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

[Citizen Koba]

Not only that, but if a guy is not being affected by the shots at all, how “hard” are they? Everything is subjective, but the flashy shots are usually what catches the eye of the judges. For all the talk of how canelo “backed ggg up”, ggg’s back never touched the ropes. That fight was a case of expectations influencing people’s perception of what happened.

Never really lost center ring in fact, and even the narrative that Canelo was continually coming forward isn't true for significant stretches of the fight. In fact it was pretty much textbook on how to deal with an offensive counterpuncher which is the role Canelo was playing on the night. Canelo's approach was not dissimilar to GGG s usual strategy, come forward, put the pressure on and wait for them to make the mistake trying to keep you off, cept GGG wasn't biting cos he knew what was happening.

At the end of the day neither of 'em did a great deal of effective work because they were both very aware of what might come back... Golovkin scored with his jabs cos he knew Canelo was waiting to Counter anything else and Canelo with uppercuts and lead hooks, the vast majority of which didn't have a great deal on 'em, again cos he was very wary of commiting and leaving himself open.

[Citizen Koba]

you hit the nail on the head. Heavily biased fan boys or haters may be among the least qualified to score a fight, regardless of what the think they know about scoring.

Exactly this ^. One of the most powerful and insidious forms of cognitive dissonance is affirmation bias, which means neither fans nor haters can be trusted to score accurately in virtually direct proportion to their level of emotional investment. We're pretty much all affected to a degree, but as long as you ain't some rabid nutter hater or fanboy the vast majority of scores will tend to fall in a fairly narrow acceptable range.

[Lomadeaux]

Look its a pvssy-g stan ^

It's funny reading the posts of out of shape, wanna-be boys on this forum.

[Boxing_1013]

Ultimately the bold is how I see it and I have seen a professional jusge say pretty much the same thing... everything else is just a means to one end... hitting or hurting the other guy more than he hits or hurts you.

I think if they're otherwise inseperable you might work down the list of other factors:

Effective aggression
Ring Generalship
Defense

And see whether you can differentiate 'em that way, but if they are landing about the same amount really how much seperation can there be?

Yeah when I have the 50/50 too close to call rounds, I really think the best protocol is to more or less split those rounds...I think that scoring actively the other criteria can be a bit of an out for some to give all the close rounds to their guy.

Like if there were 6 close rounds in a fight..I would probably split 3-3 9 times out of 10...if someone wants to shade those to his guy, they could say, well I think my guy had better defense and ring generalship etc in 5 of those rounds actually, so I gave him 5.

If the other 6 rounds were clear...5-1 to fighter A...that could be the difference between an 8-4 win for one guy, and a 6-6 draw...or even muddying up the 'clear' rounds and saying that it was really 3-1 on clear rounds...etc etc...idk man I just don't think most fights are 'could go either way' types of fights...and that seems to be the MO of some on here to try and justify bad cards and decisions.

I definitely see what you're saying though...and we are basically in agreement anyway it seems.

[Boxing_1013]

Not only that, but if a guy is not being affected by the shots at all, how “hard” are they? Everything is subjective, but the flashy shots are usually what catches the eye of the judges. For all the talk of how canelo “backed ggg up”, ggg’s back never touched the ropes. That fight was a case of expectations influencing people’s perception of what happened.

https://www.premierboxingchampions.c...ow-score-fight

"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."

Good point...that comment is from Weisfeld as well...basically saying what we all (should) know anyway.

[TonyGe]

Thanks man...the above post is not intended for you obviously...but I would just say that I don't really subscribe to the notion that you should score anything in a fight other than the punches landed and their effectiveness...all the other criteria is important...but only insofar as it helps you to land clean hard effective punches...whoever does that better, wins...that's really all there is to it.

I do agree though that reasonable people can differ about who lands better shots in a round...about what lands clean etc...that is fair...but generally I think it is pretty clear what is taking place in a ring...and imho you have about 5% of fights that are either-way/50/50 type of fights...95% of fights imho have 1 clear winner...and both GGG-Canelo fights were that way.

GGG-SD was a legit either way type fight that I shade to GGG but certainly live I wouldn't argue with anyone giving Sergei 7 rounds...on the rewatch I think I was maybe giving Sergei a bit more credit than deserved perhaps due to over-achieving based on my initial estimates...but it was still a very close tough pick-em fight imo.

GGG-Jacobs and the 2 GGG Canelo fights were all good fights with 1 clear winner - GGG.

I had Sergei winning but I might have given him more credit because he did things to Golovkin that Canelo couldn't do. He actually hurt Golovkin at one point. I thought badly. He turned him. That was surprising. Whether Golovkin won or lost I'd love to see a rematch.

[Boxing_1013]

I had Sergei winning but I might have given him more credit because he did things to Golovkin that Canelo couldn't do. He actually hurt Golovkin at one point. I thought badly. He turned him. That was surprising. Whether Golovkin won or lost I'd love to see a rematch.

Yes I feel pretty much the same way...watching live...I felt Sergei was the better man...scoring it afterwards (that same night) on rewatch, I had it 6-6 to GGG but felt he got there by the skin of his teeth, and still felt SD was the better man that night.

When I rewatched a 2nd time a week later, I had it 7-5 to GGG, and SD's activity that I saw the first time, wasn't quite as dominant...GGG was basically as active as SD most rounds, but GGG imho was also landing the better shots in a lot of those rounds...definitely quite a few close rounds though.

And on my card, GGG was fortunate to be up 3 pts after 2 rounds due to the KD, and the big cut he opened up...the rest of the fight he was at least fought 50/50 and maybe closer to 60/40 to Sergei.

I need to rewatch that one again now and see how I score it, now that I'm so far removed from it.

[TonyGe]

Yes I feel pretty much the same way...watching live...I felt Sergei was the better man...scoring it afterwards (that same night) on rewatch, I had it 6-6 to GGG but felt he got there by the skin of his teeth, and still felt SD was the better man that night.

When I rewatched a 2nd time a week later, I had it 7-5 to GGG, and SD's activity that I saw the first time, wasn't quite as dominant...GGG was basically as active as SD most rounds, but GGG imho was also landing the better shots in a lot of those rounds...definitely quite a few close rounds though.

And on my card, GGG was fortunate to be up 3 pts after 2 rounds due to the KD, and the big cut he opened up...the rest of the fight he was at least fought 50/50 and maybe closer to 60/40 to Sergei.

I need to rewatch that one again now and see how I score it, now that I'm so far removed from it.

I only watched it one time but a rematch would be fine with me regardless.

[Boxing_1013]

I only watched it one time but a rematch would be fine with me regardless.

It was a great fight...and another reminder to me that GGG is an exciting fighter...he always comes to put on a show for the fans.

[Real King Kong]

Exactly this ^. One of the most powerful and insidious forms of cognitive dissonance is affirmation bias, which means neither fans nor haters can be trusted to score accurately in virtually direct proportion to their level of emotional investment. We're pretty much all affected to a degree, but as long as you ain't some rabid nutter hater or fanboy the vast majority of scores will tend to fall in a fairly narrow acceptable range.

Although I’m not sure I’d call confirmation bias a form of cognitive dissonance, more like a form of cognitive bias...I wholeheartedly agree.