Comments Thread For: Ronnie Shields: Lara's Style is His Style - I Won't Change it For Critics!

[john l]

Obviously I can't dispute facts but let's not pretend that these weren't 2 VERY close fights.

nothing close about lara Williams that was just plain robbery

[aboutfkntime]

Obviously I can't dispute facts but let's not pretend that these weren't 2 VERY close fights.

Lara beat Williams, and he arguably beat Canelo

that guy has no idea what he is talking about

when referring to Canelo, he likely says that Lara won

these guys are crying, and attempting to change the rules, for this reason.....

because their guy was not good enough

these guys are literally taking their ball and going home

[aboutfkntime]

I don't even know what that means & again shows me you are trying to say I'm saying sh^t for reasons I'm not saying sh^t or saying sh^t I'm not saying.

I don't got a "guy" I'm thinking about at all. I think it makes the rules simpler & easier & less subjective to score for that one aspect of what wins a round.

Even rounds SHOULD go to the aggressor & THEY DO NOW largely cuz judges are told to not score rounds even so they gotta give someone the round & they pretty widely seem to give it to the aggressor, effective or not.

No reason the official rules shouldn't say aggression instead of effective aggression cuz largely effective aggression is a bs term cuz like so many terms in scoring boxing its in the eye of the beholder what effective aggression is cuz 10 guys will say its 10 different things.

I've had these discussions before & seen the nutty sh^t people think effective aggression is or isn't.

Also still LOLing at you thinking changing one word on scoring criteria turns boxing into a toughman contest.

But fair enough agree to disagree cuz you keep trying to say I'm saying something I'm not f#cking saying or going to crazytown on what boxing looks like for changing one word on what wins a round despite ring generalship, defense + clean punching still being among the scoring criteria.

ok, so you are suggesting the we dumb down boxing to make it easier for casual fans to understand.....

essentially removing the art of the sweet science, and replacing it with rockem-sockem robot boxing

what I am suggesting, is that casual fans smarten up

rather than change/inhibit any style, direct the casuals to something more their taste..... like 4-round club fights

maybe their level of understanding and appreciation would develop and they would become a more well-rounded boxing fan

I think it is totally stupid, in fact eye-openingly ignorant, to expect to see fights of that nature at world-class level

removing the word effective, from effective-aggression..... ABSOLUTELY is awarding the shooter a point, just for putting up the shot.....

you are literally suggesting that the guy does not have to be effective

I just think that is nonsense

more education/understanding is required..... fat lazy casual fans should have to do one round with a talented fighter who is MUCH smaller than them..... to truly understand skills like footwork/movement/defence/ringIQ..... and all the other stuff that you do not value..... which are all much more relevant than "going forward"

[Eff Pandas]

ok, so you are suggesting the we dumb down boxing to make it easier for casual fans to understand.....

No I think we remove a word, that a lot of judges & fans, don't fully grasp the meaning of now. I think clean punches should just be landed punches too. I think they've made terms that are more complicated then they need to be.

essentially removing the art of the sweet science, and replacing it with rockem-sockem robot boxing

Thats your crazytown take on what I'm saying. If I was saying that aggression should be the ONLY scoring criteria than fair enough you'd be spot on with your assessment. But if we are scoring on ring generalship, defense, clean punching & effective aggression now scoring on ring generalship, defense, landed punches & aggression tomorrow isn't altering the sport all that much.

what I am suggesting, is that casual fans smarten up

This has little to do with casual fans. I don't know why you keep bringing that up.

rather than change/inhibit any style, direct the casuals to something more their taste..... like 4-round club fights

Again you choose to visit crazytown.

maybe their level of understanding and appreciation would develop and they would become a more well-rounded boxing fan

Again you talk about casual fans when this has lil to nothing to do with them.

I think it is totally stupid, in fact eye-openingly ignorant, to expect to see fights of that nature at world-class level

I think you are being insane if you think changing one word of scoring criteria turns boxing into toughman caliber fights across the board. Boxing wasn't that undisciplined when you could hit a guy as he was getting up.

removing the word effective, from effective-aggression..... ABSOLUTELY is awarding the shooter a point, just for putting up the shot.....

If all else is equal & you can't give even rounds, as most commissions frown upon them, who should win the round then? Ring generalship = even-ish, defense = even-ish, clean punching = even-ish, aggression = red corner. Shouldn't the red corner win that round, effective or not? Doesn't that already happen more times than not?

you are literally suggesting that the guy does not have to be effective

If all else is even or even-ish yea. And thats how mfers seem to score things now more or less when all things are even or even-ish. Its hardly much of a jump in logic to just make sh^t easier for all to understand.

more education/understanding is required.....

This is actually something I'd strongly disagree with. Things don't need to be made MORE complicated.

Talking about boxing involves so much bs already that I think thats one of the leading causes of people drifting away from the sport. Things should be made more simple.

I think there should be less rounds in more fights too. I think guys should be suspended longer when they get KO'd. I think more guys should be weeded out of boxing cuz they just sorta suck at boxing, but too many boxing guys think boxing needs sh^tty boxers to "build their confidence". Maybe you shouldn't be boxing if you need confidence built vs part time boxers/full time roofers as a professional athlete.

/rant & back to the point it shouldn't be such a long discussion to tell a noob to boxing what wins a fight. And these subjective terms like "effective", "clean" & even "ring generalship" & "defense" to some degree have enough subjectivity to them to be up for grabs for any judge to determine what wins a round & how much of any of those things decide the round. I'd be pro simplifying those terms into more basic terms as mentioned previously to the point of judges just check marking who won those criteria & whoever won 2 of the 3 = the guy who won the round without much thinking or pause in consideration of the last 3 minutes.

footwork/movement/defence/ringIQ..... and all the other stuff that you do not value..... which are all much more relevant than "going forward"

And again you keep trying to say sh^t I'm not saying to end it lol. Bro at least take the sh^t I'm saying & comeback at me, quit trying to make sh^t up.

I started off not even mentioning the other scoring criteria much cuz they have nothing to do with the thing I'm suggesting, but you've tried to alter what I'm saying so much that I kinda have to talk about the greater scoring criteria more now I guess.

I'm not saying you don't score other things, but aggression is a super basic thing to score & if things are tied up among those other criteria aggression is an easy thing to spot & be a "tie goes to the runner" type thing for boxing. Thats all I'm suggesting. Nothing more or nothing less (although at this point I've suggested more, but you get my point...or maybe you don't cuz you've mislabeled so much of what I've said thus far lol).

[john l]

ok, so you are suggesting the we dumb down boxing to make it easier for casual fans to understand.....

essentially removing the art of the sweet science, and replacing it with rockem-sockem robot boxing

what I am suggesting, is that casual fans smarten up

rather than change/inhibit any style, direct the casuals to something more their taste..... like 4-round club fights

maybe their level of understanding and appreciation would develop and they would become a more well-rounded boxing fan

I think it is totally stupid, in fact eye-openingly ignorant, to expect to see fights of that nature at world-class level

removing the word effective, from effective-aggression..... ABSOLUTELY is awarding the shooter a point, just for putting up the shot.....

you are literally suggesting that the guy does not have to be effective

I just think that is nonsense

more education/understanding is required..... fat lazy casual fans should have to do one round with a talented fighter who is MUCH smaller than them..... to truly understand skills like footwork/movement/defence/ringIQ..... and all the other stuff that you do not value..... which are all much more relevant than "going forward"

u were talkin about ggg last nite right? about how you gotta lot of crap from people??

[The D3vil]

yea, nope...... that would be fkn awful..... and would not benefit the sport at all

there are plenty of fights within boxing TODAY that are exactly what you are looking for..... club fights offer more "action", more KO's..... and you see plenty of good scraps if the guys are evenly-matched

a parallel would be banning shooters from jumping in basketball..... to make it easier for defenders to block..... so that the team with the worst defenders do not get thoroughly spanked/outclassed, like Lara did to Gausha

why should boxing be dumbed-down for casual fans ?

check this out bro





plenty of fights like that happen every year

four-round fights can be very entertaining, I like everything that happens inside a ring

Agreed.

The NBA had this problem back when San Antonio was winning everything and boring as **** back in the early '00s.

It's not like they said, "Hey, nobody's watching the NBA Finals, so let's change all the rules so that the Spurs have to play like the ****ing Sixers or something"

That would be so ridiculous

Lara's fine to watch for anybody who actually love to watch the sport of boxing, just like Floyd or Rigo or Ward who get these same accusations

only problem with that theory is that everytime Lara fights a "top level opponent" he LOSES.

Now, you know damned well that those fights were at best "close" and at worst "robberies" against Lara.

[aboutfkntime]

No I think we remove a word, that a lot of judges & fans, don't fully grasp the meaning of now. I think clean punches should just be landed punches too. I think they've made terms that are more complicated then they need to be.

Thats your crazytown take on what I'm saying. If I was saying that aggression should be the ONLY scoring criteria than fair enough you'd be spot on with your assessment. But if we are scoring on ring generalship, defense, clean punching & effective aggression now scoring on ring generalship, defense, landed punches & aggression tomorrow isn't altering the sport all that much.

This has little to do with casual fans. I don't know why you keep bringing that up.

Again you choose to visit crazytown.

Again you talk about casual fans when this has lil to nothing to do with them.



I think you are being insane if you think changing one word of scoring criteria turns boxing into toughman caliber fights across the board. Boxing wasn't that undisciplined when you could hit a guy as he was getting up.

If all else is equal & you can't give even rounds, as most commissions frown upon them, who should win the round then? Ring generalship = even-ish, defense = even-ish, clean punching = even-ish, aggression = red corner. Shouldn't the red corner win that round, effective or not? Doesn't that already happen more times than not?

If all else is even or even-ish yea. And thats how mfers seem to score things now more or less when all things are even or even-ish. Its hardly much of a jump in logic to just make sh^t easier for all to understand.

This is actually something I'd strongly disagree with. Things don't need to be made MORE complicated.

Talking about boxing involves so much bs already that I think thats one of the leading causes of people drifting away from the sport. Things should be made more simple.

I think there should be less rounds in more fights too. I think guys should be suspended longer when they get KO'd. I think more guys should be weeded out of boxing cuz they just sorta suck at boxing, but too many boxing guys think boxing needs sh^tty boxers to "build their confidence". Maybe you shouldn't be boxing if you need confidence built vs part time boxers/full time roofers as a professional athlete.

/rant & back to the point it shouldn't be such a long discussion to tell a noob to boxing what wins a fight. And these subjective terms like "effective", "clean" & even "ring generalship" & "defense" to some degree have enough subjectivity to them to be up for grabs for any judge to determine what wins a round & how much of any of those things decide the round. I'd be pro simplifying those terms into more basic terms as mentioned previously to the point of judges just check marking who won those criteria & whoever won 2 of the 3 = the guy who won the round without much thinking or pause in consideration of the last 3 minutes.

And again you keep trying to say sh^t I'm not saying to end it lol. Bro at least take the sh^t I'm saying & comeback at me, quit trying to make sh^t up.

I started off not even mentioning the other scoring criteria much cuz they have nothing to do with the thing I'm suggesting, but you've tried to alter what I'm saying so much that I kinda have to talk about the greater scoring criteria more now I guess.

I'm not saying you don't score other things, but aggression is a super basic thing to score & if things are tied up among those other criteria aggression is an easy thing to spot & be a "tie goes to the runner" type thing for boxing. Thats all I'm suggesting. Nothing more or nothing less (although at this point I've suggested more, but you get my point...or maybe you don't cuz you've mislabeled so much of what I've said thus far lol).

I just think that your solution is small-minded

removing the word " effective " from effective-aggression..... therefore scoring for the guy going forward..... is absolutely burning ringIQ, footwork, and defence

just because, you don't know how to score a fight

ridiculous