casual fans need to learn how to score a fight.....

[TonyGe]

Weisfeld probably got caught up in the era that promoted that disgusting..... "score for the guy going forward"..... dribble

that was disgraceful, and was driven by greedy TV networks in an attempt to provide more "fan-frie upndly" fights..... you guessed it, for fatass casual fans

the fact remains.....

* clean hard punching
* effective aggression
* defence
* ring generalship


it is truly hilarious, that fans of the guy who missed 1000+ punches... who could not get his game going... and who got beaten up..... do not appreciate defense, ring generalship, and clean hard punching LMAO

..... no no, " volume "..... is suddenly more important than the OFFICIAL scoring criteria LMAO

Golovkin had Canelo fighting his fight in the rematch and you give ring generalship to Canelo. This is idiotic. Sanchez say he wanted Canelo to meet Golivkin In the center of the ring. He was fighting Golovkin's fight and got outlanded in almost all of the rounds. Clean effective punching. Did Canelo stagger Golovkin. No. Did he force him abandon the center of the ring. No. Did he force him to the ropes. The only one in the ropes in the rematch was Canelo. Did he accomplish his well publicised boast of knocking Golovkin out. No So how the hell was his punching effective. It wasn't. Canelo got outboxed again. Golovkin used his jab and stepped back when needed. Stepping back is also defense to avoid an attack. Govkin would step back then come forward immediately. The fact of the matter is Canelo failed to neutralize Golovkin's jab which was key to defeating him. Golovkin wisely used his jab avoided firefights wasn't hurt and outlanded his opponent. In a fight where neither guy was stopped staggered or visably in distress one man clearly outlanded his opponent. That was Golovkin.

[aboutfkntime]

forget about what the casuals..... " want "..... LMAO.....


..... FACT: this IS the official scoring criteria.....

1) clean HARD punching
2) effective aggression
3) defence
4) ring generalship


but, the casuals are Golovkin supporters..... so, the OFFICIAL scoring criteria is unsuitable for them.....


-----------------------------------------------------------------


casual fan A:

right guys, firstly lets ignore #4..... fk that ring generalship rubbish, nobody knows what that means anyway.....

as for #3, defence..... who cares about that rubbish, Golovkin doesn't need defence

#2, effective aggression..... is simply scored for the guy going forward..... oh, unless it is Golovkin going backwards, because he decided to "box" his opponent..... to impress the NON-Mexican fans.....

ahahahahahah loooool

now, regarding the ONLY official scoring criteria that is left..... clean hard punching..... let's remove the "hard" part..... and just leave it with clean punching..... and rather than use the official judging criteria for clean punching, lets use compubox.....?

casual fan B: sounds good to me

casual fan C: Golovkin won, yaaaaay

[aboutfkntime]

Golovkin had Canelo fighting his fight in the rematch

Canelo fought like a Mexican, so Golovkin ran like a bltch

[Combat Talk Radio]

I mean...if 0 punches are landed I could see a draw in the round...boxing is all about who is landing more and who is landing better. All there is to it really my friend.

Come on man, even CompuBox says that you can clearly win a round without landing a punch. See?

🏀👊Final Punch Stats for #IbakaChriss:

Ibaka: 0/1 Power Shots
2/2 Chokeholds

Chriss: 0/1 Power Shots

pic.twitter.com/NMnSKR23RM

— CompuBox (@CompuBox) March 12, 2019

Often times I agree that the aggressor is the winner...however the fighter going backwards can at times box very well and win a clear round. Lara/Mayweather were good examples of this.

No. Mayweather doesn't box going backwards. He boxes going lateral. There's a BIG difference.

Lara boxes going backward - which is why he will forever be the TBE of draws and "I got robbed".

Not to mention that 'aggressor' can be a bit subjective at times...I've seen some create narratives for fights about their guy being the aggressor when it wasn't really true...

Anyway it is all about hit and not get it my friend...that's boxing.

I'm just saying. "Aggressor" isn't necessarily about perfect landing. "Aggressor" is, which guy would you probably run the hell away from?

Using Pacquiao/Horn for example, I know of nobody who would have run from THAT version of Manny Pacquiao. But when you got a guy in there that's not afraid to literally throw you off your feet around the ring, you're not going to get near that guy.

Wilder/Fury, I know of nobody who would have run from Fury (despite me having him a clear winner), but damn near everyone would have watered themselves in there against a stalking Wilder. But that ring aggression is all he had. Fury had defense, Fury landed more and better, and Fury was the ring general.

The other thing is, it's Round by Round, not in total. So this nonsense of "he got a knockdown in one or two rounds so he won the fight" despite getting outboxed over 11 is BS.

[Boxing_1013]

Come on man, even CompuBox says that you can clearly win a round without landing a punch. See?

����Final Punch Stats for #IbakaChriss:

Ibaka: 0/1 Power Shots
2/2 Chokeholds

Chriss: 0/1 Power Shots

pic.twitter.com/NMnSKR23RM

— CompuBox (@CompuBox) March 12, 2019

No. Mayweather doesn't box going backwards. He boxes going lateral. There's a BIG difference.

Lara boxes going backward - which is why he will forever be the TBE of draws and "I got robbed".




I'm just saying. "Aggressor" isn't necessarily about perfect landing. "Aggressor" is, which guy would you probably run the hell away from?

Using Pacquiao/Horn for example, I know of nobody who would have run from THAT version of Manny Pacquiao. But when you got a guy in there that's not afraid to literally throw you off your feet around the ring, you're not going to get near that guy.

Wilder/Fury, I know of nobody who would have run from Fury (despite me having him a clear winner), but damn near everyone would have watered themselves in there against a stalking Wilder. But that ring aggression is all he had. Fury had defense, Fury landed more and better, and Fury was the ring general.

The other thing is, it's Round by Round, not in total. So this nonsense of "he got a knockdown in one or two rounds so he won the fight" despite getting outboxed over 11 is BS.

Good post man...I don't think we are that far off in general.

I absolutely generally reward the aggressor in the fight...because without him there is not a fight, you know what I mean? Also I feel I can generally get a sense, round in, round out, of who the better man is in the ring. If one guy looks timid, etc.

For Horn-Pac, I thought the dismissal of Horn and his, imo, often times effective aggression was over the top and seemed to come from a perspective where fans of Manny didn't want to see him lose...my 2 cents anyway...I saw him roughing Manny up and taking the fight to him...and I thought it was a justified victory for him.

I also saw the first 6 rounds of Fury-Wilder as very tight...with Fury looking timid to me, and Wilder stalking and trying to figure him out...not much in those first 6 rounds...with Fury landed a couple more punches each round, but Wilder landing the better shot sometimes...I had it 3-3 through 6.

Then I felt Fury outboxed him over the last 6 pretty clearly...but also got dropped twice...so yeah I had no issue with that decision.

To be clear - I think a defensive fighter CAN clearly win rounds by 'boxing and moving' but I do feel the bar is quite high to do decisively...imo you have to really be skilled at doing so...Lara and Mayweather were great at it, at times, imo...

another recent guy, Ward, who gets credit for that type of reputation, I confess I have never seen that from him in fights against even good fighters...as an example he was getting walked down by Sullivan Barrera and Sakio Bika and I saw a lot of close rounds in those fights...so I guess we just try to call it like we see it...but generally I feel like it is pretty clear who the better man in a round is...my 2 cents anyway.

[aboutfkntime]

I feel like it is pretty clear who the better man in a round is...my 2 cents anyway.

really..... ?

because you think that Golovkin won the rematch with Canelo

and yet..... Steve Weisfeld agreed with me.....




just saying

#learnthesport
#defencecounts
#steveweisfeldknowsmorethanaboutfkntime


b,b,b,b,but.....

[kafkod]

that is EXACTLY what you morons said

that is the very purpose of this thread

So show me the comment where I said that "volume" is the main scoring criteria.

In case you misunderstood, or rather, mislead yourself in your haste to put your words into my mouth, I'll clarify something for you.

"Volume" = punch output, the number of punches thrown, not the number of clean punches landed.

[kafkod]

really..... ?

because you think that Golovkin won the rematch with Canelo

and yet..... Steve Weisfeld agreed with me.....




just saying

#learnthesport
#defencecounts
#steveweisfeldknowsmorethanaboutfkntime


b,b,b,b,but.....

So, according to you, Steve Weisfeld's scoring method is wrong, and Steve Weisfeld scored GGG/Canelo~2 for Canelo ... so that proves Canelo deserved the win!

LMFAO!

The truth is that you didn't start this thread to educate "casuals" on how to score a fight. You started it to try and convince people that Canelo deserved to win the GGG rematch.

Well guess what ... Canelo got the win! And you believe he deserved it .. so why the fck can't you move on and stop obsessing about it?

[aboutfkntime]

So show me the comment where I said that "volume" is the main scoring criteria.[/I][/B]

In case you misunderstood, or rather, mislead yourself in your haste to put your words into my mouth, I'll clarify something for you.

"Volume" = punch output, the number of punches thrown, not the number of clean punches landed.

you said this, you muppet.....

Defense, effective aggression, ring generalship, etc, only become factors if both fighters appear to land the same number of clean punches.

FACT: when you made that statement..... you were TALKING THROUGH A HOLE IN YOUR ASS

learn the sport.....

7.32



you casual-fans are shocking

run around bragging about how easy to score to score a boxing match

then immediately prove..... you have no idea how to score a boxing match

[aboutfkntime]

So, according to you, Steve Weisfeld's scoring method is wrong, and Steve Weisfeld scored GGG/Canelo~2 for Canelo ... so that proves Canelo deserved the win!

LMFAO!

The truth is that you didn't start this thread to educate "casuals" on how to score a fight. You started it to try and convince people that Canelo deserved to win the GGG rematch.

Well guess what ... Canelo got the win! And you believe he deserved it .. so why the fck can't you move on and stop obsessing about it?

nope, I said that the official scoring criteria is.....

* clean HARD punching
* effective aggression
* defence
* ring generalship

only a moron would argue with that

oh, right..... you already did LMAO