Golovkin v Jacobs

First topic message reminder :

Not sure if anyone is staying up for this as I guess it's pretty much a guaranteed GGG win. Same goes for Gonzalez I guess

But if you are you can keep me company

All my Irish mates are tipping Michael Conlan to go all the way after last night in MSG

I think winning in rugby today and stopping and English Triple Crown and Grandslam has gone to their heads personally

Anyway...after the Haye v Bellew shambles here's to a good night of boxing


Regards

Steffan

I couldn't be bothered mate, to be honest.

Aaaah you mean it's not there Herms, it's okay you can just say that.

The only thing i can find recently is Ward saying he's desperate for the rematch and is forgoing an interim fight in between. Silence from Kovs end though so maybe he's having second thoughts.

Hope not as it will be a corker (although I think Ward wins it wide this time)

Kovalev doesn't want the rematch

Ok...

F..k Kovalev and GGG.

AdamT wrote:F..k Kovalev and GGG.

It's feast or famine with you, isn't it? No middle ground, no shades of grey, no balance, no nuance.

I dunno, not sure how you can say either doesn't want the rematch as both have said they do, both have said lets get to the table and negotiate and a date has been set that both are happy with.

I just think sometimes people get blinded against the fighters they don't like and have to come up with any and all excuses to try and make them look better. Understandable really as your going to pull for your favourite

Herman Jaeger wrote:Kovalev doesn't want the rematch

Ok...

Ward : Froch, Kessler, Dawson, Kovalev.....

All four wins are better than anything Kovalev and GGG have........

Why shouldn't Ward fight a stiff ???...He is more deserving than the other two....Right ??...You're happy for Jacobs to be GGG's best opponent in 6 years !!

Or does logic fly out of the window when you don't like a fighter ??

Froch and Kessler better than Hopkins?

And you talk about logic..

superflyweight wrote:

AdamT wrote:F..k Kovalev and GGG.

It's feast or famine with you, isn't it?  No middle ground, no shades of grey, no balance, no nuance.

 

And is it any different for the people that love GGG or other fighters? Again I don't see you questioning them?

At the respective stages of their careers Froch and Kessler were better than Hopkins, both followed up the Ward losses with career best wins.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Herman Jaeger wrote:Kovalev doesn't want the rematch

Ok...

Ward : Froch, Kessler, Dawson, Kovalev.....

All four wins are better than anything Kovalev and GGG have........

Why shouldn't Ward fight a stiff ???...He is more deserving than the other two....Right ??...You're happy for Jacobs to be GGG's best opponent in 6 years !!

Or does logic fly out of the window when you don't like a fighter ??

Why are you questioning GGG?

Murray, Macklin, Geale, Brook and Jacobs and one of the lemmings. That is some resume.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:At the respective stages of their careers Froch and Kessler were better than Hopkins, both followed up the Ward losses with career best wins.

Hopkins was looking for a fight with Froch for well over a year. Carl went awol

Any version of Bernard beats Kessler SURELY

The version that got beaten out of the ring by Joe Smith certainly doesn't, I don't think any version of Hopkins after Pavlik beats Kessler personally.

You literally believe everything you read don't you Herman, I don't think a Hopkins/Froch fight was ever a possibility, do provide a link to show otherwise if you can be bothered.

The version that lost to Smith ain't going to be fighting Kessler is he though? Pointless argument

Hopkins was calling Froch out for well over a year, Froch could have made it happen if he wanted he was more interested in Chavez

Herman Jaeger wrote:Froch and Kessler better than Hopkins?

And you talk about logic..

Hopkins was 49 dear boy...I've got Berbick in my top 10 because he beat Ali..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Herman Jaeger wrote:Froch and Kessler better than Hopkins?

And you talk about logic..

Hopkins was 49 dear boy...I've got Berbick in my top 10 because he beat Ali..

Still beating everyone on the division bar Kovalev himself and Dawson who was a bad matchup stylistically for him

Ali was beating no one when Berbick beat him

Wasn't that Frochs last fight and he was looking for a decent payday (which many thought he deserved). although why that allows GGG a pass on not moving divisions to chase a legacy or the bearing it has on Kov not wanting to fight Ward i don't know

;-)

Big fan of Kovalev. If he was so great, he should of finished Ward off after his blistering start. Looked a little lost in the later rounds.

Part of what made the fight for me though AdamT and shown how good of a boxing brain Ward has (still can't stand him :-)

Get the rematch done and have hopefully a clear winner and then you never know we might get to see the winner in with Stevenson

AdamT wrote:Big fan of Kovalev. If he was so great, he should of finished Ward off after his blistering start. Looked a little lost in the later rounds.

Ward wasn't landing much of note either

Oh no that's right he won it with the body shots lol

Think he won it more for making Kov looked like he didn't have a clue to be honest, razor thin decision that could have gone either way really and those that are crying robbery really ought to have a long hard look at themselves, then go and sit in the corner (or preferrably go and watch some real robberies)

Herman Jaeger wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Herman Jaeger wrote:Froch and Kessler better than Hopkins?

And you talk about logic..

Hopkins was 49 dear boy...I've got Berbick in my top 10 because he beat Ali..

Still beating everyone on the division bar Kovalev himself and Dawson who was a bad matchup stylistically for him

Ali was beating no one when Berbick beat him

Come on Hermy....49 is 49......Bollox and you know it...

By your resoning Terry Norris should be up there with the greats.......Taylor, Leonard, Curry, Brown etc....and chuck in Mugabi for good measure..

But it's beautiful outside...The forecast is good and it is the weekend........

Best of luck to Crolla and let us hope Linares hasn't got Ian John Lewis judging the fight..

he won't need him Truss, Crolla to win a blistering UD whilst avoiding them heavy shots all night :-) Gonna be a cracking atmosphere, wish i was going

Linares will beat crolla again

Linares is just too skillful

Showing how to box someone on the backfoot without running

I think Linares will quite comfortably this time around, he is a classy operator and the only question mark is his chin, Crolla has no chance of outboxing him. It's testament to his resolve that he made the first fight competitive, he's need to go to the body early and try to slow him down.

Making kovalev confused is not a scoring criteria

On that note kovalev signed wards diva contract

Absolutely disgusting that he didn't honour the original one

But we know all about ward and his pretend son of God persona

Why do you hate Ward so much?

Can you put a link to where he's signed BF and why it's a diva contract etc etc. I've been looking but all i can find is some forums saying 'it's definitely signed, 100 percent Kov has signed it' or Ward stating he wants the rematch and isn't having an interim fight before it and Kov stating Wards a b*itch or some crap.

Actually making your opponent confused and not knowing what to do is a part of boxing and part of the scoring (comes under defence) hence why it's mentioned. Otherwise all you'd get is boxers training to throw as many punches as possible in 12 rounds. As all your opponent can do is confuse you by moving but that wouldn't count.

We do know Ward, as a person he's an absolute balloon, can't stand the man as he just rubs me the wrong way. as a boxer, fantastic one of the best if not the best at the moment. Would love to know where this whole he's ducking etc has come from though

Because his fight style is disgusting when he is up against a threat

I thoroughly enjoyed his performance against froch

The green fight and bika fights were absolute disgraces

The kessler fight he got away with absolutely everything even though he was doing well and boxing well probably would have won wide he resorted to bull tactics

He sued his own promoter on his death bed when his promoter did one of the best jobs with him in the entire sport

He changed a contract that he originally signed

I like wards style at times but when he gets dirty is a disgrace

I gave him full credit for barerra that was a good performance

The kovalev fight wad bull and would have ended up like the fouling in the kessler fight had kovalev not stopped him

Ward says he had it tough and everyone is against him when in reality he has had the most opportunities put of anyone

Do I need any more reasons?

Kovalev posted the fact he signed it on instagram or Twitter it was posted on reddit

It's not a scoring criteria

Defense only counts when paired with offence

I still to thus day do not understand why people think that neutralising a fight is a scoring criteria

It isn't

It's clean punching

Numerous judges have come out and said as much

Clean effective punching is the be all and end all of it the others are products of that

Take Floyd for example and the pull counter he makes you miss and he makes you pay

When he goes into the shoulder roll he blocks punches and avoids them then counters you

Did that masterfully against alvarez

Defence is used to setup offence not stop a fight

Maybe that is why I don't agree with a lot of people on here

It's a fight

Boxing is punching the other guy how you do that is the sweet science

Can't find it BF (can't get on them onboard tbh) but haven't seen any of the demands or nothing so can't comment on it. If the fight doesn't materialise and then there's proof that it was Wards fault i'll be right there with you slagging him off. But hasn't Kov's promoter got form for doing this in the past and then it comes out it's balls.

There's an article knocking about about the issues with his promoter and it isn't as clear cut as you'd think (I know cause i really really really wanted to mention it (I don't like Ward the person) alas it's not quite as easy as you'd think.

Kov's racist antics against Stevenson were a bigger disgrace in my eyes but other than the lads I know I try not to be swayed by personality's anymore (unless it's something major) as a lot of boxers aren't clean cut. Oh and alas the dirty side of boxing is part of it too, isn't it Bhop and Holyfield that are similar.

If Kovalev says he's signed it (he says memo on Twitter) then it must be true.

While I don't condone it

In Russia it is very different

You only know what you have been told

But you are right it was a disgrace

BoxingFan88 wrote:It's not a scoring criteria

Defense only counts when paired with offence

I still to thus day do not understand why people think that neutralising a fight is a scoring criteria

It isn't

It's clean punching

Numerous judges have come out and said as much

Clean effective punching is the be all and end all of it the others are products of that

Take Floyd for example and the pull counter he makes you miss and he makes you pay

When he goes into the shoulder roll he blocks punches and avoids them then counters you

Did that masterfully against alvarez

Defence is used to setup offence not stop a fight

Maybe that is why I don't agree with a lot of people on here

It's a fight

Boxing is punching the other guy how you do that is the sweet science

Because it is a part of the scoring criteria, I don't know where it's come from that only offense counts but if you neutralise another fighter it counts against them, not you. Judges choose to score fights differently with some preferring attack and some preferring defence, this has also been stated numerous times and is often brought up in close fights. (It's also why some fighters prefer certain judges and others don't.

You don't have to deliver a counter attack EVERY time someone launches an attack that you break but you do have to have an attack as well. Boxing the sweet science is about both defence and attack, if all you want is attack then MMA is the place for you my friend.

The only thing that overides everything is a knockdown and if your absolutely dominant after that you can drag it back to a drawn round (although rarely). the only place this doesn't matter is in the amateurs as it's just seen as part of the round. So if your beating your opponent and he knocks you down, your still winning the round.

I've put this up before but it's explained the best here

Scoring in professional boxing is rather subjective in nature. Controversy seems to arise after every close bout, and official scorers are often scorned by viewers that deemed the fight far from close.
Three ringside judges score bouts based on four factors:

Clean punching: “Clean” punches are punches that land on the face/side of the head and the front/side of the torso.

Effective aggressiveness: A boxer demonstrates this trait when he consistently and successfully moves forward in a controlled manner.

Ring generalship: The judges favor the fighter who controls the pace and style of the bout.

Defense: Boxers that skillfully incorporate defensive maneuvers receive credit in this area.

Professional bouts are scored on a round-by-round basis, and judges are supposed to assign their scores with each of the above factors equally in mind. It shouldn’t come as a shock, though, that certain judges favor certain characteristics. In any circumstance, the four criteria are used – in addition to knockdowns and committed fouls – as a way of assigning points under the 10-point Must System.


Read more at: http://boxing.isport.com/boxing-guides/how-the-pro-boxing-scoring-system-works

Note the word Equally BF, they'll tell you the same thing if you look at getting into judging/coaching etc

Oh and before you mention it committed fouls are ones the judges call ;-)

BoxingFan88 wrote:It's not a scoring criteria

Defense only counts when paired with offence

I still to thus day do not understand why people think that neutralising a fight is a scoring criteria

It isn't

It's clean punching

Numerous judges have come out and said as much

Clean effective punching is the be all and end all of it the others are products of that

Take Floyd for example and the pull counter he makes you miss and he makes you pay

When he goes into the shoulder roll he blocks punches and avoids them then counters you

Did that masterfully against alvarez

Defence is used to setup offence not stop a fight

Maybe that is why I don't agree with a lot of people on here

It's a fight

Boxing is punching the other guy how you do that is the sweet science

You've said this numerous times and you're simply wrong, the four criteria for scoring a bout are;

Effective Aggression
Defense
Ring Generalship
Clean punching

At no point anywhere does it say that clean punching is the be all and end it, it's a combination of all four hence why it's called the sweet science but do carry on with your incorrect version of that.

Boxingfan doesn't appreciate defense, or probably understand it. He thinks Pacquiao done a good job against Floyd.

to be fair, not everyone does AdamT, until i'd done my coaching I was utter rubbish at seeing the little defence tactics boxers can and do use now i've gotta teach them ha ha. (Thank god my lads there to show it off)

We all prefer our own style and BF obviously prefers a more aggressive style, Ward/Kov was that close that what you prefer is what you'll score it with (strangely enough my lil un had it for Kov)

Kovalev excercised his right to the rematch and Ward has been dragging his feet on it.

Its difficult to like Ward. Hes like a spoilt brat. Everything has to be in his favour or he wont play. He stacks the deck in his favour every time and he is quite happy to pick up his ball and go home otherwise.

He has been lucky that over his career he has had opponents out there who arent like minded and have been willing to put up with his antics to make fights happen. The Super 6 (stacked in his favour from the start) helped him secure fights he probably otherwise wouldnt have got. If everyone had Wards attitude, big fights wouldnt happen.

Hes built up a quality record (I thought he was lucky against Kovalev as a blemish), but its mainly because other opponents have been willing to take the risks. The Kovalev rematch is just another example of this. After winning a contentious decision his attitude hasnt been - lets do this again and set the record straight. Its been negative. I might retire, I want more money, I deserve a better deal etc. Typical of his him. Quality fighter, crap attitude.

Derbymanc wrote:to be fair, not everyone does AdamT, until i'd done my coaching I was utter rubbish at seeing the little defence tactics boxers can and do use now i've gotta teach them ha ha. (Thank god my lads there to show it off)

We all prefer our own style and BF obviously prefers a more aggressive style, Ward/Kov was that close that what you prefer is what you'll score it with (strangely enough my lil un had it for Kov)

How's the coaching going mate??

I've been watching boxing and studying it for 10 years now and based on what I have been told and what I have seen commentators etc saying

Doesn't anyone remember Jim Watt always saying "If you are on the back foot you have to show you are the boss"

See that's probably not enough evidence right?

Ok then lets talk about two professional judges who agree with me:

Steve Wiesfeld a Professional judge:

http://www.premierboxingchampions.com/news/veteran-boxing-judge-steve-weisfeld-offers-tips-how-score-fight

Clean punches: To me, clean punches are the most important aspect, and the other factors are really tied to that. Take the phrase, "effective aggressiveness." How is a boxer effective? He's effective by landing clean punches. How about "defense?" A boxer shows great defense by not getting hit with clean punches. And, finally, the term "ring generalship." A boxer uses the ring to put himself in a position to land clean punches.

Defense is important because it helps a boxer set up his offense

Another judge Harold Lederman, when I asked him the same question on reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Boxing/comments/4hvd8l/i_am_harold_lederman_hbo_ringside_scorer_and/d2ubse9/

Well, you know, you go by the 4 criteria. Clean punching, effective aggression, ring generalship, and defense. Now, the textbook answer is you score 25% each, but that's not the truth. The truth is clean punching is 99%, and the other three are if you can't make up your mind. At the end of the round, you say which guy hurt the other guy more than him and basically that's it. It's that simple, you try to determine who did more damage.
It's that simple really, they just complicate it with terms like effective aggression.


Also on the subject of clinching in boxing, have a read of this:

https://commandoboxing.com/content/boxing-tip-11-clinching

Clinching is a survival technique to use sparingly.

As well as seeing a multiude of various different people scoring and explaining how boxing works, that's how I developed by scoring criteria

I think its absolute nonsense that someone who negates a fight should be rewarded for it

Floyd didn't do it, Pernell Whitaker didn't do it, Nicole Locche didn't do it, they were the masters of defense where they were available to pounce on the opportunity of someone attacking them and making them pay

Moving around the ring, without trying to make your opponent pay should not be rewarded

And don't get it wrong, its far easier to be the counter puncher because the other guy is committing and taking risks to actually make the fight, the counter puncher doesn't need to open up until the other guy is open

Marquez is my favourite fighter of all time, he is a backfoot counter puncher, but if you watch him, he is feinting and reading his opponent waiting for the chance to make them pay, he doesn't just move around to escape a fight. That kind of defence is setting up your offense

I know Adam is baiting me, but I'll bite, he knows full well I appreciate defensive boxers, I like Floyd, I haven't missed a single fight of his since Hatton

Both those judges are wrong then, simply put.

BoxingFan88 wrote:
And don't get it wrong, its far easier to be the counter puncher because the other guy is committing and taking risks to actually make the fight, the counter puncher doesn't need to open up until the other guy is open

You honestly think it's easier to be a counter puncher than the one engaging?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

BoxingFan88 wrote:
And don't get it wrong, its far easier to be the counter puncher because the other guy is committing and taking risks to actually make the fight, the counter puncher doesn't need to open up until the other guy is open

You honestly think it's easier to be a counter puncher than the one engaging?

Of course it is

The guy attacking is opening himself up, the guy on the defensive doesn't have to until he sees the right moment

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Both those judges are wrong then, simply put.

Yep they are the ones that are wrong, the guys who actually get paid for it....

Harold Lederman admits himself in that very quote he's wrong but mr Technical knows all, you know so much you think it's easier to be a counter puncher which is clueless. Counter punching is the most difficult skill in boxing to perfect but it's no shifting now is it.

It's far harder being a counter puncher. I have done boxing and competed at kickboxing. Defensive fighting and counter punching is very hard. It is not easy to time someone. You leave yourself open to get hurt, by inviting someone to attack you.

Trust me, counter punching is f....g hard. If it was easy, every fighter would do it and get punched a lot less.

In that case, we may as just give the counter puncher the fight before it evens starts, he didn't get knocked out

Countering is hard when you are in the pocket

When you use your legs to escape, make the guy have to come to you where they are moving forward, where as the other guy is set to punch isn't the same thing

Go back to watching fights in slow motion, you don't have a clue.

BoxingFan88 wrote:In that case, we may as just give the counter puncher the fight before it evens starts, he didn't get knocked out

Countering is hard when you are in the pocket

When you use your legs to escape, make the guy have to come to you where they are moving forward, where as the other guy is set to punch isn't the same thing

I'm sorry but I never said a counter puncher should automatically win any fight. But to counter hit someone, is probably the most difficult aspect of any combat sports. If you can effectively counter someone, then your attacker will throw less punches, because of the fear of what is coming back.

Do you think it's a coincidence when fighters throw less punches at guys like Sweet Pea, Toney, Jones etc???

Have you ever seen Whitaker?

He stands in the pocket

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw1t2yAK_wU

As does Floyd

I find that incredibly impressive

I said someone who refuses to engage and moves around the ring avoiding a fight, called a "counter puncher"