Tweet
This thread is not about floyd-pac so please don't talk about it unless you are citing examples from that fight. This thread will be discussing the uneven relationship between defensive fouls and offensive fouls and how defensive fouls have become a common part of boxing strategy. So my question is is it really great defense if it's not even legal?
example: If a fighter keeps landing low blows over and over he is punished(unless his name is danny garcia or mares) yet when a fighter continually clinches or bends below the waist(both things are illegal) he rarely if ever is punished. This inherently gives the advantage to any fighter who is willing to go outside the rules and do these kind of moves. Why is one foul(low blows) so harshly criticized while defensive fouls go ignored? Is it because we have been conditioned to accept them as "part of boxing" and why haven't low blows and other offensive fouls become a "part of boxing" Is it because fouls like low blows or thumbing someone in the eye can possibly have an effect on the outcome? don't defensive fouls also have an outcome on the fight? they completely disrupt and stop the other fighters offensive attack. I would argue that the refs failure to take action against these fouls has a direct outcome on the fight as well.
If you look at the sheer numbers guys like wlad, ward, and floyd commit these defensive fouls sometimes over a hundred times per fight. why would they keep doing it if it didn't help them? yet if you had a fighter throwing a hundred low blows they would be dq'd almost for sure. Also when scoring a fight people seem to give these fighters who commit defensive fouls credit under the defensive category which is puzzling since you would not give someone clean punching credit if he was landing low blows. why the disconnect between the two?
These unpunished fouls also affect the entertainment value of a fight. A fighter who can disrupt the offensive rhythm of his opponent by clinching/bending makes the fight very boring because there is no flow to the fight(which is why they do it) The fight is essentially only fought when the guy committing defensive fouls wants it to be fought because he can just stop the action whenever he pleases. If boxing wants to grow its fan base and actually keep viewers they need to seriously look at enforcing the rules on both sides of the coin offensively and defensively. I don't think its too much to ask to simply follow the rules because following the rules would make for much better fights.
example: If a fighter keeps landing low blows over and over he is punished(unless his name is danny garcia or mares) yet when a fighter continually clinches or bends below the waist(both things are illegal) he rarely if ever is punished. This inherently gives the advantage to any fighter who is willing to go outside the rules and do these kind of moves. Why is one foul(low blows) so harshly criticized while defensive fouls go ignored? Is it because we have been conditioned to accept them as "part of boxing" and why haven't low blows and other offensive fouls become a "part of boxing" Is it because fouls like low blows or thumbing someone in the eye can possibly have an effect on the outcome? don't defensive fouls also have an outcome on the fight? they completely disrupt and stop the other fighters offensive attack. I would argue that the refs failure to take action against these fouls has a direct outcome on the fight as well.
If you look at the sheer numbers guys like wlad, ward, and floyd commit these defensive fouls sometimes over a hundred times per fight. why would they keep doing it if it didn't help them? yet if you had a fighter throwing a hundred low blows they would be dq'd almost for sure. Also when scoring a fight people seem to give these fighters who commit defensive fouls credit under the defensive category which is puzzling since you would not give someone clean punching credit if he was landing low blows. why the disconnect between the two?
These unpunished fouls also affect the entertainment value of a fight. A fighter who can disrupt the offensive rhythm of his opponent by clinching/bending makes the fight very boring because there is no flow to the fight(which is why they do it) The fight is essentially only fought when the guy committing defensive fouls wants it to be fought because he can just stop the action whenever he pleases. If boxing wants to grow its fan base and actually keep viewers they need to seriously look at enforcing the rules on both sides of the coin offensively and defensively. I don't think its too much to ask to simply follow the rules because following the rules would make for much better fights.
Comment