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

[aboutfkntime]

This would be more accurate:

one fighter is black American or hispanic

one fighter is not

who won that round?

one guys fanbase needed to pull the race card

one guys fanbase did not

not hard to see who won the fight

btw.....

what's the story about posting this horse-shlt..... ???

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

[IMG]https://media3.*****.com/media/33bpFN25l6qNW/*****.gif[/IMG]


here, check the instruction video.....

the instruction video for absolute casual-fans who know little/nothing about the sport.....

[aboutfkntime]

so..... the compubox kid needs proof, huh..... ?

You're exaggersting. There is no way Golovkin missed 1000 punches.
There is no game going as you put it. When two fighters get in the ring it's what happens in that fight not how they fought previous fights. Using your logic Canelo should be penalized because he had a radical change in style from his first fight. Any fighter that changed styles in the ring is going to be penalized if they follow this ridiculous arguement. Golovkin did not get beat up in the second fight. He had some superficial facial swelling and a cut. Canelo also had a cut. Golovkin did not get hurt at any point in the fight. You really need to to step back from your obsession with Canelo because you are losing credibility with these outlandish statements.

Tony Baloney.....

you insisted that defence, ring generalship, and effective aggression..... were not a scoring factor, unless the number of clean punches landed by each fighter are exactly the same

YOU said that, you excuse-making muppet !!

[IMG]https://media3.*****.com/media/33bpFN25l6qNW/*****.gif[/IMG]


here, check the instruction video.....

the instruction video for absolute casual-fans who know little/nothing about the sport.....

[aboutfkntime]

So true...not that hard to understand lol...but I think some are compelled to move the goalposts when what happens in the ring doesn't suit their preferred fighter...we are all probably guilty of that in a way...but some keep it a little more 'real' than others..

you just attempted to remove defence, effective aggression, ring generalship..... from the official list of scoring criteria

what a total fkn doorknob


Steve Weisfeld says.....


[IMG]https://media3.*****.com/media/33bpFN25l6qNW/*****.gif[/IMG]

[aboutfkntime]

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

[OnePunch]

This would be more accurate:

one fighter is black American or hispanic

one fighter is not

who won that round?

lol true. I forgot about that rare species, the black Brit. Lennox, AJ, Dillian Whyte, Eubank, Brook, even probably Frank Bruno, all automatically rubbish, and not really "black"

good call.. LOL

[Spoon23]

If you think Judges can't be corrupt its about damnfuvkntime you stop being naive.

[Boxing_1013]

you just attempted to remove defence, effective aggression, ring generalship..... from the official list of scoring criteria

what a total fkn doorknob

Ello mate ;0 - Honestly my friend I was just trying to inform you of how judges score fights...it happens to line up with my worldview as well, and I personally am surprised that some boxing fans are scoring anything other than landed punches and their effectiveness.

The other stuff certainly matters, as Weisfeld below points out...but it is not actively scored...those things just help a fighter get in his position to score points, by landing punches:

"A lot of times fans hear that judges focus on four categories: clean punches, effective aggressiveness, defense and ring generalship," Weisfeld said. "But based upon my own experience, my conversations with other judges and seminars conducted by top judges, judges really focus on one category, and that's clean punches.

Clean punches: To me, clean punches are the most important aspect, and the other factors are really tied to that. Take the phrase, "effective aggressiveness." How is a boxer effective? He's effective by landing clean punches. How about "defense?" A boxer shows great defense by not getting hit with clean punches. And, finally, the term "ring generalship." A boxer uses the ring to put himself in a position to land clean punches."

I've posted that for you a number of times, not sure why you are keeping with the same arguments my friend.

If you think Judges can't be corrupt its about damnfuvkntime you stop being naive.

Lol this...100 times sir...main problem in boxing scoring is corrupt judging...95% of fights have 1 clear winner...for anyone to suggest otherwise, I mean I don't get it...

[TonyGe]

Tony Baloney.....

you insisted that defence, ring generalship, and effective aggression..... were not a scoring factor, unless the number of clean punches landed by each fighter are exactly the same

YOU said that, you excuse-making muppet !!

[IMG]https://media3.*****.com/media/33bpFN25l6qNW/*****.gif[/IMG]


here, check the instruction video.....

the instruction video for absolute casual-fans who know little/nothing about the sport.....

Well you fell for it. I knew if I waited long enough I'd catch a sucker. So for all your BS about Compubox you looked that up long ago because you have been carping about the punch output for quite a while.

[TonyGe]

Tony Baloney.....

you insisted that defence, ring generalship, and effective aggression..... were not a scoring factor, unless the number of clean punches landed by each fighter are exactly the same

YOU said that, you excuse-making muppet !!

[IMG]https://media3.*****.com/media/33bpFN25l6qNW/*****.gif[/IMG]


here, check the instruction video.....

the instruction video for absolute casual-fans who know little/nothing about the sport.....

No I said if the judge has difficulty deciding who won the round then use the guidelines. Two guys could land the the same amount of punches and one boxer ends up barely making it back to his corner. You are the guy that responded to a post giving the scenario that one fighter lands twice the amount of clean punches on his opponent. You responded thst he loses the round if the other fighter shows better defense. Which is totally preposterous. Like I said you are so invested in winning this arguement you have given up common sense.

[kafkod]

Well you fell for it. I knew if I waited long enough I'd catch a sucker. So for all your BS about Compubox you looked that up long ago because you have been carping about the punch output for quite a while.

He often does that with Compubox.

When the stats don't fit his agenda, Compubox is for casual fanboy muppets.

When they do fit his agenda, Compubox is the truth!