No Idea How Some Folks Score A Fight

[Thraxox]

Spurt out a number? Moi?

Here's the punchstats, Einstein
(yeah, I know Compubox is flawed, but it aint THAT flawed)



That's 253 Jabs missed
That's 232 Powershots missed
That's 485 total, 15 short of 500.

Golovkin missed almost as many punches as Canelo threw total.

That gets scored, unless Defense is no longer one of the 4 scoring criteria.

And Canelo's base Percentage is 33.5 and GGG is 31.5%, and your point?

[Metho_4u]

When I went back to watch it again the second time I changed 2 rounds- the 4th and the 10th. So my card remained the same, 7-5 Canelo. I get a draw. I even get 7-5 Golovkin even if I can't see it.

Anything else, and we are starting to stretch reality a bit.

Because really people were seeing what wasn't there. The focus shifted to Canelo giving a boxing lesson to him being "gassed", thus in the minds of many that somehow = that he couldn't have been the winner. The problem with that logic is no one was REALLY seeing that even a gassed canelo was making golovkin miss more than he landed, add in the countershots, and you have swing rds, that really aren't. This was not a popular outcome to the masses for the simple reason that they don't know what they're looking at, or for. This is a subjective sport, and most any outcome is going to be unpopular to some, whether it's right or wrong.

[koolkc107]

No, neither guy was truly hurt. However, the fact that Golovkin's punches was forcing Canello Alvarez backwards more than vice versa, plus snapping his head backwards more than vice versa, means that Golovkin's punches were more effective more frequently. So even if neither hurt the other significantly, it is still possible to determine who was the more 'EFFECTIVE' puncher.

My soccer analogy isn't flawed. The point was, the MAIN CRITERIA for judging a soccer bout is quantity of goals whilst for boxing, it is the quantity + quality of effective punches landed. Defense is a secondary criteria in boxing for judging a bout. As in, it doesn't have precedence over effective punches landed. In other words, if one guy lands more of the effective punches, then who had the better defense becomes irrelevant. Better defense only matters when both guys were even in the effective punches landed department.

Also, boxing is about punching opponent effectively without getting punched in return. As such, true defense is measured in the face of offense. This is to state that credit is given to a boxer who is defensively good whilst attacking. However, a boxer that simply seeks to avoid opponent's punches without attacking himself shouldn't get much credit because that isn't 'defensive boxing'. That is 'survival' mode where the boxer is seeking to not hit his opponent without getting hit, whilst boxing his hitting without getting hit. So any defense which comes at the expense of having one's own offense being limited /restricted isn't 'defensive boxing' that warrants credit or points.

Also, if one boxer is in survival mode (creating distance without attacking) whilst making opponent miss punches without throwing or landing any punches of their own, whilst their opponent is attacking but failing to land their punches despite throwing, I'd automatically give more credit to the boxer who is attacking. I'd rather a boxer throw punches but miss, over a boxer who throws no punches and lands none. Golovkin threw and missed more punches. Canelo Alvarez threw less and landed less punches. Thus, Golovkin > Canelo.

Your problem is that you don't realize what you were looking at.

True, it was partly from Golovkin's pressing that Canelo was moving back some time.

But, movement was also part of Canelo gameplan. It wasn't survival mode, it was what he trained to do.

Most of the time, Golovkin wasn't "forcing" Canelo back, Saul was moving back on his own accord seeking to lay traps and counter. Only Saul's low workrate made it look worse than it actually was. Saul went to the ropes often on purpose, to draw fire and make Golovkin miss, make him expend energy.

And it worked.

Your soccer analogy IS FLAWED. Scoring is THE ONLY CRITERIA for judging a soccer match so GTFOOH with that "main criteria" crap.

Boxing has 4 criteria. Yes, the emphasis is on clean punching BUT THEY ALL COUNT ON A SCORECARD.
And, the reason why all 4 works so well is often no one wins a certain criteria or both men do well. In this fight, NO ONE WON EFFECTIVE AGGRESSION. Canelo was not aggressive and G wasn't effective. Both men landed hard punches but Canelos were cleaner, more flush, and more often. If neither guy was seriously hurt then that HAS TO go to Canelo. The only reason they didn't in your opinion is because you equate G coming forward as some kind of indicator of how hard the punches he occasionally landed were. And that is a false premise in this case. Even in the rounds were everyone agrees Canelo lit G up (10, 11, 12) it was Golovkin coming forward.

If boxing is about punching EFFECTIVELY without having the same happen to you, how could you score it for Golovkin? He landed very few truly effective shots. His jab was good at times but that was pretty much the only thing he was landing clean and with any kind of force (outside of the occasional bomb Canelo took very well). You still have to explain how mostly partially landed jabs and the occasional right hand trumps the clean counters upstairs and downstairs that Canelo was landing.

[jmrf4435]

give it up.

GGG clearly won

[xhiddenx87]

good to know how u score the fight. I had it 7-5 GGG, clearly winning the fight.

you cant win rounds being active 45 seconds of each round. then do nothing but to lay on rope to rope and eating jabs in the process

[koolkc107]

That's just my point.

Canelo DID lay on the ropes, but he WASN'T eating much.

And what he was getting hit with was NOT BETTER than what he landed.

So yeah, you land the best punches of a round and land more of them, you win.

Doesn't matter if it happens during 45 seconds of a round.

If the other guy answers that by missing and a few jabs, he can't win that round.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Your problem is that you don't realize what you were looking at.

True, it was partly from Golovkin's pressing that Canelo was moving back some time.

But, movement was also part of Canelo gameplan. It wasn't survival mode, it was what he trained to do.

Most of the time, Golovkin wasn't "forcing" Canelo back, Saul was moving back on his own accord seeking to lay traps and counter. Only Saul's low workrate made it look worse than it actually was. Saul went to the ropes often on purpose, to draw fire and make Golovkin miss, make him expend energy.

And it worked.

Your soccer analogy IS FLAWED. Scoring is THE ONLY CRITERIA for judging a soccer match so GTFOOH with that "main criteria" crap.

Boxing has 4 criteria. Yes, the emphasis is on clean punching BUT THEY ALL COUNT ON A SCORECARD.
And, the reason why all 4 works so well is often no one wins a certain criteria or both men do well. In this fight, NO ONE WON EFFECTIVE AGGRESSION. Canelo was not aggressive and G wasn't effective. Both men landed hard punches but Canelos were cleaner, more flush, and more often. If neither guy was seriously hurt then that HAS TO go to Canelo. The only reason they didn't in your opinion is because you equate G coming forward as some kind of indicator of how hard the punches he occasionally landed were. And that is a false premise in this case. Even in the rounds were everyone agrees Canelo lit G up (10, 11, 12) it was Golovkin coming forward.

If boxing is about punching EFFECTIVELY without having the same happen to you, how could you score it for Golovkin? He landed very few truly effective shots. His jab was good at times but that was pretty much the only thing he was landing clean and with any kind of force (outside of the occasional bomb Canelo took very well). You still have to explain how mostly partially landed jabs and the occasional right hand trumps the clean counters upstairs and downstairs that Canelo was landing.

As I've already stated, If Canelo is moving away from Golovkin, creating distance without throwing any punches or attacking, then it is called 'SURVIVAL MODE'. From Canelo's perspective, it's no longer boxing (hitting and not getting hit). Instead, it's not hitting and not getting hit, which isn't boxing.

Furthermore, if Canelo is creating distance without attacking, then Golovkin has the right to do the same thing. If he does do it, then what would happen? Both guys would be out of punching range to attack. What would happen then? There wouldn't be any boxing match because boxing is about hitting and not getting hit and if both guys are out of punching range, then it would turn into not hit and not get hit, which is no longer boxing but 'SURVIVAL MODE' and the boxer who would be most responsible for such a thing happening would be CAenlo Alvarez because he would've initiated such a thing. Whereas GGG would've responded to Canelo's 'NON-BOXING' tactics with his own 'NON-BOXING' tactics. Thus, by default, the boxer who is making the 'boxing' match happen by attacking, would get more credit whilst the survivor who is trying to avoid a boxing bout by creating distance without attacking, would be given less credit by me.

Also, Canelo making Golovkin miss isn't as impressive as someone who is throwing punches and not landing, compared to someone who isn't throwing punches and not landing. I'd rather a boxer throw punches and not land, over a boxer who doesn't throw punches and doesn't land since it would show that one boxer is actually trying to box (hit and not get hit) whilst the other is trying to survive (not hit and not get hit). If Canelo only makes Golovkin miss punches but doesn't land more punches than Golovkin in return, then I have no reason to give Canelo more credit.

As far as judging criteria is concerned, boxing has ALWAYS been about who lands the more effective punches and who the more effective puncher is. I'm sorry, but why would I give any round to a boxer who shows better defense, or better ring generalship, or better effective aggression if he is out-landed the effective punching department? Effective punching is the least subjective of them all. How do we establish those other criteria with any degree of confidence, certainty or reliability? To me, an effective punch is any punch that 'effects' an opponent. So if a punch does the following:

1) Knocks an opponent out.

2) Knocks an opponent down.

3) Inflicts visible damage on the opponent.

4) Snaps the opponent's head back.

5) Forces the opponent to move backwards.


Golovkin snapped Canelo's head back more frequently than vice versa. Plus, he forced Canelo on the back foot more frequently than vice versa. In all other aforementioned departments, they were both equal. Thus, Golovkin was the more effective puncher.