is it outdated to have to land shots to win a fight?

[New England]

the only criteria that matters in a boxing match is the effectiveness of the punches. the rest are the means to an end. you are a ring general to limit the opponent's effectiveness, and to maximize your own. you defense is a means by which you limit your opponent's effectiveness. your own aggression is only effective if you land more effective punches.


so just ask yourself: who was the more effective puncher in that round? really, you ask: Who did more damage?

that is the basis of scoring a boxing match. if all things are truly equal and both guys were equally effective in the amount of damage they dealt then you can look to other scoring criteria. did one guy make the other miss more? did one guy make the fight while the other guy backpedaled or ended up on the ropes. did one guy have control of where the exchanges took place? but again, that's just a means to an end, and only something you consider outside of its affect on the damage dealt if the damage dealt is completely equal!


so if you argue that they landed equally and dealt equal damage in the round you move to other scoring criteria. and at that stage you have to give rounds to golovkin because he was cutting off the ring effectively and had canelo on the ropes. no, that doesn't mean that the guy coming forward always wins, it means that if he's able to do it effectively he will ahve his man on the ropes and will be making the ring smaller, not just following a guy around and giving him an out.

[mlac]

yes, moving and being slick is more important. landing punches is only for hipsters.

[hugh grant]

I'd estimate there's only a couple of handful of people on earth who genuinely think nelo won.
There's nothing wrong with being slick, elusive and all that jazz. It may extend your career and importantly for nelo it stopped him from being koed. But you have to punch for 12 rounds, 3 minute every rounds.

[Mr Objecitivity]

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!!!!

I 100% agree with this sentiment and input. Glad to see that there are others out there that share the exact same views as me in relation to the topic of judging a boxing bout. Kudos!

[dranoel]

Boxing is a sport scored solely according to total connecting blows with no award for "injury". Many skilled professional boxers have had rewarding careers without inflicting injury on opponents by accumulating scoring blows and avoiding punches winning rounds scored 10-9 by the 10-point must system.

Canelo might of won a fight with the loaded slaps but I don't agree with that either, because his body language spoke tons about Gennady's power.

Canelo didn't win a boxing match for sure.

[Mr Objecitivity]

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!

The primary criteria before any of the other criteria are used is 'EFFECTIVE PUNCHES' LANDED. It doesn't matter what those punches were, whether counter punches, mexican punches, sexy punches or flashy punches, but as long as they are legal punches and effective, then that's what's relevant.

As far as I'm concerned, Golovkin landed MORE effective punches more frequently than Canelo Alvarez did. Canelo Alvarez would land one or two 'power punches' every few minutes in which Golovkin manages to walk forward a second after taking those punches and Canelo Alvarez doesn't do anything offensively for the next minute or so in which Golovkin uses that time to land multiple jabs which are far more effective than the one or two Canelo Alvarez power punches because those jabs force Canelo Alvarez backwards, force him to give up ground, force him to give surrender the center of the ring, snap his head backwards and so forth so on.

In other words, Golovkin's jabs alone are more effective than Canelo Alvarez's power punches and he landed FAR more of them than the number of 'power punches' Canelo Alvarez landed.

[Mr Objecitivity]

the only criteria that matters in a boxing match is the effectiveness of the punches. the rest are the means to an end. you are a ring general to limit the opponent's effectiveness, and to maximize your own. you defense is a means by which you limit your opponent's effectiveness. your own aggression is only effective if you land more effective punches.


so just ask yourself: who was the more effective puncher in that round? really, you ask: Who did more damage?

that is the basis of scoring a boxing match. if all things are truly equal and both guys were equally effective in the amount of damage they dealt then you can look to other scoring criteria. did one guy make the other miss more? did one guy make the fight while the other guy backpedaled or ended up on the ropes. did one guy have control of where the exchanges took place? but again, that's just a means to an end, and only something you consider outside of its affect on the damage dealt if the damage dealt is completely equal!


so if you argue that they landed equally and dealt equal damage in the round you move to other scoring criteria. and at that stage you have to give rounds to golovkin because he was cutting off the ring effectively and had canelo on the ropes. no, that doesn't mean that the guy coming forward always wins, it means that if he's able to do it effectively he will ahve his man on the ropes and will be making the ring smaller, not just following a guy around and giving him an out.

This pretty much. Couldn't agree more.

[Red_Menace]

Boxing is a sport scored solely according to total connecting blows with no award for "injury". Many skilled professional boxers have had rewarding careers without inflicting injury on opponents by accumulating scoring blows and avoiding punches winning rounds scored 10-9 by the 10-point must system.

Canelo might of won a fight with the loaded slaps but I don't agree with that either, because his body language spoke tons about Gennady's power.

Canelo didn't win a boxing match for sure.

I guarantee that if you had a fight where one guy dominated 2:30 of every round, just accumulating punches landed like Paulie Malignaggi, but got wobbled by a few hard shots at the end of every round, you'd have quite a few people who'd give the rounds to the other fighter.

[dranoel]

I guarantee that if you had a fight where one guy dominated 2:30 of every round, just accumulating punches landed like Paulie Malignaggi, but got wobbled by a few hard shots at the end of every round, you'd have quite a few people who'd give the rounds to the other fighter.

Well imo the scoring thing is primary. A fighter taking a beating results in things like a k.o, tko and they're not really effective with the scoring anyway. There's a lot of dynamics involved in boxing for sure. But at the end of the day, the fighter with two pitty pat punches surviving a 12 round contest should be awarded their decision over a fighter who put most chips into trying to score for the other two ways of winning a fight when throwing less. If Canelo threw his pitty pat punches more than Golovkin, I wouldn't have a problem with him getting the decision. Why he didn't think of scoring is beyond me?

[Red_Menace]

Well imo the scoring thing is primary. A fighter taking a beating results in things like a k.o, tko and they're not really effective with the scoring anyway. There's a lot of dynamics involved in boxing for sure. But at the end of the day, the fighter with two pitty pat punches surviving a 12 round contest should be awarded their decision over a fighter who put most chips into trying to score for the other two ways of winning a fight when throwing less.

This is the difference between modern Olympic/amateur boxing and the pros. In the amateurs you just have to land and score. In the pros, it has never been like that. Watch a lot of fight broadcasts and you'll see one big shots stealing rounds, especially if they happen late. That's why fighters with minimal power rarely last in the pro game unless they're very slick and can make their opponents miss.

There will never be a perfect way to score a fight, because there's no objective ways to measure volume vs power, and different people have different standards as to what they consider a clean shot.