Comments Thread For: IBF Could Strip Canelo; Order Golovkin-Derevyanchenko For Title

[aboutfkntime]

One judge isn't a proper source in scoring... I box daily so you can call me a liar all you want but I'd be glad to put you in your place. Your argument is weak, you rely on personal attacks which are weak. You are far and away impossible to talk to due to the sheer ******ity you have.

Also who is "my hero". You have 0 idea who my favourite boxer ever is and 0 idea who I like currently.

I am not the muppet who needs to remove 3/4 of the OFFICIAL scoring criteria to get a favorable outcome for his girlfriend, Mr Boxer

[BoloShot]

save it clown

you are not the first fkn idiot to log on here, and make up silly rubbish to defend your hero

you do not score " points " for defence, you dumb kid..... do you really think the judges are sitting there counting on their fingers

what a fkn idiot

they award the round to whoever they think won, based on the criteria that is sitting right in front of you

FACT: this is the OFFICIAL scoring criteria.....

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

and you saw that conversation huh.....? the conversation that you insist I "lost"..... really?

how did you do that, genius?

Steve Weisfeld says.....







and you are full-of-shlt..... you have never boxed a day in your life..... you REEK of dopey casual-fan..... just like the others

Also who is "my hero". You have 0 idea who my favourite boxer ever is and 0 idea who I like currently.

[BoloShot]

save it clown

you are not the first fkn idiot to log on here, and make up silly rubbish to defend your hero

you do not score " points " for defence, you dumb kid..... do you really think the judges are sitting there counting on their fingers

what a fkn idiot

they award the round to whoever they think won, based on the criteria that is sitting right in front of you

FACT: this is the OFFICIAL scoring criteria.....

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

and you saw that conversation huh.....? the conversation that you insist I "lost"..... really?

how did you do that, genius?

Steve Weisfeld says.....







and you are full-of-shlt..... you have never boxed a day in your life..... you REEK of dopey casual-fan..... just like the others

One judge isn't a proper source in scoring... I box daily so you can call me a liar all you want but I'd be glad to put you in your place. Your argument is weak, you rely on personal attacks which are weak. You are far and away impossible to talk to due to the sheer ******ity you have.

[aboutfkntime]

just what we needed, another snotty-nosed casual-fan idiot..... rewriting the rules of boxing to suit his latest hypejob LMAO

[aboutfkntime]

Holy **** it's like you don't get what I'm saying one little bit. Defending well, attacking effectively and forcing your style are all helpful in letting you get your work off cleaner and more often. But if you're missing all your attacks while defending very well for example you are still most likely going to lose the round. The landing the punch part is kind of crucial. And I box currently and I box well. I know the ring better than you do and I know how a fight is scored. You can't give "points" for someone making a block though, you can give them for someone blocking and countering nicely though. The way you frame it, you got it all wrong. You have cheek calling me a casual when all you follow is Canelo and "big names", like any casual chump would. Calls me kid too haha, I've heard this one from salty *****es on here before. What's the obsession with calling people that? Is it supposed to demean someone? Because it only makes the person who uses it look childish.

what a fkn moron

gets slapped in the face with enough proof to sink a battleship..... but continues denying..... no no no no no

"Judging a pro boxing match can be more subjective. The judges may count punches, but they also take into consideration aggression, control of the ring, control of the tempo of the fight and damage inflicted. For example, if the red boxer lands a dozen decent jabs in a round, but his opponent, the blue boxer, nails him with two hard hooks late in the round that leave the red boxer dazed and staggered, the judges could very well award the round to the blue boxer. In fact, in such a case, different judges may score the round differently."

[aboutfkntime]

Holy **** it's like you don't get what I'm saying one little bit. Defending well, attacking effectively and forcing your style are all helpful in letting you get your work off cleaner and more often. But if you're missing all your attacks while defending very well for example you are still most likely going to lose the round. The landing the punch part is kind of crucial. And I box currently and I box well. I know the ring better than you do and I know how a fight is scored. You can't give "points" for someone making a block though, you can give them for someone blocking and countering nicely though. The way you frame it, you got it all wrong. You have cheek calling me a casual when all you follow is Canelo and "big names", like any casual chump would. Calls me kid too haha, I've heard this one from salty *****es on here before. What's the obsession with calling people that? Is it supposed to demean someone? Because it only makes the person who uses it look childish.

save it clown

you are not the first fkn idiot to log on here, and make up silly rubbish to defend your hero

you do not score " points " for defence, you dumb kid..... do you really think the judges are sitting there counting on their fingers

what a fkn idiot

they award the round to whoever they think won, based on the criteria that is sitting right in front of you

FACT: this is the OFFICIAL scoring criteria.....

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

and you saw that conversation huh.....? the conversation that you insist I "lost"..... really?

how did you do that, genius?

Steve Weisfeld says.....







and you are full-of-shlt..... you have never boxed a day in your life..... you REEK of dopey casual-fan..... just like the others

[BoloShot]

but..... you are just a silly casual-fan, you moron

so, how would you know..... ?

I boxed for 12 years kid

"Judging a pro boxing match can be more subjective. The judges may count punches, but they also take into consideration aggression, control of the ring, control of the tempo of the fight and damage inflicted. For example, if the red boxer lands a dozen decent jabs in a round, but his opponent, the blue boxer, nails him with two hard hooks late in the round that leave the red boxer dazed and staggered, the judges could very well award the round to the blue boxer. In fact, in such a case, different judges may score the round differently."

"While you’d probably do well relying on the eyeball test to determine the winner of each round, it helps to know what a judge is looking for. These are the things that help determine which fighter won a round:

Effective Aggression – Being aggressive gives the impression of dominance, but unless the boxer is landing shots and not constantly getting countered, it’s not exactly “effective.” Judges look for effective aggression, where the aggressor consistently lands his punches and avoids those from his opponent.
Ring Generalship – The fighter who controls the action and enforces his will and style.
Defense – How well is a boxer slipping, parrying, and blocking punches? Good defense is important.
Hard and Clean Punches – To the untrained eye, it can appear as if a boxer is landing a lot of shots, when, in fact, most are being blocked or aren’t landing flush. A judge needs to look for hard shots that land clean."

just what we needed..... some dumb casual-fan kid, re-writing the rules of boxing LMAO

the rules have been clearly explained to you..... you dumb kid

Holy **** it's like you don't get what I'm saying one little bit. Defending well, attacking effectively and forcing your style are all helpful in letting you get your work off cleaner and more often. But if you're missing all your attacks while defending very well for example you are still most likely going to lose the round. The landing the punch part is kind of crucial. And I box currently and I box well. I know the ring better than you do and I know how a fight is scored. You can't give "points" for someone making a block though, you can give them for someone blocking and countering nicely though. The way you frame it, you got it all wrong. You have cheek calling me a casual when all you follow is Canelo and "big names", like any casual chump would. Calls me kid too haha, I've heard this one from salty *****es on here before. What's the obsession with calling people that? Is it supposed to demean someone? Because it only makes the person who uses it look childish.

[aboutfkntime]

I'm not denying they don't help you but in terms of what is actually a scoring factor, no they're not supposed to be included and objectively they aren't scoring factors. This is not a universally agreed upon scoring method, you know that, therefore it isn't official and technically illegal to score. This is boxing. Only certain other martial arts score those factors. Not boxing, they score punches landed.

but..... you are just a silly casual-fan, you moron

so, how would you know..... ?

I boxed for 12 years kid

"Judging a pro boxing match can be more subjective. The judges may count punches, but they also take into consideration aggression, control of the ring, control of the tempo of the fight and damage inflicted. For example, if the red boxer lands a dozen decent jabs in a round, but his opponent, the blue boxer, nails him with two hard hooks late in the round that leave the red boxer dazed and staggered, the judges could very well award the round to the blue boxer. In fact, in such a case, different judges may score the round differently."

"While you’d probably do well relying on the eyeball test to determine the winner of each round, it helps to know what a judge is looking for. These are the things that help determine which fighter won a round:

Effective Aggression – Being aggressive gives the impression of dominance, but unless the boxer is landing shots and not constantly getting countered, it’s not exactly “effective.” Judges look for effective aggression, where the aggressor consistently lands his punches and avoids those from his opponent.
Ring Generalship – The fighter who controls the action and enforces his will and style.
Defense – How well is a boxer slipping, parrying, and blocking punches? Good defense is important.
Hard and Clean Punches – To the untrained eye, it can appear as if a boxer is landing a lot of shots, when, in fact, most are being blocked or aren’t landing flush. A judge needs to look for hard shots that land clean."

just what we needed..... some dumb casual-fan kid, re-writing the rules of boxing LMAO

the rules have been clearly explained to you..... you dumb kid

[BoloShot]

they absolutely can and DO score them, especially ring generalship

you have no idea what you are talking about

here, happy to help.....

I'm not denying they don't help you but in terms of what is actually a scoring factor, no they're not supposed to be included and objectively they aren't scoring factors. This is not a universally agreed upon scoring method, you know that, therefore it isn't official and technically illegal to score. This is boxing. Only certain other martial arts score those factors. Not boxing, they score punches landed.

[aboutfkntime]

You really don't get it at all by the way, that much is very clear to me.

at this point..... I would blindly disagree with ANYTHING you said before the bold