Why do some boxers get praised for winning by decision whilst others get discredited?

[FinitoxDinamita]

Depends on the circumstances. If an underdog wins via decision, it is impressive either way . But if the favorite is expected to dominate by KO but ends up winning barely by decision, he will get discredited.

Paul Williams-Carlos Quintana 1 comes to mind.

Quintana was fkin dope in that fight. Everything clicked for him that night.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Really?

Then explain the outcome of Paul Williams vs. Erislandy Lara.

Explain the outcome of Roy Jones Jr vs Si Hun park in the 1988 Olympic finals. It's called 'incorrect / erroneous decisions' which are bound to happen from time to time in the sport of boxing that is judged by imperfect human beings. Finding rare examples of a boxer losing through an erroneous decision doesn't disprove my point.

Or how about the knockout rule. Or the knockdown rules? Why do they exist? As in, why does a boxer deserve to win a bout if a boxer knocks his opponent out with a single punch, even if that boxer loses every round and gets out-landed and out-punched in every other round other than the round where he knocks his opponent out? It's because a knockout punch is the most effective punch in pro boxing and it has precedence over all other ineffective punches.

Similarly, a punch that causes an opponent to be knocked down in a round is the second most effective punch in boxing and if a boxer lands one punch that knocks his opponent down, that boxer is going to win that round, irrespective of how many less effective punches his opponent lands.

Seriously! This is common knowledge. Professional boxing has ALWAYS been about effective punches which inflict damage. Whilst amateur boxing is the total opposite. I'm not sure how this is even debatable!

[Combat Talk Radio]

It's called 'incorrect / erroneous decisions' which are bound to happen from time to time in the sport of boxing that is judged by imperfect human beings. Finding rare examples of a boxer losing through an erroneous decision doesn't disprove my point.

Now I see the problem. You keep harping on what YOU think is the deal. I'm giving you example after example where SANCTIONED JUDGES gave a call based on how they were trained to do it.

The point is, I would gladly trust SANCTIONED JUDGES over random people on boards or in the streets with respect to punches. And no, it's not "rare" this kind of thing happens.

What people keep ignoring is what I see in every outcome: judges will punish you for not fighting like they think you should be fighting. They're creating mental blueprints for how you fight and how you've been successful in past fights, and they expect you to stick with it, or they'll punish you.

Pac/Bradley 1
Mayweather/Pacquiao
Canelo/Golovkin
Pac/Horn
Ward/Kov 1

All these "controversial" outcomes where in my eyes, the "NSB darling" clearly lost according to how SANCTIONED JUDGES behave. The only exceptions where that wasn't true was Canelo/Golovkin, where I had G up by 1 round, and Ward/Kov 1 where I had Kov up by 1 round, mostly due to the knockdown. But my opinion doesn't matter.

Pacquiao isn't getting "robbed", he's no longer doing what people expect him to do, which is blow through his opponent. It doesn't make sense to the human eye that he can dominate a larger Margarito over 12 and stop a powerful Cotto, yet can't take Chris Algieri or face-first Jessie Vargas out. Can't stop a shot Rios, can't stop Bradley over THREE fights, never could stop Marquez...it doesn't make sense.

Yet Floyd only really loses rounds when he throws his "usual" fight style to the wind. We saw that against McGregor and Maidana. When he sticks to what people expect him to do, he wins rounds. DESPITE his punches not causing damage.

Which is why I preferred openly announced scoring round by round, so a fighter doesn't have a false sense that they're winning the fight when they're really not simply because they're aggressive. In the old days you saw guys go out there and change styles to try and affect the scoring in their favor, which is how fights got fan friendly.


My point, as I said before and that Floyd has proven time and again, is that it's not only about damage caused by punches. Ring generalship and defense play equal parts to the scoring. But when you're a one-dimensional fighter who relies too much on power and throwing (Lemieux) and you come across a more rounded fighter, you're going to lose in the eyes of SANCTIONED JUDGES.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Now I see the problem. You keep harping on what YOU think is the deal. I'm giving you example after example where SANCTIONED JUDGES gave a call based on how they were trained to do it.

The point is, I would gladly trust SANCTIONED JUDGES over random people on boards or in the streets with respect to punches. And no, it's not "rare" this kind of thing happens.

What people keep ignoring is what I see in every outcome: judges will punish you for not fighting like they think you should be fighting. They're creating mental blueprints for how you fight and how you've been successful in past fights, and they expect you to stick with it, or they'll punish you.

Pac/Bradley 1
Mayweather/Pacquiao
Canelo/Golovkin
Pac/Horn
Ward/Kov 1

All these "controversial" outcomes where in my eyes, the "NSB darling" clearly lost according to how SANCTIONED JUDGES behave. The only exceptions where that wasn't true was Canelo/Golovkin, where I had G up by 1 round, and Ward/Kov 1 where I had Kov up by 1 round, mostly due to the knockdown. But my opinion doesn't matter.

Pacquiao isn't getting "robbed", he's no longer doing what people expect him to do, which is blow through his opponent. It doesn't make sense to the human eye that he can dominate a larger Margarito over 12 and stop a powerful Cotto, yet can't take Chris Algieri or face-first Jessie Vargas out. Can't stop a shot Rios, can't stop Bradley over THREE fights, never could stop Marquez...it doesn't make sense.

Yet Floyd only really loses rounds when he throws his "usual" fight style to the wind. We saw that against McGregor and Maidana. When he sticks to what people expect him to do, he wins rounds. DESPITE his punches not causing damage.

Which is why I preferred openly announced scoring round by round, so a fighter doesn't have a false sense that they're winning the fight when they're really not simply because they're aggressive. In the old days you saw guys go out there and change styles to try and affect the scoring in their favor, which is how fights got fan friendly.


My point, as I said before and that Floyd has proven time and again, is that it's not only about damage caused by punches. Ring generalship and defense play equal parts to the scoring. But when you're a one-dimensional fighter who relies too much on power and throwing (Lemieux) and you come across a more rounded fighter, you're going to lose in the eyes of SANCTIONED JUDGES.

1)

I'm giving you example after example where SANCTIONED JUDGES gave a call based on how they were trained to do it.

Except, 'sanctioned judges' don't create the rules on how a boxing bout is supposed to be judged. They are only meant to follow the rules that have already been established and created by those in a higher position of authority. And if their judgement of a boxing bout doesn't go in accordance to the rules of how a boxing bout is supposed to be judged, then that's when one can justifiably call the judgement a 'robbery' or 'incorrect'. That's why film study videos exist after bouts to prove using video evidence as to who won a boxing bout according to the rules and whether the judge was correct with their decision. And judges aren't always correct with their decisions as a matter of fact.

2)

The point is, I would gladly trust SANCTIONED JUDGES over random people on boards or in the streets with respect to punches

What are those exact things that are related to 'punches' that you are going to trust from 'sanctioned judges'?

And I would rather trust the official rule book that have been already established by those in a higher position of authority than 'SANCTIONED JUDGES'.

3)

And no, it's not "rare" this kind of thing happens.

Yes, it is rare. For every example of a bad or incorrect decision you provide, an opposite can also be provided.


4)

judges will punish you for not fighting like they think you should be fighting. They're creating mental blueprints for how you fight and how you've been successful in past fights, and they expect you to stick with it, or they'll punish you.

Have you got any evidence based on the official rules of boxing that states a boxer must box in a specific way all the time? And that if he doesn't, he would lose?

So going by this rule, a boxer can never change the way he boxes and must box the same way all the time?

And this rule gives the impression that a boxer is only allowed to use one method to achieve the objective of boxing (land effective punches on opponent whilst getting punched less) and that the boxer is not allowed to use any other methods to accomplish the same objective. Why should that be the case? Why shouldn't the boxer be allowed to change his way of boxing circumstantially based on the type of opponent he is boxing against? Since different techniques and tactics are suitable against different types of opponents who are stylistically different.

I've never encountered any evidence that such a rule exists. Do you even realize how ridiculous such a rule is? Since according this rule, the way a boxer moves has greater precedence than the main objective of boxing (which is to land punches on the opponent). So why should boxing, still be called 'boxing' any longer and not some kind of a dancing contest?

My point, as I said before and that Floyd has proven time and again, is that it's not only about damage caused by punches. Ring generalship and defense play equal parts to the scoring.

Floyd proved the initial point that I've already made. Which is that when two boxers are equal in the 'effective' or 'damaging' punches landed department, then those other scoring criteria come into play. However, effective and damaging punches landed are the primary scoring criteria for boxing. The other criteria are secondary ones.

Hence, if Floyd Mayweather doesn't land any damaging or effective punches on his opponent (as is usually the case at 147 pounds) and his opponent also don't land any effective / damaging punches on him either (as is usually the case too at 147 pounds), then those other secondary scoring criteria are used to establish who wins that particular round.

If Floyd Mayweather Jr gets dropped or knocked out (two of the most effective punches in boxing respectively), he would either lose the entire bout or round, irrespective of all those secondary criteria and how much better he was on them.

[SplitSecond]

People are clueless. Same reason Golovkin can't start at a measured pace vs an opponent he finds a threat, if he at any point is not bullrushing and throwing to the wind he's being exposed and out-boxed. But if it's Mayweather giving up the first few rd's, he's just analyzing.