Number of Punches Determines a Winner?

[The3]

In the 80s maybe whoever landed the most wins the fight

[Vasyl’s dad]

That’s what happens when you tell the other guy to fight like a man and end up backing up most of the fight

So prefight words dictate how a fight is scored?

Looks like floyd lost quite a bit then. Since he always said he was going for the ko.

[HanzGruber]

So prefight words dictate how a fight is scored?

Looks like floyd lost quite a bit then. Since he always said he was going for the ko.

Your post didn’t say anything about scoring. You just said saying he’s scared.

[TonyGe]

This punch is worth more than a jab

via Gfycat

The problem for Canelo was Golovkin landed twice as many jabs as he did. Golovkin is known for having a hard jab and he proved it by snapping Canelo's head back and forcing Canelo to back off and reset.
Same as the first fight Canelo hardest punches could not deter Golovkin from abandoning the center of the ring. He also couldn't figure out how to slip the jab and counter in a consistent manner. Since Golovkin out landed Canelo and only threw a few body shots its clear Golovkin landed more punches to Canelo's head than Canelo landed on him. For the hell of it I gave Canelo and Golovkin two points for every non jab they landed and one point for each jab. Strictly on that basis Golovkin won 6-5 1 round even.

[C-Raw]

number and quality of punches determine the winner, along with overall defense of course

[C-Raw]

The problem for Canelo was Golovkin landed twice as many jabs as he did. Golovkin is known for having a hard jab and he proved it by snapping Canelo's head back and forcing Canelo to back off and reset.
Same as the first fight Canelo hardest punches could not deter Golovkin from abandoning the center of the ring. He also couldn't figure out how to slip the jab and counter in a consistent manner. Since Golovkin out landed Canelo and only threw a few body shots its clear Golovkin landed more punches to Canelo's head than Canelo landed on him. For the hell of it I gave Canelo and Golovkin two points for every non jab they landed and one point for each jab. Strictly on that basis Golovkin won 6-5 1 round even.

i feel like hard jabs are often underestimated in big fights

[Tony Trick-Pony]

I think who wins each round should be revealed after every round.

Yes, it would definitely add more excitement...

[abracada]

I think the biggest problem with the sport is that there is no real objective way to score a fight. It's all subjective and often in the end, like this weekend, divisive.

So why not let the number of punches scored win rounds and ultimately the fight itself?

Obviously extra points should be awarded for knockdowns and punch numbers should be lowered when deductions occur but at least, you could say guy A won because he outlanded guy B.

I think this might be harder to argue with than the old "I believe he won the fight" line.

What do you guys think?

Yay or nay?

That’s in the amatures, makes for poor viewing.

[Combat Talk Radio]

You're jumping to the worst case scenario right off the bat. It's hard to take this seriously to be honest.

The point is, you're biasing towards one type of fighter and against another set of fighters. All because it bothers you that human beings have their opinion about who won a fight.

It's like these nutcases talking about getting rid of the Electoral College and going off popular vote - which basically would mean New York and California pick the next President simply because of population; damn the smaller states, they don't matter.

If you're upset about judging, you need to convince fighters not to leave to the judges in the first place. When you got guys like Pacquiao who normally throw over 1000 punches yet goes into fights barely throwing 300, trying to get a decision against a guy who doesn't lose decisions, that's not the judges' fault. That's the fighter. I can list tons of other examples. Bottom line: it's the fighters who leave to the judges scorecards that are to blame.

Didn't use to be that way; you used to see guys going for broke to try to get their opponent out of there. These days, you only see guys like Srisaket and Jeff Horn who fight like the old school. Everyone else waits for openings in the late rounds.

Well, if Khan eats fifty hard body shots, it's not likely that he's gonna land 200 anything. That will drop his punch output and honestly, landing 200 even soft jabs requires a hell of a lot of skill on the upper level. You know this, man.

That's assumptive. It's not going to drop his punch output. Khan's body is not his weak spot; he can take them, Chino was laying them in and still lost.

Look, it's fine. You're basically saying that Paulie should be a first ballot HOF'er because of how many feather jabs he landed. Didn't matter if his head nearly got taken off by damn near everyone he was in the ring with; he landed more, that's all that should matter.



No. The current system is fine. We just need to fix the current fighters. If your name isn't Floyd Mayweather, don't leave it to the judges because it won't work.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

The point is, you're biasing towards one type of fighter and against another set of fighters. All because it bothers you that human beings have their opinion about who won a fight.

It's like these nutcases talking about getting rid of the Electoral College and going off popular vote - which basically would mean New York and California pick the next President simply because of population; damn the smaller states, they don't matter.

If you're upset about judging, you need to convince fighters not to leave to the judges in the first place. When you got guys like Pacquiao who normally throw over 1000 punches yet goes into fights barely throwing 300, trying to get a decision against a guy who doesn't lose decisions, that's not the judges' fault. That's the fighter. I can list tons of other examples. Bottom line: it's the fighters who leave to the judges scorecards that are to blame.

Didn't use to be that way; you used to see guys going for broke to try to get their opponent out of there. These days, you only see guys like Srisaket and Jeff Horn who fight like the old school. Everyone else waits for openings in the late rounds.



That's assumptive. It's not going to drop his punch output. Khan's body is not his weak spot; he can take them, Chino was laying them in and still lost.

Look, it's fine. You're basically saying that Paulie should be a first ballot HOF'er because of how many feather jabs he landed. Didn't matter if his head nearly got taken off by damn near everyone he was in the ring with; he landed more, that's all that should matter.



No. The current system is fine. We just need to fix the current fighters. If your name isn't Floyd Mayweather, don't leave it to the judges because it won't work.

Whoa, whoa, now. LOL. I am all in favor of the electoral college. It keeps things on an even keel. The mobs of idiots want the popular vote only. I'm totally against that. So let's get that stright right off the bat.

Secondly, I have no problem with people having opnions but when it comes down to deciding on who will win a fight where each man has trained hard and made tremendous sacrifices for our entertainment and of course, a paycheck, I would like an objective way for him to win the fight. And this is not like the electoral college scenario. It's objective too. Whoever wins the most states wins the election.

Beyond that, you say that fighters shouldn't leave it in the hands of the judges. Well, no duh! Never heard that one before. But we all know that some guys just aren't going out. Guys like Tim Bradley have great chins and are very tough to knock out even for a big hitter. So that's not realisitic.

I will read the rest in a bit. I have a burger waiting on me. Ha