Who knows better how to score a boxing match?

[aboutfkntime]

a walking contradiction.....

Defence is a scoring criteria. It's so important, how can it not be?

Boxing judges aren't some gods that know better than everyone else. They have bias. We see it on every damn card with ridiculous scorecards.

Steve doesn't talk for every judge in the world.

bingo !!

I told the guy that, on the other thread

bizarrely, Boxing1013 made the following comments in the SAME post

.....boxing is all about who is landing more and who is landing better. .....

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

[IMG]https://media2.*****.com/media/lT4sgCJwC7B4c/*****.gif[/IMG]

[aboutfkntime]

the very signature of a casual fan is dislike/disregard, and a general lack of appreciation, for defence

first, he insists that punches landed are the only relevant criteria

then, he is forced to admit that boxing is all about, hit and not get hit

then..... he makes a thread, contradicting himself again

the very signature of a casual fan is dislike/disregard, and a general lack of appreciation, for defence

[Boxing_1013]

Defense is last on the list for a reason. If you avoid or block 5 of my punches but my 6th punch is a weak jab to your nose, I win that exchange.

Offense trumps defense.

yep...good post man

[aboutfkntime]

here is the MAIN point Boxing1013 missed.....

even if you exclude ring generalship, defence, and effective aggression (which is INSANE)..... Golovkin did not win 'clean HARD punching'..... Canelo did.....

in order for this foolery to work, Boxing will not only have to remove 3 of the 4 OFFICIAL scoring criteria..... he will also have to remove the word "hard" from 'clean hard punching'

leaving about 10% of the OFFICIAL scoring criteria in place LMAO

just another day in paradise

[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

[Boxing_1013]

the very signature of a casual fan is dislike/disregard, and a general lack of appreciation, for defence

first, he insists that punches landed are the only relevant criteria

then, he is forced to admit that boxing is all about, hit and not get hit

then..... he makes a thread, contradicting himself again

the very signature of a casual fan is dislike/disregard, and a general lack of appreciation, for defence

Time...my friend...my buddy...I love ya man.

Saying that boxing is about who is landing more and better punches (hitting) naturally takes into account the fact that defense (not getting hit) is important my friend....If Fighter A is landing more and better punches...naturally he is hitting more, and not getting hit as often, with regards to his opponent...that's boxing lol...that's all it is...

Take it from a top boxing judge:

"Defense: Defense is important because it helps a boxer set up his offense. Most judges that I have spoken to do not give credit for defense alone. If a boxer has a good defense, it means that he is not being hit with punches. But let's remember the purpose of the sport: to land punches on your opponent.

If Boxer A throws 10 punches in a round, but lands none of them, and Boxer B lands zero and throws zero, you still have an even round with no punches landing. You don't want to create a disincentive for a boxer to land punches if he thinks he's going to be penalized for missing."

Be well my friend

[Boxing_1013]

here is the MAIN point Boxing1013 missed.....

even if you exclude ring generalship, defence, and effective aggression (which is INSANE)..... Golovkin did not win 'clean HARD punching'..... Canelo did.....

in order for this foolery to work, Boxing will not only have to remove 3 of the 4 OFFICIAL scoring criteria..... he will also have to remove the word "hard" from 'clean hard punching'

leaving about 10% of the OFFICIAL scoring criteria in place LMAO

just another day in paradise

Who brought up GGG here lol...

As Weisfeld mentioned...those other attributes are important...but only insofar as they help a fighter get into position to land punches...that's all boxing is about, hitting your opponent more and better than you are getting hit...

With regards to GGG and Canelo...GGG definitely landed more clean effective punches, round in and round out, according to what I saw in both fights...Canelo did have some of those rounds (in fight 2 primarily) where to me he probably landed the best shot or shots of the round, which makes those rounds close...but when you are getting outlanded like the MoneyMan Canelo was in those fights, it is very hard to find enough rounds for ya...generally at best you have some close rounds...and at worst you are losing some clear rounds...

But it is sad in a way that people try to contort the rules/scoring of the sport to prop up or pile on their favored or disliked fighters...I guess when one guy is winning the punch count almost every round those who feel the need to denigrate him will twist it however they can?

I don't know, just thinking outloud...just seeing some of the rationale for scoring those fights for the Redman (no disrespect to Canelo, I think he is great) makes not really a lick of sense to me as someone who has scored fights for years...but to each his own...I guess I should look forward to this new scoring system, I can find a way to score it for my guy all the time now :0 lol

[Boxing_1013]

Whoever voted 'tie' in the poll- I like you guys...lol

[Boxing_1013]

Clean punching should always be the the most important category in scoring fights. Sadly a lot of fans and even a lot of pro judges don't follow that rule. You have fights like Lara vs Castano where one guy lands the vast majority of the clean punches and can only manage a draw. Its a joke.

If Lara was American he would be undefeated imo...not that he should be, but he probably would be...and I am one of the 7 or 8 people out there who actually likes to watch him box :0

[R-Hand Southpaw]

I assume this is all a bit tongue-in-cheek. Some judges may be biased, most NSB self-proclaimed experts may be biased, hometown scoring happens, but of course I'd rather see Steve Weisfeld or an experienced, proven judge over some forum guru.

We live in the age of the internet expert. Nothing against aboutfkntime or any aficionados around NSB, but there's a lot of self-importance and arrogance that percolates the forum. Opinions are welcomed and appreciated but they are not always fact.
Even Polls are not dependable. People could vote for/against aboutfkntime based on emotion, or something else abstract. What if they just dislike the TS ?

If the real question is about scoring defense in a round of boxing, I think it's all semantics. If not getting hit is defense, then I guess it matters. As long as you land harder and more often than the other guy, no matter how pretty, your defense sufficed, right ?
Ask Lomachenko, he'll tell ya. If his face gets nicked up, he's not happy with his defense. The great ones want to do all the damage and never get hit.

Great ones dont get hit but you cant help if your face cuts easy or not. You get what you get.

Some guys never cut and get hit all the time. Some guys get hit once and cut. Lomachenko gets nicked pretty damn easy so it's in his best interests to not get hit at all.