Why do some boxers get praised for winning by decision whilst others get discredited?

[Combat Talk Radio]

Some very good examples and I agree for the most part. Although some of them were somewhat inaccurate.

In Vasyl Lomachenko's case against Rigondeaux and Floyd Mayweather Jr's case against Marquez. Lomachenko actually weighed within the correct, agreed contractual weight. Whilst Floyd Mayweather Jr weighed above the agreed contractual weight. So that's not the best example. Lomachenko also didn't weigh above what was accepted in the rehydration clause as the rehydration weight limit. That's why Lomachenko's victory against Rigondeaux is more impressive than Floyd Mayweather Jr's victory against Juan Manuel Marquez.

Also, Golovkin out-jabbed Daniel Jacobs whilst also forcing him to move backwards through their entire bout. Golovkin also inflicted much greater visible damage upon Jacob's face via the use of his jab. All while taking into consideration Jacobs was the heavier boxer compared to Golovkin. On the other hand, Mayweather was the naturally bigger sized boxer compared to Manny Pacquiao and didn't inflict anywhere near the damage on Pacquiao as Golovkin inflicted upon Jacobs. This is why Golovkin's performance against Jacobs is justifiably more impressive than Mayweather's performance against Pacquiao.

Now you're doing what you accuse others of doing.

Mayweather/Marquez vs. Loma/Rigo: the bottom line is, both were above weight of their opponents, clearly outsized their opponents. That's factually accurate, regardless of weight class. So either both are weight bullies, or neither are weight bullies, period.

Mayweather/Pacquiao vs. Golovkin/Jacobs: As I said before in my other thread, people need to make up their mind about jabs. A jab is a jab. There is NO scoring criteria for "punch force" - it's irrelevant. You land or you don't. Thus, if Golovkin neutralized Jacobs with an effective jab, Mayweather neutralized Manny with an effective jab. Period.

[Mr Objecitivity]

My point has been the same since day one. Every boxer get criticized for different reasons. Boxing fans don't go by "standards", they support who they want to support. Pick another topic, this one has been beat to death and you've yet to make ONE coherent point.

this one has been beat to death and you've yet to make ONE coherent point.

And what coherent point have you made?

Every boxer get criticized for different reasons. Boxing fans don't go by "standards", they support who they want to support.

Right! So what you're essentially claiming is that boxing fans don't follow the rules of logic and for some, 1+1 =5 and for others, 1 + 1 = 10? Gotcha!

And that's totally fine with me. Except, be prepared and don't be surprised if someone holds you to your own standard and criticizes your favorite boxers (in this case, Andre Ward) using the same standard that you use to criticize other boxers (in this case, Alexander Povetkin and Artur Beterbiev).

And also be prepared and don't be surprised if such 'boxing fans' are called 'fan boys / 'fan girls' because then, it is totally justifiable BY DEFINITION. There is a huge difference in being a boxing fan and being a fan of a boxer. Compared to being a boxing fan boy or fan girl.

A fan boy / fan girl praises everything their favorite boxer does, without ever criticizing that particular boxer, even though those same fan boys would criticize other boxers for performing a specific action that their own favorite boxer performs and not criticize their favorite boxer for doing the same thing.

On the other hand, a normal fan can enjoy a particular boxer but still remain objective whilst sticking to a single standard like myself.

So you've pretty much committed a false dilemma fallacy with your restricted definition of what it means to be a boxing fan.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Now you're doing what you accuse others of doing.

Mayweather/Marquez vs. Loma/Rigo: the bottom line is, both were above weight of their opponents, clearly outsized their opponents. That's factually accurate, regardless of weight class. So either both are weight bullies, or neither are weight bullies, period.

Mayweather/Pacquiao vs. Golovkin/Jacobs: As I said before in my other thread, people need to make up their mind about jabs. A jab is a jab. There is NO scoring criteria for "punch force" - it's irrelevant. You land or you don't. Thus, if Golovkin neutralized Jacobs with an effective jab, Mayweather neutralized Manny with an effective jab. Period.

I'm not claiming Mayweather is a 'weight bully' for boxing against Juan Manuel Marquez or that Lomachenko is a 'weight bully' for boxing against Rigondeaux. For me, one or two bouts against someone naturally smaller in size doesn't make one a 'weight bully', at least according to my definition. Having consistent bouts against smaller sized opponents, especially when consistently having 5+ or 10+ pounds of weight advantage over opponents on fight night is when one fulfills the criteria of a 'weight bully' according to my definition and I am pretty consistent with that definition too.

My retort was that Mayweather deserves greater criticism for his performance against Marquez than Lomachenko does because Maywather FACTUALLY weighed above the contractual weight limit whilst Lomachenko didn't. Thus, my criticism against Mayweather has nothing to do with either being a 'weight bully' but instead to do with Mayweather breaking a rule that Lomachenko did not.

If both Lomachenko and Mayweather weighed above the contractual weight limit and I were to only criticize Mayweather for it and give Lomachenko a pass, then that'd be an example of me showing double standards but that's not the case here!

Also, in regard to comparing Golovkin's jabs against Jacobs to Mayweather's jabs against Pacquiao and in regards to: There is NO scoring criteria for "punch force" - it's irrelevant.

Actually, punch force is very relevant in professional boxing. It's only irrelevant in amateur boxing where any kind of landed punch, irrespective of how powerful or forceful it is, is scored evenly. In the pros however, one punch that snaps an opponent's head back and forces an opponent's leg to become shaky has greater value than 10 light taps which have no effect. This is why in pro boxing, a single punch that knocks an opponent down is more valuable and worthy than 10 punches which doesn't knockdown or knockout an opponent. Hence, the 10/8 scorecard rule.

Again, I'm very consistent with this rule as well. For me, a boxer who inflicts greater damage upon his opponent with his punches (Golovkin) shows greater 'offensive skills' than another boxer who inflicts less damage upon his opponents with his punches (Floyd Mayweather Jr). Thus, if two boxers get hit by their opponents the same number of time as each other and therefore show equal defensive skills, the one who inflicts greater damage upon his opponent will prove to be the more skilled boxer OVERALL due to better offensive skills with defensive skills being even. This is exactly the case with Golovkin's performance against Jacobs compared to Mayweather's performance against Pacquiao. Hence why Golovkin deserves more credit from me when it comes to who's performance was more 'skillful'.

So there aren't any double standards from me in either example.

[HarvardBlue]

And what coherent point have you made?

Go read all my responses, you'll see...

Right! So what you're essentially claiming is that boxing fans don't follow the rules of logic and for some, 1+1 =5 and for others, 1 + 1 = 10? Gotcha!

Dude, you're talking about sports fans, not theoretical physicists.

And that's totally fine with me. Except, be prepared and don't be surprised if someone holds you to your own standard and criticizes your favorite boxers (in this case, Andre Ward) using the same standard that you use to criticize other boxers (in this case, Alexander Povetkin and Artur Beterbiev).

I already pointed out Ward gets three times the criticism of these two.

And also be prepared and don't be surprised if such 'boxing fans' are called 'fan boys / 'fan girls' because then, it is totally justifiable BY DEFINITION. There is a huge difference in being a boxing fan and being a fan of a boxer. Compared to being a boxing fan boy or fan girl.

Drivel...

A fan boy / fan girl praises everything their favorite boxer does, without ever criticizing that particular boxer, even though those same fan boys would criticize other boxers for performing a specific action that their own favorite boxer performs and not criticize their favorite boxer for doing the same thing.

More drivel!!!

On the other hand, a normal fan can enjoy a particular boxer but still remain objective whilst sticking to a single standard like myself.

There's nothing objective about you. This whole exchange is agenda driven and you've failed miserably.

So you've pretty much committed a false dilemma fallacy with your restricted definition of what it means to be a boxing fan.

Still with the drivel I see.

Thank you! Come again.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Go read all my responses, you'll see...
Dude, you're talking about sports fans, not theoretical physicists.
I already pointed out Ward gets three times the criticism of these two.
Drivel...
More drivel!!!
There's nothing objective about you. This whole exchange is agenda driven and you've failed miserably.
Still with the drivel I see.

Thank you! Come again.

Go read all my responses, you'll see...

I have! I've yet to see any point you've made that is any more 'coherent' than mine. So perhaps proof or it didn't happen?

Dude, you're talking about sports fans, not theoretical physicists.

No, I'm talking about basic logic which applies to every walk of life, including sports. And if you think basic arithmetic is 'theoretical physics', then you need to take some logic courses as you seem to have a lack of competency with basic logic that even a pre-teen should be familiar with.

I already pointed out Ward gets three times the criticism of these two.

Except, that hasn't been proven to be true and until it has, it remains a valueless claim.

Drivel...

Prove / substantiate that claim or it didn't happen!

More drivel!!!

Prove / substantiate that claim or it didn't happen!

There's nothing objective about you.

Prove / substantiate that claim or it didn't happen!

This whole exchange is agenda driven and you've failed miserably.

Prove / substantiate that claim or it didn't happen!

Still with the drivel I see.

Still with the lack of proving and substantiation of your claims? I see!

Thank you! Come again.

You're welcome!

[Combat Talk Radio]

I'm not claiming Mayweather is a 'weight bully' for boxing against Juan Manuel Marquez or that Lomachenko is a 'weight bully' for boxing against Rigondeaux. For me, one or two bouts against someone naturally smaller in size doesn't make one a 'weight bully', at least according to my definition.

This started because you called out general NSB for hypocrisy. I give an example of the general NSB hypocrisy, and you proceeded to dispute it.

You can do your own research on this very board about how many people criticize Floyd - not because of "contractural" weight, but simply because he was bigger than Marquez. That's my point. Yet, they give Loma a pass for doing the same damn thing.

In YOUR mind, you are hung up on the contractural part. That's fine, But that's not what general NSB was harping about.

Also, in regard to comparing Golovkin's jabs against Jacobs to Mayweather's jabs against Pacquiao and in regards to: There is NO scoring criteria for "punch force" - it's irrelevant.

Again, I'm very consistent with this rule as well. For me, a boxer who inflicts greater damage upon his opponent with his punches (Golovkin) shows greater 'offensive skills' than another boxer who inflicts less damage upon his opponents with his punches (Floyd Mayweather Jr). Thus, if two boxers get hit by their opponents the same number of time as each other and therefore show equal defensive skills, the one who inflicts greater damage upon his opponent will prove to be the more skilled boxer OVERALL due to better offensive skills with defensive skills being even. This is exactly the case with Golovkin's performance against Jacobs compared to Mayweather's performance against Pacquiao. Hence why Golovkin deserves more credit from me when it comes to who's performance was more 'skillful'.

So there aren't any double standards from me in either example.

The double standard is the fact that you're mixing in your opinion to try to dilute the fact, as per the bold. You're free to have your opinion about who deserves credit, but that's not what we're discussing.

A jab is a jab. You land or you don't. That's in the rule books. Thus, if Fighter A wins a fight with an effective jab, Fighter B wins a fight with an effective jab. You can't say Fighter B's jabs are too weak to win. He landed, period.

I challenge you to point me to any AUTHORITATIVE source that says a SANCTIONED JUDGE must consider punch force. You won't find it.

What you will find is connects for jabs vs. power punches. Power punches have a SPECIFIC definition. A jab upstairs CANNOT be a power punch. However, the rules say any body shot should be counted as a power punch.

What happens with Floyd is that he loves throwing jabs to the body - why? Because it's quick, easy to land, and he knows certain scorers will count them as power punches, and since CompuBox is just humans tapping buttons, he always comes off dominant despite the appearance of doing nothing but jabs.

I say again. If Fighter A wins a fight with an effective jab, Fighter B wins a fight with an effective jab. That's by the rule book, not by your narrow opinion of punch force which is NOT a scoring metric.

[Mr Objecitivity]

This started because you called out general NSB for hypocrisy. I give an example of the general NSB hypocrisy, and you proceeded to dispute it.

You can do your own research on this very board about how many people criticize Floyd - not because of "contractural" weight, but simply because he was bigger than Marquez. That's my point. Yet, they give Loma a pass for doing the same damn thing.

In YOUR mind, you are hung up on the contractural part. That's fine, But that's not what general NSB was harping about.



The double standard is the fact that you're mixing in your opinion to try to dilute the fact, as per the bold. You're free to have your opinion about who deserves credit, but that's not what we're discussing.

A jab is a jab. You land or you don't. That's in the rule books. Thus, if Fighter A wins a fight with an effective jab, Fighter B wins a fight with an effective jab. You can't say Fighter B's jabs are too weak to win. He landed, period.

I challenge you to point me to any AUTHORITATIVE source that says a SANCTIONED JUDGE must consider punch force. You won't find it.

What you will find is connects for jabs vs. power punches. Power punches have a SPECIFIC definition. A jab upstairs CANNOT be a power punch. However, the rules say any body shot should be counted as a power punch.

What happens with Floyd is that he loves throwing jabs to the body - why? Because it's quick, easy to land, and he knows certain scorers will count them as power punches, and since CompuBox is just humans tapping buttons, he always comes off dominant despite the appearance of doing nothing but jabs.

I say again. If Fighter A wins a fight with an effective jab, Fighter B wins a fight with an effective jab. That's by the rule book, not by your narrow opinion of punch force which is NOT a scoring metric.

This started because you called out general NSB for hypocrisy. I give an example of the general NSB hypocrisy, and you proceeded to dispute it.

You can do your own research on this very board about how many people criticize Floyd - not because of "contractural" weight, but simply because he was bigger than Marquez. That's my point. Yet, they give Loma a pass for doing the same damn thing.

In YOUR mind, you are hung up on the contractural part. That's fine, But that's not what general NSB was harping about.

Oh no I totally agree that it is incorrect to call one boxer a 'weight bully' and not the other when it comes to Floyd Mayweather Jr and Vasyl Lomachenko. The position of those individuals is incorrect and I happen to not fall in that category.

My criticism against Floyd Mayweather Jr is purely based on him weighing above the contractual weight. Nothing more and if Vasyl Lomachenko did the same, I would rightly criticize him equally. And If I were not to, that'd definitely make me a hypocrite with double standards then. However, that isn't the case.

Although there was a bigger reason for the Lomachenko vs Rigondeaux bout to happen due to the huge public demands. Whilst from what I recall, very few demanded a Mayweather vs Marquez bout. However, neither is still a 'weight bully' based on just those single bouts.

The double standard is the fact that you're mixing in your opinion to try to dilute the fact, as per the bold. You're free to have your opinion about who deserves credit, but that's not what we're discussing.

A jab is a jab. You land or you don't. That's in the rule books. Thus, if Fighter A wins a fight with an effective jab, Fighter B wins a fight with an effective jab. You can't say Fighter B's jabs are too weak to win. He landed, period.

I challenge you to point me to any AUTHORITATIVE source that says a SANCTIONED JUDGE must consider punch force. You won't find it.

What you will find is connects for jabs vs. power punches. Power punches have a SPECIFIC definition. A jab upstairs CANNOT be a power punch. However, the rules say any body shot should be counted as a power punch.

What happens with Floyd is that he loves throwing jabs to the body - why? Because it's quick, easy to land, and he knows certain scorers will count them as power punches, and since CompuBox is just humans tapping buttons, he always comes off dominant despite the appearance of doing nothing but jabs.

I say again. If Fighter A wins a fight with an effective jab, Fighter B wins a fight with an effective jab. That's by the rule book, not by your narrow opinion of punch force which is NOT a scoring metric.

I believe there exists a misunderstanding again here. I'm not claiming at all that Mayweather deserved to lose against Pacquiao because his jab wasn't as good as Golovkin's against Jacobs and that only Golovkin deserves his victory over Jacobs. I believe both were rightful victors.

My point was simply that Golovkin's performance was better from a 'skills' perspective. Particularly when it comes to 'offensive skills' as both were equally good defensively or close to it.

Me claiming that Golovkin showed better 'offensive skills' against Daniel Jacobs than Mayweather did against Pacquiao is no more my opinion than me claiming that a basketball team that scores more points against an opponent compared to another team who scores less points against the same opponent showed more 'offensive skills'. This is common sense! The offensive objective in basketball is to score points. Thus, when two teams play against a common opponent, the team that scores more points would obviously have shown better 'offensive skills'.

Likewise, the same applies to boxing as well. The objective of boxing is offense (land punches on opponent whilst inflicting damage) and defense (avoid getting punched by opponent). Thus, the boxer who lands more punches on his opponent should be considered the more skilled boxer 'offensively', than another boxer who lands fewer punches on his opponent. And a boxer who inflicts greater damage upon his opponent should be considered the more skilled boxer offensively. All of this is based on the OBJECTIVE of boxing. It isn't my opinion. And it's a particular standard that I am very consistent with because I stick to it, pretty much all the time.

As for 'punch force'. No, I can't find any rule that uses punch force as a scoring criteria because it can't be numerically measured by modern technology. However, I can find a rule that scores punches based on 'effectiveness'. Effectiveness = how much effect a punch has. And in professional boxing, a single punch that is more effective has greater value than 10 ineffective punches. Hence, if a boxer knocks his opponent down with a single punch, he will receive more credit for that one punch than if his opponent were to land 20 punches that are ineffective.


Knocking an opponent down, knocking an opponent out, visibly stunning an opponent, inflicting visible damage upon an opponent (such as blood), snapping an opponent's head back, forcing an opponent to move backwards and forcing opponent to show signs of discomfort / pain through landed punches are all ways to determine the 'effectiveness' of a punch and those punches have the most value in professional boxing. Whereas in the amateurs, punch effectiveness and damage isn't taken into consideration.

[Combat Talk Radio]

As for 'punch force'. No, I can't find any rule that uses punch force as a scoring criteria because it can't be numerically measured by modern technology. However, I can find a rule that scores punches based on 'effectiveness'. Effectiveness = how much effect a punch has. And in professional boxing, a single punch that is more effective has greater value than 10 ineffective punches. Hence, if a boxer knocks his opponent down with a single punch, he will receive more credit for that one punch than if his opponent were to land 20 punches that are ineffective.


Knocking an opponent down, knocking an opponent out, visibly stunning an opponent, inflicting visible damage upon an opponent (such as blood), snapping an opponent's head back, forcing an opponent to move backwards and forcing opponent to show signs of discomfort / pain through landed punches are all ways to determine the 'effectiveness' of a punch and those punches have the most value in professional boxing. Whereas in the amateurs, punch effectiveness and damage isn't taken into consideration.

You're skipping the most important:

Did your punch cause your opponent to constantly reset? It was an effective punch. We saw that against Lemieux recently, and Floyd is a master of it as is Loma and Saunders.

Did your punch cause you to start dictating the pace of the fight because you're beating the opponent to the punch? Effective punch.

Is your punch clearly frustrating your opponent? Loma and Floyd. Clearly effective punch.

It's not only about punches that hurt. It's about punches that ultimately make you look terrible. Which is why Saunders looked so dominant against Lemieux. Which is why Loma looked so dominant against Rigo and Walters. Which is why Floyd looked so dominant against Manny, Canelo and McGregor.

None of those losers showed any damage whatsoever - except to their egos after getting embarrassed by effective punches and moving.

[Mr Objecitivity]

You're skipping the most important:

Did your punch cause your opponent to constantly reset? It was an effective punch. We saw that against Lemieux recently, and Floyd is a master of it as is Loma and Saunders.

Did your punch cause you to start dictating the pace of the fight because you're beating the opponent to the punch? Effective punch.

Is your punch clearly frustrating your opponent? Loma and Floyd. Clearly effective punch.

It's not only about punches that hurt. It's about punches that ultimately make you look terrible. Which is why Saunders looked so dominant against Lemieux. Which is why Loma looked so dominant against Rigo and Walters. Which is why Floyd looked so dominant against Manny, Canelo and McGregor.

None of those losers showed any damage whatsoever - except to their egos after getting embarrassed by effective punches and moving.

Did your punch cause your opponent to constantly reset? It was an effective punch. We saw that against Lemieux recently, and Floyd is a master of it as is Loma and Saunders.

I already mentioned that when I stated: "forcing an opponent to move backwards ". It's pretty much akin to forcing an opponent to reset.

Did your punch cause you to start dictating the pace of the fight because you're beating the opponent to the punch? Effective punch.

Well, in this instance, a boxer can be effective and ineffective. If boxer A beats boxer B to 10 punches and they inflict no damage whatsoever on boxer B or have no effect on boxer B. Whilst boxer B lands one punch in that round that causes boxer A to get knocked down or to be stunned. Who was the more effective puncher and who's punches have more value? Obviously boxer B based on professional standards of scoring boxing bouts.

Is your punch clearly frustrating your opponent? Loma and Floyd. Clearly effective punch.

This one is totally subjective and unverifiable. There is no possible way to verify whether a boxer is truly frustrated or not. Especially if said boxer usually shows very little to no emotion usually.

It's not only about punches that hurt.

In professional boxing, an 'effective' punch always has some degree of damage to it. Any punch that 'effects' the opponent is an 'effective' punch by my standard.

That is not to say that a boxer couldn't win a bout without throwing or landing effective or damaging / hurtful punches.

If there are two boxers who are both only throwing ineffective, light tapping punches. Then the one who lands more of those punches deserves to win.

In another scenario, if there is a power puncher who only throws effective and powerful / hurtful / damaging punches whilst facing an opponent who happens to be a non-power puncher who usually throws ineffective and light tapping punches. If the ineffective puncher lands 10 ineffective punches whilst the power puncher lands 0 effective punches in a round, then the ineffective puncher should win that round.

However, if a light tapping ineffective puncher lands 10 punches that have no effect on his opponent whilst the opponent lands 1 punch which staggers the ineffective puncher, that 1 effective punches will have more value than 10 ineffective punches.

In professional boxing, punches that inflicts greater damage have more value than punches that inflict less damage. Whilst in the amateurs on the other hand, it's the total opposite.

Therefore:

Quality > quantity in professional boxing.

Quantity > quality in amateur boxing.

[Combat Talk Radio]

In professional boxing, punches that inflicts greater damage have more value than punches that inflict less damage.

Really?

Then explain the outcome of Paul Williams vs. Erislandy Lara.