Comments Thread For: Ronnie Shields: Lara's Style is His Style - I Won't Change it For Critics!

[Dr.Cool]

He doesn't have to change his style, as long as the judge's keep giving his opponent's the rounds for outworking him - then that's fine.

Boxing used to be if the guy who moved backwards didn't score a knockdown - he lost the round. We need to go back to that style of judging; otherwise, the sport will remain marginal. Nobody cares about Lara outside of the internet nerd crowd on here.

He lost to Canelo - plain and simple.

That is simply not true at all. Willie Pep won a round without throwing a punch. The truth is if we went back to the old style of judging, Lara woulda won by at least 8-4 against Canelo. We get you do not like defensive fighters; that's cool, go watch the local Toughman contests. But just because you do not like something does not make history magically change just because you say so. Go watch some old school boxing. Watch some Sweet Pea. Either you are a complete idiot or a habitual liar. Maybe both. Either way, your post is 100% false. Good try though.

[john l]

I never said anything like that

the best should fight the best, that includes ALL styles

if they don't fight the best, they don't get paid

Canelo fought the FOUR best best JMW's consecutively..... he LITERALLY cleaned out his division..... then Cotto, Golovkin, etc..... nobody should ever question his heart

not sure what you mean there, but I certainly never suggested that fighters should avoid particular styles..... I have actually had a few words to say about a particular fighter who has been doing that for a few years now lmao

I showed posts above but guess I read it wrong because I could not agree more wth your last post. btw which fighter heve you had words about??

[aboutfkntime]

it was this post that u seemed to agree

no idea how you got the impression that I suggested, or would support, fighters avoiding opponents because of style

no idea where that came from

the posters who are advocating that the rules should be changed to score for aggression are actually suggesting that..... because it would limit/eliminate scoring for the boxer, therefore rendering them less-effective..... which is total rubbish

Ring Generalship and defence are - and always have been - an integral part of this sport..... I am suggesting that we leave it that way, resulting in fighters having to contend with ALL styles if they wish to consider themselves the best

I am saying the opposite of what you think I said

[john l]

just don't tell me its Floyd for not going up 6 div to fight ggg at 37or so when it started

[Eff Pandas]

but aggression should not be scoring criteria

Effective aggression is already scored so I don't know the crazy logically jump you'd need to go to to score aggression.

this is boxing, hitting without getting hit

That's catchy, but boxing is boxing. Boxing is whatever boxing wants itself to be & that's the way its been. Boxing used to be who could take the most damage & comeback to the chalk line inside of a minute iirc.

it sounds like you are describing a totally dfifferent sport

LMFAO wut!?!?! WE ALREADY score on effective aggression what difference does it make if you cross out the word effective? Same sport just a lower watermark to cross on aggression. The same guys who won yesterday would win tomorrow in 95%+ of fights & they might even be more entertaining & with more KO's because of that simple change.

you can see what you want in boxing every single week, just not in top-level fights..... what did you think of that club fight?

Didn't watch the video. And if you think that's what I'm suggesting you have no grasp on what I'm trying to say here. Very little changes if you cross out effective on the scoring criteria & all else stays the same under the boxing rules.

you are literally wanting to dumb-down/limit A-level boxers, which is completely unnecessary and would damage the sport

That's like saying ring generalship as a scoring criteria is trying to smarten up the face first brawlers.

You are gonna fight how you fight still largely. But how fights are scored will change a couple degrees so that all things being equal the guy pushing the fight wins those rounds.

How different does that really make Erislandy or Floyd or Canelo fight? I don't think they change at all. They all were/are VERY effective doing what they do thus wouldn't be at much risk at losing rounds since they win rounds fighting their way so clearly.

I don't think I have ever disagreed with anyone more

we can agree to disagree

peace

Like I said I don't think you are even grasping what I'm saying cuz scratching off effective in the rulebook isn't having as serious changes to the sport as making every top ten guy fight look like a toughman semifinals fight.

[aboutfkntime]

it seems were on same page here

aah all good

[john l]

[QUOTE=aboutfkntime;18148397]no idea how you got the impression that I suggested, or would support, fighters avoiding opponents because of style

no idea where that came from

the posters who are advocating that the rules should be changed to score for aggression are actually suggesting that..... because it would limit/eliminate scoring for the boxer, therefore rendering them less-effective..... which is total rubbish

Ring Generalship and defence are - and always have been - an integral part of this sport..... I am suggesting that we leave it that way, resulting in fighters having to contend with ALL styles if they wish to consider themselves the best

I am saying the opposite of what you think I said[/QUOTE yea and I agree it was just that one post but you made your point well and like I said spot on

[john l]

Effective aggression is already scored so I don't know the crazy logically jump you'd need to go to to score aggression.



That's catchy, but boxing is boxing. Boxing is whatever boxing wants itself to be & that's the way its been. Boxing used to be who could take the most damage & comeback to the chalk line inside of a minute iirc.



LMFAO wut!?!?! WE ALREADY score on effective aggression what difference does it make if you cross out the word effective? Same sport just a lower watermark to cross on aggression. The same guys who won yesterday would win tomorrow in 95%+ of fights & they might even be more entertaining & with more KO's because of that simple change.



Didn't watch the video. And if you think that's what I'm suggesting you have no grasp on what I'm trying to say here. Very little changes if you cross out effective on the scoring criteria & all else stays the same under the boxing rules.



That's like saying ring generalship as a scoring criteria is trying to smarten up the face first brawlers.

You are gonna fight how you fight still largely. But how fights are scored will change a couple degrees so that all things being equal the guy pushing the fight wins those rounds.

How different does that really make Erislandy or Floyd or Canelo fight? I don't think they change at all. They all were/are VERY effective doing what they do thus wouldn't be at much risk at losing rounds since they win rounds fighting their way so clearly.



Like I said I don't think you are even grasping what I'm saying cuz scratching off effective in the rulebook isn't having as serious changes to the sport as making every top ten guy fight look like a toughman semifinals fight.

takin out that one word IS everthing but the other guy on here has said about best poss but we can also just agree to disagree

[john l]

That is simply not true at all. Willie Pep won a round without throwing a punch. The truth is if we went back to the old style of judging, Lara woulda won by at least 8-4 against Canelo. We get you do not like defensive fighters; that's cool, go watch the local Toughman contests. But just because you do not like something does not make history magically change just because you say so. Go watch some old school boxing. Watch some Sweet Pea. Either you are a complete idiot or a habitual liar. Maybe both. Either way, your post is 100% false. Good try though.

know how big a nerd I am I dream of sweet pea vs Mayweather lol

[aboutfkntime]

Effective aggression is already scored so I don't know the crazy logically jump you'd need to go to to score aggression.



That's catchy, but boxing is boxing. Boxing is whatever boxing wants itself to be & that's the way its been. Boxing used to be who could take the most damage & comeback to the chalk line inside of a minute iirc.



LMFAO wut!?!?! WE ALREADY score on effective aggression what difference does it make if you cross out the word effective? Same sport just a lower watermark to cross on aggression. The same guys who won yesterday would win tomorrow in 95%+ of fights & they might even be more entertaining & with more KO's because of that simple change.



Didn't watch the video. And if you think that's what I'm suggesting you have no grasp on what I'm trying to say here. Very little changes if you cross out effective on the scoring criteria & all else stays the same under the boxing rules.



That's like saying ring generalship as a scoring criteria is trying to smarten up the face first brawlers.

You are gonna fight how you fight still largely. But how fights are scored will change a couple degrees so that all things being equal the guy pushing the fight wins those rounds.

How different does that really make Erislandy or Floyd or Canelo fight? I don't think they change at all. They all were/are VERY effective doing what they do thus wouldn't be at much risk at losing rounds since they win rounds fighting their way so clearly.



Like I said I don't think you are even grasping what I'm saying cuz scratching off effective in the rulebook isn't having as serious changes to the sport as making every top ten guy fight look like a toughman semifinals fight.

are you serious ?

you think that in basketball a shooter should get a point simply for putting up a shot...... regardless as to whether that shot was "effective"???

that sounds like a completely different sport man

a sport where you get points for trying

like getting a participation award in junior high

you want to score for the " tryer "..... or for the " aggressor "..... regardless as to whether he happens to be a limited puncher, just because he is trying really hard.....

you really can't see the difference ?

that is one tiny little step away from ranking Lemieux an ATG, and Mayweather as a C-class runner

again..... you can see everything you want to see in lower level club fights, without completely ********izing the sport.....

if you were going forward, and you were not effective..... then you just got outboxed..... and long may it remain that way

John L Sullivan admitted that he got beat