Golovkin made all his supporters fools yet we still have some defending him.

[GGG Gloveking]

no good removing the facts you dont like.
he won a title first in a fight in 2015.

prove he didnt.

It's not that I just don't like your "fact", the issue is that it is neither relevant, nor historically accurate. First, there's the issue of relevance. Nowhere in any rule book is it mentioned that the manner of winning a belt has any consideration when defending said belt against another opponent. I've never seen any valid criticism for a fighter beating a champion who was promoted. Case in point, can you show me where anyone has discredited Canelos victory over Golovkin on the grounds that GGG was elevated to WBC champion, after Canelo vacated? I haven't seen any, in fact, I've never seen any such criticism. So basically my point is, this "condition" doesn't actually exist in the boxing world, it's just something you made up to place as a road block.

Secondly, it seems you have a Daniel Geale problem on two accounts. Firstly, Mr. Geale lost a fight in the ring in 2014 to Mr Golovkin, in which Mr Golovkin obtained the WBA Super MW belt. So, it seems your "condition" has a little bit of a problem. Secondly, Mr. Geale fought Mr Cotto after that fact.

Mr. Geale did not have any belt, won in the ring or otherwise, that you claim is a conditional, and yet Mr. Cotto fought Mr. Geale. So, while you've been claiming that a belt won in the ring was a prerequisite demand for a fight with Mr. Cotto, history shows us that isn't the case.

Can you rectify that?

[Boxing_1013]

no no no, homer... you said this...




FACT: a punch that is not hard or clean, is NOT official scoring criteria

and the official scoring criteria are not a..... " guidelines "... LMAO

that is about the 4th time that you have categorically proved beyond doubt... that you have absolutely no idea how to score a fight

that was not your best work

will I just add that to your list... ?

I think I will

For every punch, you have to 1) make a determination whether to score the shot at all; and 2) if you do score it, make a determination as to how much weight you give that punch.

So let's focus on the phrase "clean punches." It may not be initially apparent, but there are various elements included within that phrase. First, there's the number of punches. The boxer who lands more punches generally wins. However, harder punches count more than lighter punches.

Now, there's no mathematical formula that equates the number of punches with the hardness of the punch. The judge has to weigh the two based on his experience. But more important than the number of punches or the hardness of the punch is the effect of the punch. For example, a seemingly lighter punch that causes a boxer to stagger is scored higher than a seemingly harder punch that has no effect.

[aboutfkntime]

We all know how to score fights Scrappy, it's just those of us with slightly less inflated opinions of our own ability recognise that there's always gonna be both nuance and a subjective element... also some of us are capable of understanding our own biases. How bout you Scrappy? You reckon you're an objective dude? You never ever saw a fight where you thought any of the judges got it wrong?

***wit casual-fans who have never stepped foot in a boxing ring IN THEIR LIFE...

who say the DUMBEST shlt...

are dropkick morons... for thinking they know more than professional judges

I don't think you have a clue son... like I said, you just parrot the same ol dumb casual-fan shlt... just like the other morons

when you joined, it was clearly obvious that you were just another silly pac-tard

[aboutfkntime]

For every punch, you have to 1) make a determination whether to score the shot at all; and 2) if you do score it, make a determination as to how much weight you give that punch.

So let's focus on the phrase "clean punches." It may not be initially apparent, but there are various elements included within that phrase. First, there's the number of punches. The boxer who lands more punches generally wins. However, harder punches count more than lighter punches.

Now, there's no mathematical formula that equates the number of punches with the hardness of the punch. The judge has to weigh the two based on his experience. But more important than the number of punches or the hardness of the punch is the effect of the punch. For example, a seemingly lighter punch that causes a boxer to stagger is scored higher than a seemingly harder punch that has no effect.

of all the dumb shlt that you have said...

this DUMB SHlT was very close to the worst...

a 'half point' for a punch that is a scoring blow but isn't necessarily super hard or clean.

FACT: you CLEARLY have no idea how to score a professional boxing match lol

the official criteria is crystal clear regarding what sort of punches score in boxing...

* clean hard punching

you completely re-engineered the official scoring process in your earlier post

what a fkn MORON

[aboutfkntime]

We all know how to score fights

apart from Boxing1013's usual garbage... this is the ******est post in this thread

FACT: it is clearly... plainly... obvious... that " all " of us do NOT know how to score fights

I have now seem 3 people make that assertion... and yet, NONE of those 3 had a clue

what a fkn moron

insists the everyone knows how to score a fight... oh, EXCEPT for professional judges that is LMAO... what utter ******ity

#******ityrightthere

[Citizen Koba]

***wit casual-fans who have never stepped foot in a boxing ring IN THEIR LIFE...

who say the DUMBEST shlt...

are dropkick morons... for thinking they know more than professional judges

I don't think you have a clue son... like I said, you just parrot the same ol dumb casual-fan shlt... just like the other morons

when you joined, it was clearly obvious that you were just another silly pac-tard

How long you been here Scrappy, and how long I been here? Besides I was more a Floyd guy if anything - liked em both - but I left that dumb **** to fanboys like yourself... y'know, kinda dudes who live and die by one fighter and basically lost their way after that fighter retired so spent the next 5 years calling people names cos they don't actually really watch much boxing. Y'Know. Casual, like.

Everything you busy telling other people they are is exactly what you are... funny how that works, ain't it?

[Citizen Koba]

apart from Boxing1013's usual garbage... this is the ******est post in this thread

FACT: it is clearly... plainly... obvious... that " all " of us do NOT know how to score fights

I have now seem 3 people make that assertion... and yet, NONE of those 3 had a clue

what a fkn moron

insists the everyone knows how to score a fight... oh, EXCEPT for professional judges that is LMAO... what utter ******ity

#******ityrightthere

All you mean is that you think everyone who doesn't agree with you is a dumbass, and actually that's all you ever say. No detailed breakdowns, no RBR no nothing... just silly repetitions of the same logical facilies and subjective bullchit. I'm not even really convinced you watch much boxing and I'm sure as fuck you got no more credentials than anyone else here, cept your own self regard. All you ever do is declare your own expertise without ever doing a single thing to prove it.

Ah well. You try with some folk, but they really are beyond help. Just about the saddest thing I ever saw on here, man, you spent 5 fkn years frothing at the mouth cos some Pacfard called your favourite fighter names huh? Ever think it's maybe time to get over it? Try watching some boxing, man. You might even find you learn something.

Ah well, I'll let you go, man. I ain't wasting more of my time on your sorry ass.

[AKAcronym]

All you mean is that you think everyone who doesn't agree with you is a dumbass, and actually that's all you ever say. No detailed breakdowns, no RBR no nothing... just silly repetitions of the same logical facilies and subjective bullchit. I'm not even really convinced you watch much boxing and I'm sure as fuck you got no more credentials than anyone else here, cept your own self regard.

Ah well. You try with some folk, but they really are beyond help. Just about the saddest thing I ever saw on here, man, you spent 5 fkn years frothing at the mouth cos some Pacfard called your favourite fighter names huh? Ever think it's maybe time to get over it?

Ah well, I'll let you go, man. I ain't wasting more of my time on your sorry ass.

How would he? It would conflict too much with writing about Golovkin. Don't know how often I see him, if at all, in any RBR threads or threads unrelated to you know who, unless he brings him up for whatever reason. It's obvious these guys enjoy talking about certain fighters and not actually watching the sport as a whole.

[aboutfkntime]

How long you been here Scrappy, and how long I been here? Besides I was more a Floyd guy if anything - liked em both - but I left that dumb **** to fanboys like yourself... y'know, kinda dudes who live and die by one fighter and basically lost their way after that fighter retired so spent the next 5 years calling people names cos they don't actually really watch much boxing. Y'Know. Casual, like.

Everything you busy telling other people they are is exactly what you are... funny how that works, ain't it?

no son... the day you joined it was clearly obvious that you were a just another pac-tard

long-time lurker here, long before you

I only started posting here out of frustration at the dopey things I was reading

you have distanced yourself from the pacstains, just like you are trying to distance yourself from the g-strings... but as soon as the conversation goes more than a inch deep, you just cannot help blurting/supporting the usual casual-fan nonsense

you say one thing, but then immediately revert to type

you are just one of that bunch

[aboutfkntime]

All you mean is that you think everyone who doesn't agree with you is a dumbass, and actually that's all you ever say. No detailed breakdowns, no RBR no nothing... just silly repetitions of the same logical facilies and subjective bullchit. I'm not even really convinced you watch much boxing and I'm sure as fuck you got no more credentials than anyone else here, cept your own self regard. All you ever do is declare your own expertise without ever doing a single thing to prove it.

Ah well. You try with some folk, but they really are beyond help. Just about the saddest thing I ever saw on here, man, you spent 5 fkn years frothing at the mouth cos some Pacfard called your favourite fighter names huh? Ever think it's maybe time to get over it? Try watching some boxing, man. You might even find you learn something.

Ah well, I'll let you go, man. I ain't wasting more of my time on your sorry ass.

you are full-of-shlt, I have given you plenty of detailed breakdowns pal... and they all seem to go over your head

remember that 309-page thread... ?

the 309-page thread that made you spastics look dumb as fk in hindsight?

I told you idiots that Canelo will be better/stronger at 160

how can you fools go from insisting that Canelo is killing himself to make 155.. to insisting that 160 will make no difference in his performance?

you are just a typical casual-fan... just like the other muppets

you are actually the worst kind of casual... the Pac>Golovkin kind

you see whatever you want/need to see