Golovkin v Jacobs

by Steffan Sat 18 Mar 2017, 11:33 pm

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 Hug

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

by Herman Jaeger Wed 29 Mar 2017, 11:42 am

It's accumulation for me..

I'd take one head jarring shot over five jabs like you milky but I differ in that I'd take one head jarring shot over a hundred even a thousand shots if those shots were causing no accumulative damage

Volume never outweighs quality for me..

by Hammersmith harrier Wed 29 Mar 2017, 11:48 am

So what you're saying is it's impossible for Paulie Malignaggi to win a fight against a puncher?

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 29 Mar 2017, 11:48 am

milkyboy wrote:
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!

Wink away you winker... Wink

by milkyboy Wed 29 Mar 2017, 12:00 pm

If I wink any more I'll go blind... and apply for IJL's job on the next Eddie Hearn bill.

by Herman Jaeger Wed 29 Mar 2017, 12:01 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:So what you're saying is it's impossible for Paulie Malignaggi to win a fight against a puncher?

Why am I saying that if Malignaggi avoids getting caught with anything hurtful the entire fight he can win surely..

Even if Malignaggi gets caught by one or two hurtful punches he can still win if he shakes them off and his punchees cause more accumulative damage on he's opponent than those few single shots he's opponent inflicted on him

If he's punches don't cause as much damage then I guess he loses..

But I get milky's point maybe volume could outweigh quality in a very few instances if the volume is just ridiculously higher..

by Hammersmith harrier Wed 29 Mar 2017, 12:05 pm

Herman Jaeger wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:So what you're saying is it's impossible for Paulie Malignaggi to win a fight against a puncher?

Why am I saying that if Malignaggi avoids getting caught with anything hurtful the entire fight he can win surely..

Even if Malignaggi gets caught by one or two hurtful punches he can still win if he shakes them off and his punchees cause more accumulative damage on he's opponent than those few single shots he's opponent inflicted on him

If he's punches don't cause as much damage then I guess he loses..

But I get milky's point maybe volume could outweigh quality in a very few instances if the volume is just ridiculously higher..

That makes no logical sense and you know it.

I take it you think Gonzalez beat Frampton then?

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 29 Mar 2017, 12:07 pm

Herman Jaeger wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:So what you're saying is it's impossible for Paulie Malignaggi to win a fight against a puncher?

Why am I saying that if Malignaggi avoids getting caught with anything hurtful the entire fight he can win surely..

Even if Malignaggi gets caught by one or two hurtful punches he can still win if he shakes them off and his punchees cause more accumulative damage on he's opponent than those few single shots he's opponent inflicted on him

If he's punches don't cause as much damage then I guess he loses..

But I get milky's point maybe volume could outweigh quality in a very few instances if the volume is just ridiculously higher..

I think there should be only one formula..Who is the most effective boxer..

These 4 criterion for judges give corrupt and inept judges an out.....

Easy to say I marked him up for defence............Harder to explain why a guy who is being woefully outboxed is the most effective fighter..

Derby won't agree he sees decent amateur judging every week..............but for me it is the way to go.

by Herman Jaeger Wed 29 Mar 2017, 12:16 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:
Herman Jaeger wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:So what you're saying is it's impossible for Paulie Malignaggi to win a fight against a puncher?

Why am I saying that if Malignaggi avoids getting caught with anything hurtful the entire fight he can win surely..

Even if Malignaggi gets caught by one or two hurtful punches he can still win if he shakes them off and his punchees cause more accumulative damage on he's opponent than those few single shots he's opponent inflicted on him

If he's punches don't cause as much damage then I guess he loses..

But I get milky's point maybe volume could outweigh quality in a very few instances if the volume is just ridiculously higher..

That makes no logical sense and you know it.

I take it you think Gonzalez beat Frampton then?

I think I scored that fight for Gonzalez actually

Frampton is no Malignaggi when it comes to punching

by Hammersmith harrier Wed 29 Mar 2017, 12:17 pm

I think MMA is more for you then Herman.

by Herman Jaeger Wed 29 Mar 2017, 12:25 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Herman Jaeger wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:So what you're saying is it's impossible for Paulie Malignaggi to win a fight against a puncher?

Why am I saying that if Malignaggi avoids getting caught with anything hurtful the entire fight he can win surely..

Even if Malignaggi gets caught by one or two hurtful punches he can still win if he shakes them off and his punchees cause more accumulative damage on he's opponent than those few single shots he's opponent inflicted on him

If he's punches don't cause as much damage then I guess he loses..

But I get milky's point maybe volume could outweigh quality in a very few instances if the volume is just ridiculously higher..

I think there should be only one formula..Who is the most effective boxer..

These 4 criterion for judges give corrupt and inept judges an out.....

Easy to say I marked him up for defence............Harder to explain why a guy who is being woefully outboxed is the most effective fighter..

Derby won't agree he sees decent amateur judging every week..............but for me it is the way to go.

Depends what you call being outboxed if a guy is on the back foot making he's opponent miss but isn't stopping that opponent from marching forward and isn't landing anything of he's own, is that really otboxing?

Very subjective a lot of judges would reward that, I used to when I first started watching boxing I must admit, but now I see it for what it is- someone surviving but not having a fight. How can you reward that?

by Herman Jaeger Wed 29 Mar 2017, 12:26 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I think MMA is more for you then Herman.

lol

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 29 Mar 2017, 12:34 pm

Herman Jaeger wrote:Golovkin favourite over a post Groves 1 Froch surely

Maybe Ward favourite to beat him but Ward not a natural middleweight

At a catchweight of 164 you'd have to give Golovkin a great shot to beat Ward surely

I'd pick Groves at 168.........Jacobs though a top performance could have won had he been more willing at certain times.....

GGG is 35 next month and I see no reason anybody 8 pounds heavier can't think they can absorb is shots and outbox him..

He isn't hard to hit........

Certainly if Callum Smith impresses when he wins the title.......Eddie would be crazy not to get GGG over.......

Smith is huge........I think he'd be way too strong...

by Herman Jaeger Wed 29 Mar 2017, 12:48 pm

I think George would get clipped in that one..

But post Jacobs it's definitely got people surmising that maybe Golovkin power won't be same at 68

Be very interesting to see him against one or two of the bigger super middles Ramirez or Smith

by hazharrison Wed 29 Mar 2017, 1:30 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
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...

A good ref should be watching the fighters, not judging who's winning (in my book). Seen a load of dodgy ref's cards handed in over the years.

by hazharrison Wed 29 Mar 2017, 1:38 pm

milkyboy wrote:
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!

I didn't mean "looked in control" but who actually controlled the round. Occasionally, the pitter patter stuff will pip the harder single shots. The key is to be able to gauge that correctly - and not everyone can do it.

One look at social media after any 12 round fight these days tells you that. Some people (often so called "experts") don't know what the hell they're doing.

It narks me that some people will say "I liked this more than that." It isn't about personal preference (though, that's effectively what it's become).

by hazharrison Wed 29 Mar 2017, 1:40 pm

Herman Jaeger wrote:I think George would get clipped in that one..

But post Jacobs it's definitely got people surmising that maybe Golovkin power won't be same at 68

Be very interesting to see him against one or two of the bigger super middles Ramirez or Smith

Golovkin would end Groves and Smith is untested (I don't reckon his chin is up to much - just a hunch but we'll find out soon enough.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 29 Mar 2017, 1:58 pm

hazharrison wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
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...

A good ref should be watching the fighters, not judging who's winning (in my book). Seen a load of dodgy ref's cards handed in over the years.

Watching the fighters closely gives him a great view of the fight..

I've seen dodgy referees decisions too.....Never said it was ideal......Happy to lose one of the three judges for another view though..

by hazharrison Wed 29 Mar 2017, 2:12 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
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...

A good ref should be watching the fighters, not judging who's winning (in my book). Seen a load of dodgy ref's cards handed in over the years.

Watching the fighters closely gives him a great view of the fight..

I've seen dodgy referees decisions too.....Never said it was ideal......Happy to lose one of the three judges for another view though..

Referees have a difficult enough task on their hands without asking them to mulit-task. The judges literally sit next to the ring. They're as close as anyone.

In order to get judging right, they need to be taught how to judge, attend regular training and be held to account (demoted to smaller cards) when they hand in a rotten egg.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 29 Mar 2017, 2:31 pm

hazharrison wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
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...

A good ref should be watching the fighters, not judging who's winning (in my book). Seen a load of dodgy ref's cards handed in over the years.

Watching the fighters closely gives him a great view of the fight..

I've seen dodgy referees decisions too.....Never said it was ideal......Happy to lose one of the three judges for another view though..

In order to get judging right, they need to be taught how to judge, attend regular training and be held to account (demoted to smaller cards) when they hand in a rotten egg.

They can't be any worse than the a lot of judges we have now.....He's 1 out of 3 anyway..

Referees know better than anyone how the fight is going.......Just how I feel.....Fair enough to those that disagree....

Two judges and the ref...That will do me.. Wink

by AdamT Wed 29 Mar 2017, 3:32 pm

I would pick Smith to beat GGG and Degale too.

GGG will not move to 168, he isn't a big man and his power won't matter.

Also I like to add, I'm convinced Canelo will beat GGG, if that fight ever gets made.

by Hammersmith harrier Wed 29 Mar 2017, 3:34 pm

Alvarez is too calculated in what he does to beat GGG, aside from size he holds no advantages, personally think you need speed to beat him and it's from there that Jacobs and to a degree Brook got their success.

by hazharrison Wed 29 Mar 2017, 3:43 pm

You're taking a hell of a leap of faith to bank on Smith against either of those.

I don't see anything special there. I think he'll have his work cut out with Dirrell.

by milkyboy Wed 29 Mar 2017, 4:17 pm

hazharrison wrote:
milkyboy wrote:
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!

I didn't mean "looked in control" but who actually controlled the round. Occasionally, the pitter patter stuff will pip the harder single shots. The key is to be able to gauge that correctly - and not everyone can do it.

One look at social media after any 12 round fight these days tells you that. Some people (often so called "experts") don't know what the hell they're doing.

It narks me that some people will say "I liked this more than that." It isn't about personal preference (though, that's effectively what it's become).

So how are you gauging correctly when someone is controlling a round, that others gauge incorrectly? Do you have a formula or certain criteria that elevates your judgement above being just another fan's personal preference?

by Herman Jaeger Wed 29 Mar 2017, 5:16 pm

Slightly off topic I'll just interject to say that Sanchez should go after the Saunders fight and not let himself be dictated to by De La Hoya

Makes no difference to the promotion whether he takes that fight at all Oscar just looking to put a spanner in at every stage that fight needs no extra publicity it's already one of the most eagerly anticipated fight in the whole of the sport De La Hoya can't be trusted and has shown himself to be a total sh1t as a promoter

by Herman Jaeger Wed 29 Mar 2017, 5:57 pm

I personally think though that the Saunders fight ain't happening

by hazharrison Wed 29 Mar 2017, 6:20 pm

milkyboy wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
milkyboy wrote:
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!

I didn't mean "looked in control" but who actually controlled the round. Occasionally, the pitter patter stuff will pip the harder single shots. The key is to be able to gauge that correctly - and not everyone can do it.

One look at social media after any 12 round fight these days tells you that. Some people (often so called "experts") don't know what the hell they're doing.

It narks me that some people will say "I liked this more than that." It isn't about personal preference (though, that's effectively what it's become).

So how are you gauging correctly when someone is controlling a round, that others gauge incorrectly? Do you have a formula or certain criteria that elevates your judgement above being just another fan's personal preference?

How are some football referees better than others? How are any professionals better than their peers: diving judges, ice skating etc.? Experience, knowledge, insight.

Judges should be entirely impartial (kind of where fans - and some/most media - fall at the first hurdle).

Someone had a pop at Lederman earlier. Yes, if you score as many fights on live TV as he has, you'll drop a bollock now and then but I find him a consistently good scorer (as is his replacement Weisfeld) who explains what is unfolding.

At the end of the round, the question is: who got the better of it? And if you're hesitating when trying to split them, give it an even round.

Trying to count punches etc. isn't how to score a fight. It's not an easy one to articulate but

by milkyboy Wed 29 Mar 2017, 7:37 pm

It's weisfeld and lederman we're quoting here, saying it's predominantly about clean punches, and the qualitative element is about how good the punch was and what effect it had.

I don't endorse the Compubox concept because it quantitative not qualitative it gives an indication that's all. In some fights, like Ward kovalev when the kd round apart it was mainly jabs and a few body shots landed I think it's a reasonable guide. Besides we established that I maybe subconsciously add punches up as I scored it as if I'd used Compubox!

Ultimately for me, it's about punches landed with a quantitative and qualitative assessment of them. Aggression/defence/generalship are all things that dictate what punches land or don't.

by hazharrison Wed 29 Mar 2017, 8:36 pm

What happened t that last post? I must have zoned out before finishing it! Bit like C.J. Ross.

by hazharrison Wed 29 Mar 2017, 8:38 pm

milkyboy wrote:It's weisfeld and lederman we're quoting here, saying it's predominantly about clean punches, and the qualitative element is about how good the punch was and what effect it had.

I don't endorse the Compubox concept because it quantitative not qualitative it gives an indication that's all. In some fights, like Ward kovalev when the kd round apart it was mainly jabs and a few body shots landed I think it's a reasonable guide. Besides we established that I maybe subconsciously add punches up as I scored it as if I'd used Compubox!

Ultimately for me, it's about punches landed with a quantitative and qualitative assessment of them. Aggression/defence/generalship are all things that dictate what punches land or don't.

I agree - it's quality rather than quantity. It's who had the better of the round (if that round was the entire fight).

by hazharrison Wed 29 Mar 2017, 8:41 pm

Larry Merchant was a good judge - he new what he was watching. Big miss on the HBO shows (Kellerman gets increasingly worse - thankfully Lampley keeps him in check....just).

by Derbymanc Thu 30 Mar 2017, 6:59 am

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Herman Jaeger wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:So what you're saying is it's impossible for Paulie Malignaggi to win a fight against a puncher?

Why am I saying that if Malignaggi avoids getting caught with anything hurtful the entire fight he can win surely..

Even if Malignaggi gets caught by one or two hurtful punches he can still win if he shakes them off and his punchees cause more accumulative damage on he's opponent than those few single shots he's opponent inflicted on him

If he's punches don't cause as much damage then I guess he loses..

But I get milky's point maybe volume could outweigh quality in a very few instances if the volume is just ridiculously higher..

I think there should be only one formula..Who is the most effective boxer..

These 4 criterion for judges give corrupt and inept judges an out.....

Easy to say I marked him up for defence............Harder to explain why a guy who is being woefully outboxed is the most effective fighter..

Derby won't agree he sees decent amateur judging every week..............but for me it is the way to go.

Do you want some gloves to help with the digs ha ha ;-)

Amateur judging is horrendous and there's far far too much home time sway which destroys some of the young kids coming through the ranks (the amount that give it up after their 4th or 5th bad decision is staggering).

I agree with the 4 criteria but you also have to be effective with it all. As someone said you've got to mix your defense with attack (you can have the best defense in the world but if your not throwing at least some punches, then what's the point)

The 4 points are used to try and pick the most effective boxer but again it can come down to what you prefer and what you actually see. Clean punches should play a bigger part but with some of the faster boxers who's to say what is actually clean or not.

It's a really tough one and judging only really falls down when
1. it's someone really incompetent
2. it's a close fight but you don't agree with the judges

by BoxingFan88 Thu 30 Mar 2017, 4:19 pm

Boxing needs more clearly defined rules, that's for sure

Every single fans seems to interpret the rules differently

Gives the judges a way of swinging fights to fighters who don't deserve them

Fully agree with Truss

The boxing guidelines are basically nonsense

by Herman Jaeger Sun 02 Apr 2017, 8:42 am

Loffler needs to give DeLa Hoya an ultimatum either we get a contract signed by the end of this week or we take the Saunders fight

If we take the Saunders we can still continue to negotiate and announce if very soon after GGG/Saunders

Canelo's having a fight he's equally putting the promotion in jeopardy how do we know he won't get cut against Chavez?

If Canelo's having a fight so can Golovkin

by Sponsored content

Golovkin v Jacobs

Golovkin v Jacobs

Re: Golovkin v Jacobs

Re: Golovkin v Jacobs

Re: Golovkin v Jacobs

Re: Golovkin v Jacobs

Re: Golovkin v Jacobs

Re: Golovkin v Jacobs

Re: Golovkin v Jacobs

Re: Golovkin v Jacobs

Re: Golovkin v Jacobs

Re: Golovkin v Jacobs

Re: Golovkin v Jacobs

Re: Golovkin v Jacobs

Re: Golovkin v Jacobs

Re: Golovkin v Jacobs

Re: Golovkin v Jacobs

Re: Golovkin v Jacobs

Re: Golovkin v Jacobs

Re: Golovkin v Jacobs

Re: Golovkin v Jacobs

Re: Golovkin v Jacobs

Re: Golovkin v Jacobs

Re: Golovkin v Jacobs

Re: Golovkin v Jacobs

Re: Golovkin v Jacobs

Re: Golovkin v Jacobs

Re: Golovkin v Jacobs

Re: Golovkin v Jacobs

Re: Golovkin v Jacobs

Re: Golovkin v Jacobs

Re: Golovkin v Jacobs

Re: Golovkin v Jacobs

Re: Golovkin v Jacobs

Re: Golovkin v Jacobs

Re: Golovkin v Jacobs