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

You're now changing the goalposts.

BoxingFan88 wrote: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"

Footwork is a form of defence, otherwise just fight in a 6 foot ring.

Ali and Jones Jr are examples of fighters, who used supreme footwork and reflexes. Did Ali refuse to engage when he was younger?? How was his performance against Liston? How dare he run away.

AdamT wrote:

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??

Not too bad Ad, I must be doing something right as I start the beginners off and am on standyby if the head honcho and mini head honcho can't be there :-). Moved up from the kids to the juniors now as well which is just a different level again as Personally I find i have to make sure i'm doing everything right as these are kids getting ready for fights.

It's a great feeling though watching the kids get better and I seem to have a bit of a knack at bringing the best out of the quieter lads, they then go on to the 'aggressive' coaches to learn how to knock 10 bells out of everyone

Yeah them judges are wrong BF, although as stated they've told you what there preference is.

I really don't know where you get counter punching is easy from, your accuracy and timing have got to be spot on, not just on throwing the counter punch but also timing the initial attack from your opponent. Put on top of that you've got range, distance and the issue that if you've got some herbert judge that doesn't like defence, your on the back foot (ha ha) already and it's a difficult skill to master).

As stated, all 4 attributes are 'supposed' to be used when scoring but depending on your own skill level and what you can see will depend on how you score it. Hence why there's often calls for ex boxers of different styles to be made judges.

I mean IJL is a judge yet look at some of the scores he's had, are you saying he's 100 percent right because he's a paid judge, then you've got the Vegas one that scored for Canelo, Victor Laughlin last night having a wide decision against Maxi Hughes (yes he lost but by that much). Gonzalez getting robbed against Burns and so on and so forth, by your reckoning none are robberies by the judges cause they know what they're talking about.

On another note, I really don't know why people bring up how long they've watched boxing for, it makes no difference as you don't actually learn anything about the nuances and techniques of the sport just by watching.

Derbymanc wrote:

AdamT wrote:

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??

Not too bad Ad, I must be doing something right as I start the beginners off and am on standyby if the head honcho and mini head honcho can't be there :-). Moved up from the kids to the juniors now as well which is just a different level again as Personally I find i have to make sure i'm doing everything right as these are kids getting ready for fights.

It's a great feeling though watching the kids get better and I seem to have a bit of a knack at bringing the best out of the quieter lads, they then go on to the 'aggressive' coaches to learn how to knock 10 bells out of everyone

That's great mate. They say great pride and satisfaction comes from being a coach. Stick at it man!!

It's the worst thing about working away is that I have to stop the coaching (plus it's a good feeling to have the bossman asking the missus when i'm back) but it's brilliant seeing the progress.

Keep an eye on my facebook as there should be a few more sparring vids of the little lad going up. He should be ready to fight soon (he's nearly 10) so his trainings ramped up a bit (I don't do much with him tbh), he'll jump in that ring with anyone (one week when none of the lads would spar with him he got a 14 year old in the ring :-)

Think i might write a follow up actually as i haven't done that for ages.

Yeah I will check your page mate. I rarely see anything these days. I have seen some of your videos not that long ago. It's good to see how passionate you are for the sport and it's great for the kids.

Boxing at the grass roots is a great sport/activity.

We will agree to disagree

I'm just a sports fan I don't pretend to be anything else

However in the last 3 years the way people score fights to favour the backfoot guy has become the flavour of the month

And it's not just me saying that if you join the social boxing community you will see the exact same thing

And do remember guys I love counter punchers and I appreciate the skill

Marquez is my favourite fighter of all time he is the quintessential example of a counter puncher

I don't like guys who win rounds by surviving and try to make the other guy look bad

I perhaps said it in the wrong way so that's my bad

If you counter the guy rather than just backing off then fine

But saying someone is outboxing someone when they are just backing away surviving I just don't understand

It's the reason I don't score fights anymore because I just don't understand it

Everyone sees different things so basically you can make up anyway you want for someone to win in a closeish fight

I put the point of how long I've been watching boxing because it's not how it used to be

Everything I've learned is from studying and listening to people who know far more about it than I do

Linares showed yesterday how to fight properly off thr backfoot

He used movement at times to get distance but most of the time he was in range and able to throw

And on the subject of judges

I might not know a lot

But they know more than both me and you

Anither point

Ggg counter punches on the front foot

That's even harder to do

GGG gets hit an awful lot and has a solid chin. That allows him to take that risky approach.

I will never be brainwashed to believe GGG is a great fighter. I don't see it, when he fights anyone good. He may beat Canelo. He may not. I don't rate him as a great fighter. A very good Mw and that is all I'm going to say on this subject.

Fair enough mate

We see different things

He looked short of ideas against Jacobs without a doubt

Abel Sanchez to blame?

I'm curious what makes him great? Not looking to be condescending, but I don't see greatness.

If that's his level against Jacobs then he ain't going down as a great

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt for now..

I just think he looks ordinary, but has some extraordinary power. Oh well, if he keeps winning, fair play!

Kovalev is a better boxer, I think

Better footwork

Better jab too.

Ward is a great fighter no question but he could not find a way to get round Kovalev's jab in the first fight. If Ward tries to trade shots with Kovalev in the second fight he will get knocked out. Ward showed a lot of heart but he only landed more punches in a few rounds. Kovalev landed more punches, more harder punches. It was a close fight but Ward's awkward style made it difficult for Kovalev to look his best. On the other hand I thought Sergey made Ward look terrible in that fight

At least we now know that Ward has no difficulty in making 168:

http://www.boxingscene.com/hunter-says-andre-ward-still-make-168-golovkin-fight--114993

If Kovalev made Ward look so bad? Then why was it such a close fight?

Are you telling me Ward is better and Kovalev raised his game??

Ward looked pretty awful against Kovalev, who won that fight handily (regardless of what Ward fans think). Ward was holding, marring and trying to nick rounds - his usual tactic.

Being great isn't about landing shoe shine flurries. Golovkin's style - like Joe Louis's - is understated but highly effective. His positioning and ring generalship are tremendous (yet were strangely lacking against Jacobs).

Golovkin hasn't had the fights to establish greatness unfortunately.

hazharrison wrote:Ward looked pretty awful against Kovalev, who won that fight handily (regardless of what Ward fans think). Ward was holding, marring and trying to nick rounds - his usual tactic.

Being great isn't about landing shoe shine flurries. Golovkin's style - like Joe Louis's - is understated but highly effective. His positioning and ring generalship are tremendous (yet were strangely lacking against Jacobs).

Golovkin hasn't had the fights to establish greatness unfortunately.  

GGG is overrated. Can't you not see that??

I seem to remember Ward deservedly getting the nod regardless of what Kovalev fans think.

Haz you thought Maidana beat Floyd and Hagler beat Leonard.

I will take your opinion of judging with a pinch of salt. Even those who thought Kov won (which is many, I will concede that), thought the fight was close.

Usual bias from you, but would expect nothing else.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I seem to remember Ward deservedly getting the nod regardless of what Kovalev fans think.

It was hardly deservedly when the vast majority of people felt he lost. Undeservedly is the word you're looking for.

AdamT wrote:Haz you thought Maidana beat Floyd and Hagler beat Leonard.

I will take your opinion of judging with a pinch of salt. Even those who thought Kov won (which is many, I will concede that), thought the fight was close.

Usual bias from you, but would expect nothing else.

Usual bias? What exactly is my bias? Who am I biased towards/against?

The majority of press/fans etc. felt Kovalev won. I've admitted I'm in the minority regarding Maidana vs Floyd and also explained my position regarding Leonard vs Hagler (regarding scoring live and scoring after the fact).

You said he won easy? I thought the media had it close for Kov, or Ward.

You are massively in the minority with Maidana and Floyd.

The majority of the press and media scored it for Leonard, or am I wrong? Before my time, but most accounts I have read, Leonard was the winner.

Some of you lot are never happy, it was a razor thin decision that most agree could have gone either way and Ward got the nod (which rubs a lot of people up the wrong way cause he's a t!t)

Hopefully we get the rematch we deserve and there's a clearer winner (think Ward will walk it ala Linares) and if it deserves it make it a trilogy.

Not a robbery by a long shot but you'd think the judges all had it 275 - 109 Ward the way some people go on

Derbymanc wrote:Some of you lot are never happy, it was a razor thin decision that most agree could have gone either way and Ward got the nod (which rubs a lot of people up the wrong way cause he's a t!t)

Hopefully we get the rematch we deserve and there's a clearer winner (think Ward will walk it ala Linares) and if it deserves it make it a trilogy.

Not a robbery by a long shot but you'd think the judges all had it 275 - 109 Ward the way some people go on

Precisely my point, only you put it better.

AdamT wrote:You said he won easy? I thought the media had it close for Kov, or Ward.

You are massively in the minority with Maidana and Floyd.

The majority of the press and media scored it for Leonard, or am I wrong? Before my time, but most accounts I have read, Leonard was the winner.

Kovalev won handily - 8 rounds to 4 or thereabouts. 75% of media voted as such (and most said it was a clear win).

We've done Hagler vs Leonard to death. Watching live, press etc. was split, with more going for Leonard (a majority but a slim one).

I scored it narrowly to Hagler but conceded that watching it live, you'd have found it very difficult not to have been swayed in some rounds by Leonard's performance/theatrics.

Still interested to know who I'm biased towards?

Most people I spoke to and that i read up on said it was a close decision that could have gone either way, haven't really seen anyone other than forum posters stating it was an easy win for Kov and he walked it (and i put most of that down to people not liking Ward (I wanted Kov to splat him :-)

It's just bitterness Derby, Ward got the nod in a very close fight and that's all there is it to it.

Derbymanc wrote:Most people I spoke to and that i read up on said it was a close decision that could have gone either way, haven't really seen anyone other than forum posters stating it was an easy win for Kov and he walked it (and i put most of that down to people not liking Ward (I wanted Kov to splat him :-)

Press split was something like 73% Kovalev 25% Ward 1% draw. Average score was something like 115-113 or 115-112.

Relatively close but clear win (they do still exist!).

That 26% suggests it wasn't a clear win at all not that it really matters when we're able to make up our own minds on these things.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That 26% suggests it wasn't a clear win at all not that it really matters when we're able to make up our own minds on these things.

3 to 1 is fairly clear in my book

Herman Jaeger wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That 26% suggests it wasn't a clear win at all not that it really matters when we're able to make up our own minds on these things.

3 to 1 is fairly clear in my book

And most people's. You had to give Ward every close round to get to 114-113. Not impossible but a minority view.

Regardless of how it was scored, a rematch is needed. Even the most Hardcore Ward fan would agree.

Finally, I got to see the GGG v Jacobs fight this weekend. I didn't score it round by round but I thought GGG won it.

hazharrison wrote:

Herman Jaeger wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That 26% suggests it wasn't a clear win at all not that it really matters when we're able to make up our own minds on these things.

3 to 1 is fairly clear in my book

And most people's. You had to give Ward every close round to get to 114-113. Not impossible but a minority view.

At the risk of being abused..You don't know most people and plenty of the experts you like quoting had Ward winning.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Herman Jaeger wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That 26% suggests it wasn't a clear win at all not that it really matters when we're able to make up our own minds on these things.

3 to 1 is fairly clear in my book

And most people's. You had to give Ward every close round to get to 114-113. Not impossible but a minority view.

At the risk of being abused..You don't know most people and plenty of the experts you like quoting had Ward winning.

Like? The mighty Paul Smith (no conflict of interest there) or Wolfgang Schiffbauer maybe? Forever quoting those guys.

Re scoring criteria, I'm with BF's judges on this. It might not be what the guidelines say, but clean punching is all that matters... the other stuff is what contributes to whether you land the clean punches or not... how have you shown ring generalship or good defence if the other guy hits you more than you hit him etc etc.

Of course, what's a clean punch, how much credit to a power punch over a jab etc means its more qualitative than just compubox stats but the compubox stats round by round were razor thin in ward kovalev and most of the punches landed were jabs, so its a pretty decent guide in this fight. Kovalev had a big advantage in the knockdown round but that aside there was little in it in many of the rounds.

I scored it just for kov, as i felt you were calling too many 50:50's in ward's favour to give it to him, but it wasn't a straightforward fight to score and you could get ward winning without being bent or incompetent.

The most effective boxer wins the round...

If you're a pillow puncher and I'm dominating without landing as many clean shots then it doesn't seem right.

Gotta tell you something Milky; the moment Harold Lederman gave Jesus Chavez the first round against Mayweather I stopped paying any attention to what he said, he's an awful judge of fights and his opinion has to be taken with a pinch.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Gotta tell you something Milky; the moment Harold Lederman gave Jesus Chavez the first round against Mayweather I stopped paying any attention to what he said, he's an awful judge of fights and his opinion has to be taken with a pinch.

just because i agreed with what he said doesn't mean i agree with how he put it into action!

Always been a fan of two judges and a ref scoring...

Referees are closer to the action than anybody. Providing you can find honest ones.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The most effective boxer wins the round...

If you're a pillow puncher and I'm dominating without landing as many clean shots then it doesn't seem right.

Get the flags out but I agree with this - absolutely spot on.

Scoring a fight isn't about who lands the most punches - it absolutely, definitely isn't that.

If a fighter lands a flurry of clean, shoeshine punches and the other fighter lands a meaty, hurtful shot, then you'd score for the more effective fighter.

For me, it's control. Who controlled the round. That's the key factor in scoring a fight.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Always been a fan of two judges and a ref scoring...

Referees are closer to the action than anybody. Providing you can find honest ones.

Thankfully I disagree with this (feel better now).

Some of the biggest stinkers were scored by the ref. Fury vs John McDermott springs to mind (so bad it gave wee Kellie a heart attack).

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Always been a fan of two judges and a ref scoring...

Referees are closer to the action than anybody.  Providing you can find honest ones.

Thankfully I disagree with this (feel better now).

Some of the biggest stinkers were scored by the ref. Fury vs John McDermott springs to mind (so bad it gave wee Kellie a heart attack).  

Thankfully I don't care if you disagree with it.....(Have to take you seriously for that)..  

Referees see things others don't...With two other judges to overrule him if he is biased (let's face it plenty of judges are) I think it is good having the one guy with a birdseye view giving his card...

Was talking about this the other day, think we should ex boxers as judges that boxed different styles, that way your getting a more rounded view of how a fights gone.

Derbymanc wrote:Was talking about this the other day, think we should ex boxers as judges that boxed different styles, that way your getting a more rounded view of how a fights gone.

Jersey Joe Walcott would be exhibit A for the prosecution...Derby..

But I get your drift.

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The most effective boxer wins the round...

If you're a pillow puncher and I'm dominating without landing as many clean shots then it doesn't seem right.

Get the flags out but I agree with this - absolutely spot on.

Scoring a fight isn't about who lands the most punches - it absolutely, definitely isn't that.

If a fighter lands a flurry of clean, shoeshine punches and the other fighter lands a meaty, hurtful shot, then you'd score for the more effective fighter.

For me, it's control. Who controlled the round. That's the key factor in scoring a fight.

For clarification, I didn't say it was just about who landed the most punches, i used the term clean punches as that was what was quoted, then caveated the qualitative judgement you make in terms of power etc.  If you read the comments from Steve Weisfeld he makes the same points, which is why I agree with him, and irrespective of what the guidelines might say, he's telling you how the judges he speaks to call fights, not just offering his own opinion. He's also saying it's not the sole criteria, but by far the most important.

A good example might be kameda mcdonnell 2. One eye-catching shot a round for kameda, a stack of powderpuff shots from mcdonnell.  This got a wide disparity of cards. (Mcdonnell won easily for me because the volume so outweighed the quality). I'll take 1 head jarring left hook over 5 jabs, but not over 20 assorted punches landing, even if none of them hurt. The thing is mcdonnell can't punch, do you just say sorry mate, take up another sport, this ones for punchers only?

You can't escape the fact that the idea of boxing is to punch people. The problem with the concept of control is its very very subjective... to me if you've been in control you landed more/better shots than the opponent. If you 'looked in control' but didn't land a punch and your opponent did, then what exactly were you controlling.

Its the proportion of volume v quality v effect of those punches that is often a personal judgement.

But hey, if the rules say one thing, the judges have their own values, we all have our own values, it's not surprising no-one ever agrees on decisions!