Mayweather's IV injection (Master thread)

[Rath]

I don't know that a power Punch counts x percent more than a jab or ring generalship counts x percent.

Effective aggression is more important. The key word is "effective". Effective aggression isn't just wildly throwing power punches that are blocked or partially blocked. If a jab disrupts the rhythm and timing of an opponent such that it forces him to stop throwing punches I think that is effective.

If a fighter is throwing all power shots and missing, well defense and ring generalship are likely the cause of this. If fighter is keeps moving forward but isn't landing is his aggression effective? I guess thats up to the judge.

in short there is no real standard being followed on how to score a boxing match.

it all depends on a judge perception of the fight. tue or false?

there will be judges who favors brawler and those who faovrs boxers.

sans knock downs and knock outs, what is the chance of a brawler winning the fight if two of the three judges favors a boxer?

sans knock downs and knock outs what is the chance of a boxer winning the fight if two of the three judges favors brawler?

SHAME ON YOU

[The Big Dunn]

in short there is no real standard being followed on how to score a boxing match.

it all depends on a judge perception of the fight. tue or false?

there will be judges who favors brawler and those who faovrs boxers.

sans knock downs and knock outs, what is the chance of a brawler winning the fight if two of the three judges favors a boxer?

sans knock downs and knock outs what is the chance of a boxer winning the fight if two of the three judges favors brawler?

SHAME ON YOU

no, but it is subjective. you can favor whatever style, so long as you score the fight properly.

Judges can favor either, but the fight dictates the scoring, least it should. Most often it does. There are bad scores but it isn't an epidemic.

The problem is that too often fans of guys that lose want to limit what parts of the fight they look at. You have to look at the whole fight and not just what your guy does well.

[Twako]

geez I wonder why Pac never wanted to give blood earlier in his career. some probably read and take that as a myth, when it was the case. I think Floyd owned Top Rank. that ''libel'' lawsuit to Floyd's money was like throwing a pebble at a freight train.

you're talking about random drug tests, which are not really comprehensively random. all boxers, pac included, go thru commission required blood testing for every fight.

[Rath]

no, but it is subjective. you can favor whatever style, so long as you score the fight properly.

Judges can favor either, but the fight dictates the scoring, least it should. Most often it does. There are bad scores but it isn't an epidemic.

The problem is that too often fans of guys that lose want to limit what parts of the fight they look at. You have to look at the whole fight and not just what your guy does well.

is that so?

then where does a judge favors brawler or boxers came from if he scores the fight properly?

if 19 out of 21 fights scored by judges A showed he scores it all for the brawler, is it safe to say he is a judge who faoors brawlers?

or judge A scores all those 19 fights properly, or coincidentally it's just that to his perception the brawler really won?


SHAME ON YOU

[The Big Dunn]

is that so?

then where does a judge favors brawler or boxers came from if he scores the fight properly?

if 19 out of 21 fights scored by judges A showed he scores it all for the brawler, is it safe to say he is a judge who faoors brawlers?

or judge A scores all those 19 fights properly, or coincidentally it's just that to his perception the brawler really won?


SHAME ON YOU

you said they favor brawlers or boxers. i said it didn't matter what the preference, so long as you score the fight properly and let what happens in the ring dictate your scoring.

Not really. those 21 fights are all seperate. The 19 times he scored for what you are calling the brawler might just have been determined by what happened in the ring, not pre determined bias.

The problem is you are using the outcome (you didn't want) to determine how you see everything. Had you gotten the outcome you wanted, you wouldn't be looking for bias.

[Rath]

you said they favor brawlers or boxers. i said it didn't matter what the preference, so long as you score the fight properly and let what happens in the ring dictate your scoring.

Not really. those 21 fights are all seperate. The 19 times he scored for what you are calling the brawler might just have been determined by what happened in the ring, not pre determined bias.

The problem is you are using the outcome (you didn't want) to determine how you see everything. Had you gotten the outcome you wanted, you wouldn't be looking for bias.

Then it's a myth that judge so and so favors brawler and judge so and so favors boxer?

if scoring depends on how judges saw a fight, and two judges scored the same fight differently. who was scoring the fight properly and who was not?

SHAME ON YOU

[The Big Dunn]

Then it's a myth that judge so and so favors brawler and judge so and so favors boxer?

if scoring depends on how judges saw a fight, and two judges scored the same fight differently. who was scoring the fight properly and who was not?

SHAME ON YOU

No the myths might have vladity, but that doesn't mean there is bias in scoring. Comissions tend to give the best judges the big fights. These are judges, regardless of who they favor, consistently have scorecards that we all agree with.

you can score a fight properly and have different cards because each judge is at a different angle. you can also have the exact same cards.

There isn't much question about the accuracy or validity of the scorecards for floyd/manny among the writers/media/juornalists/pros that were at the fight and scored it. there are a lot of upset Manny fans that have scorecards (after rewatching) that differ from the judges and those that scored at ringside.

I think its easy to spot where the bias is.

[Rath]

No the myths might have vladity, but that doesn't mean there is bias in scoring. Comissions tend to give the best judges the big fights. These are judges, regardless of who they favor, consistently have scorecards that we all agree with.

you can score a fight properly and have different cards because each judge is at a different angle. you can also have the exact same cards.

There isn't much question about the accuracy or validity of the scorecards for floyd/manny among the writers/media/juornalists/pros that were at the fight and scored it. there are a lot of upset Manny fans that have scorecards (after rewatching) that differ from the judges and those that scored at ringside.

I think its easy to spot where the bias is.

never mentioned Floyd or Pac since we start this conversation.

all i am after at is how to really score a boxing match.

but since you brought it up, you say big fights are given to the best judges.

were dave moretti, Burt Clements, and Geln Feldman always the judges on all of Vegas Big fights?


SHAME ON YOU

[The Big Dunn]

never mentioned Floyd or Pac since we start this conversation.

all i am after at is how to really score a boxing match.

but since you brought it up, you say big fights are given to the best judges.

were dave moretti, Burt Clements, and Geln Feldman always the judges on all of Vegas Big fights?


SHAME ON YOU

You didn't mention them but you didn't have to. Your inquiries about fight scoring are directly related to your unhappiness with the outcome of the fight.

I don't know but the 3 of them do get a lot of work. They are respected. Now, have they had cards I didn't agree with, of course,but their overall body of work is top quality.

[Rath]

You didn't mention them but you didn't have to. Your inquiries about fight scoring are directly related to your unhappiness with the outcome of the fight.

I don't know but the 3 of them do get a lot of work. They are respected. Now, have they had cards I didn't agree with, of course,but their overall body of work is top quality.

that's just an assumption.

you said the big fights are given to the best judges.

Floyd vs Pac was a big fight that deserves best judges in vegas.

Dave morett,i Glen Fledman, and Burt Clements were the judges in Floyd vs Pac therefore they were the best judges in vegas, meaning this three should always be the judges for all big fights in vegas right?

if not, then they are giving other big fights a lesser type of judges don't you think?


SHAME ON YOU