviously. Yeah cool, good reflexes bro but you could have achieved pretty much the same ****ing result by blocking the punch with your glove. Maybe that expends slightly more energy when the opponent misses completely (i better say that before the pugilists on here bash their keyboards saying im an idiot) but that shouldnt be seen as a scoring advantage in itself.

An example was the pacquiao horn fight, pacquiao didnt look amazing but he landed twice the shots and in my eyes(and compubox's) he caught most of horns shots on the gloves but again, thats a legit loss apparantly.

I think some of you try to be too clever for your own good and ive made this point before that 'casuals' seem to score fights and make better assessments of fights than the supposed resident nsb experts.

Obviously the anti golovkin brigade were never going to score the fight for ggg so thats not a shock but ive seen a lot of crap from many posters.

If someone outlands someone 10 out of 12 rounds and has them backing up all fight they win the fight. Theres no argument for canelo to have won, dont make out that one side is being unreasonable and unfair by suggesting its a robbery. You lot arent acting as the 'voice of reason' youre sounding like clowns. In the real world youd get laughed at if you voiced that opinion.

rant over!!!!

What kind of punches are you landing!?!?! Because from what I saw Golovkin was just putter patterning away at Canelo tryna to rack up "points." This isn't the ****ing Olympics! Somewhere effective countering, slipping, and command of the ring has to be taken into consideration!

Just because you land more punches in a fight, doesn't mean those punches had the same impact on the fight as the other guys. This ****ing not even boxing 101, it's common ****ing sense 101!

The fact that Gennady is able to walk through every punch thrown to land 5 of his ****ty punches isn't the only criteria for scoring a boxing round! We all ****ing know this!

Kudos to Gennady for being the stronger man in the ring I suppose but he was outboxed in alot of spots. Anyone who has as an understanding for the actual sport of boxing factored this into their score card. That's why the ****ing fight was close and /or draw!

Period!

[satiev1]

Canelo has a 10 second flurry each round lands about 4-5 punches and then takes the whole round off but ggg lands double the amount and dictates the pace and cuts the ring off the whole fight.

[Redd Foxx]

I agree to an extent. Reminds me of the Peterson/Garcia fight when people say Peterson won. Why? Because he looked slick? Sure, he made Garcia miss a hell of a lot but he didn't do shyt himself.
I gave GG the nod because Canelo started to admire his own defense and acted like that won him the exchanges. Well, if one guy throws 5 punches and only lands 1, guess what, that's still 1 more punch than you landed in that exchange.

That said, I'd also offer the same criticism to those who thought GG "dominated". He missed a shy ton of punches and most that did land were not quality, clean punches. You have to land the punches.

I hate saying this but I'm disappointed by both fighters because I think they are both capable of more than what they showed. Hope they show it in the rematch.

[Red_Menace]

It's the same way boxing has always been. It's not just how many punches landed, it's who's landing the bigger punches, or causing the most damage. You have vague things like "ring generalship" which will be explained in different ways by different people. You have some people that score punches on the arms vs some that don't. You have people that favor head shots vs body shots and some people that consider them equally. Some people view a combination of two punches that land more favourably than two individual punches that land. You ask different people what "running" is, and they'll give you different answers. To some people any backwards movement is running, and to others it's usually back and forth movement along the ropes without stopping. A lot of times how all of these things are viewed will vary along cultural lines, so people in the Phillipines view things differently than people in the USA vs people in Cuba vs people in Mexico etc etc etc.

That's why the surest way to win is to KO someone. It's been that way, and it'll probably always be that way.

[satiev1]

It's the same way boxing has always been. It's not just how many punches landed, it's who's landing the bigger punches, or causing the most damage. You have vague things like "ring generalship" which will be explained in different ways by different people. You have some people that score punches on the arms vs some that don't. You have people that favor head shots vs body shots and some people that consider them equally. Some people view a combination of two punches that land more favourably than two individual punches that land. You ask different people what "running" is, and they'll give you different answers. To some people any backwards movement is running, and to others it's usually back and forth movement along the ropes without stopping. A lot of times how all of these things are viewed will vary along cultural lines, so people in the Phillipines view things differently than people in the USA vs people in Cuba vs people in Mexico etc etc etc.

That's why the surest way to win is to KO someone. It's been that way, and it'll probably always be that way.

GGG did more damage. Canelo's punches did no damage to ggg where everytime ggg landed his shots canelo took steps back to the ropes.

[Red_Menace]

GGG did more damage. Canelo's punches did no damage to ggg where everytime ggg landed his shots canelo took steps back to the ropes.

This is just as delusional as the people trying to argue that Canelo won easily.

[boliodogs]

I give the round to the boxer who landed more and better punches. A boxer could win the round landing fewer punches if his punches were enough harder and cleaner to make up for landing fewer. I don't score points for a good defense because it is it's own reward. A good defense means you get hit less so your good defense has already been rewarded. In basketball you get points for baskets scored. A good defense makes the other team score less baskets so that's how it gets rewarded. You don't get extra points for defense. As far as I am concerned you get points in boxing by landing punches. You don't get points only by making your opponent miss. You must hit him to get points.Making him miss keeps him from getting points but it doesn't earn you points the way I score fights. Ring generalship is another BS thing. Keep it simple. The guy who does the most damage wins the round. If ring generalship helps you land more and better punches then it has already been rewarded just like a good defense.