GGG vs Canelo

First topic message reminder :

Now that the sideshow is out of the way, we have a serious fight just around the corner.

I have been watching both guys in their workouts and they are looking insane!

I said I find it hard to pick a winner. I still do, but I am leaning to GGG. Canelo is looking like a beast, but he might be too fired up. GGG just looks much more at ease, at least when he is being interviewed. No matter what I have said about Gennady, he is a very hard fighter to beat and he is obviously very focused for the biggest fight of his career.

Both guys are brilliant boxers and both guys have serious power. I just think GGG's experience and aura at 160 will give him a slight edge. Canelo is very tough, but I expect GGG to come from behind on the scorecards and stop a tiring Canelo very late.

Can't wait for this now and no doubt by the time this fight comes round, I could be leaning to Canelo. It's a great fight!

Ok we accept he was missing a lot all night long derby how about we focus instead on the damaging right hands he landed in the fight?

I remember a quite decent punch in the fifth can you pinpoint a few of the other punches I should be looking out for and in what rounds they occurred because I watched the fight again doing a bit of rewinding when I wasn't sure if a punch landed or not and it's possible I may have missed some?

Could we start with just the right hands I should be looking for?

BoxingFan88 wrote:Has boxing fallen so far that anyone actually thinks Canelo was in control of that fight?

Man that is so laughable, even taking opinions into it, if you are getting pushed back, getting forced to back up, scurry from one corner to the other, that is not controlling anything at all. The aggressor will miss punches, because he is chasing a world class fighter all over the ring. GGG was trying to force a fight, I don't know where boxing became this pot shot and run sport, but its very much turned into one. The point of defense and I've been banging on about it, is you make the opponent miss and make him pay.

Canelo landed the flashier punches, but not necessarily the harder ones as GGG hurt him a lot more than the other way around. There is a round where Canelo lands a flashy upper cut, later on GGG lands a far harder one that isn't as flashy, but its a better punch. Canelo had success when GGG had to chase him down and open up

Canelo was missing wildly when GGG was defensively responsible, he was just willing to go for it more, hence he put himself in risky situations, Canelo did not

Canelo was blowing from the 3rd round on wards, he was being forced to fight when he didn't want to

Canelo did brilliantly, but he just couldn't sustain an effort for more than like 30 seconds

So if landing a few good combinations, then doing nothing except move away the rest of the round wins it, then fair play, but I absolutely disagree

I don't when boxing became a sport where we gave extra credit to the guy who's 'trying to force the fight', Golovkin should have got the win of that there is no doubt but we're talking about a very competitive and close fight. The Bird scorecard seems to be overshadowing quite how well Alvarez did and it was the jab of Golovkin that got him the win not his pressure.

I'm sick to death of this nonsense about Golovkin being defensively responsible when he chooses to be, there's no shame in the fact he's not a great defensive boxer, there's no need to make excuses that allude to it being deliberate. Brook, Jacobs and Alvarez have all shown that but every time an excuse is made.

LionsV2 wrote:

BoxingFan88 wrote:Has boxing fallen so far that anyone actually thinks Canelo was in control of that fight?

Man that is so laughable, even taking opinions into it, if you are getting pushed back, getting forced to back up, scurry from one corner to the other, that is not controlling anything at all. The aggressor will miss punches, because he is chasing a world class fighter all over the ring. GGG was trying to force a fight, I don't know where boxing became this pot shot and run sport, but its very much turned into one. The point of defense and I've been banging on about it, is you make the opponent miss and make him pay.

Canelo landed the flashier punches, but not necessarily the harder ones as GGG hurt him a lot more than the other way around. There is a round where Canelo lands a flashy upper cut, later on GGG lands a far harder one that isn't as flashy, but its a better punch. Canelo had success when GGG had to chase him down and open up

Canelo was missing wildly when GGG was defensively responsible, he was just willing to go for it more, hence he put himself in risky situations, Canelo did not

Canelo was blowing from the 3rd round on wards, he was being forced to fight when he didn't want to

Canelo did brilliantly, but he just couldn't sustain an effort for more than like 30 seconds

So if landing a few good combinations, then doing nothing except move away the rest of the round wins it, then fair play, but I absolutely disagree

I don't when boxing became a sport where we gave extra credit to the guy who's 'trying to force the fight', Golovkin should have got the win of that there is no doubt but we're talking about a very competitive and close fight. The Bird scorecard seems to be overshadowing quite how well Alvarez did and it was the jab of Golovkin that got him the win not his pressure.

I'm sick to death of this nonsense about Golovkin being defensively responsible when he chooses to be, there's no shame in the fact he's not a great defensive boxer, there's no need to make excuses that allude to it being deliberate. Brook, Jacobs and Alvarez have all shown that but every time an excuse is made.

Its always been that way

I didn't say he let himself be hit in this fight, that was all Alvarez and his skills. I said when he went defense first he wasn't getting hit that much, when he opened up he got hit with good shots, no debate needed.

It was a highly competitive fight, but Alvarez didn't do enough in rounds where he started well, he kept fading and had to be in retreat. Alvarez impressed me a great deal, I got this fight wrong, but he just didn't do enough of it. I'm not giving a guy rounds for fighting 30 seconds and being negative for the other 2:30.

Being on the front foot or the back foot makes no real difference, it depends on how effective you are doing it; the pair of them were effective and hopefully we see a rematch without dodgy judging. There's no doubt it's a distance fight now, neither of them can put a real dent in the other.

I always maintain you need to be more effective on the backfoot than the front foot

Its harder to show control on the backfoot, being centre ring is where you want to be

Boxing fan, do you hold your hands up and admit GGG isn't is good as you thought he was?

who landed damaging right hands? neither looked like they particulalry hurt the other one which can be attested to both standing toe to toe at various points in the fight with neither really looking to get out of the way.

I don't think either boxer really controlled the fight BF but I like to take into account aggression and defense (something I know others don't do as they're either not sure about it, or can't tell if someone's running or fighting to a gameplan (not aimed at anyone btw).

Thought it was a good fight and as said before if that 'card' wasn't as wide as it was there wouldn't be as much hassle about the draw and we'd be having a good old yap over it and salivating over the rematch that must surely happen

I honestly thought the fight would go one of three ways. GGG stoppage late. I was wrong. GGG putting Canelo into ultra run mode via his power and taking a wide UD. I was wrong. GGG, being undeterred by Canelos power, outworking him and winning a fight based on Canelos "I was tired" reason for not stopping Chavez. There was no way Canelo was going to win without stopping GGG, which was never going to happen, or upping his workrate. Being heavier and made to work harder rules that one out too. I like Canelo, I think he's very good, but those versions of GGG and Canelo could fight every week and the fight would be the same imo.

hazharrison wrote:

Dipper Brown wrote:Brilliant fight!

Were it not for the bizarre Byrd card & the fact Canelo has profited from generous cards in the last, I don't think the draw would be that controversial a result. If you added a Canelo +1 or 2 card, to the existing two judges' scorecards, I don't think people could really grumble. It's just that the 118-110 smacks of a card that was filled in prior to the event.

Personally I had Canelo winning by 2. I gave him 1-4, one of the middle rounds, 11 & 12. I think HBO gave GGG every round from 3-9. I guess they favoured his aggression throughout. To be fair, I scored Kov Ward 1 to Ward, maybe it's down to taste.

Or maybe you're not very good at scoring fights! Joking aside, every man and his dog thinks they can score a fight correctly but there aren't many who can get it right consistently. The ones that can need to be drafted in for the biggest fights (and going back to 15 rounds for the super fights wouldn't hurt).

Well that could very well be true. I scored Hopkins Calzaghe for Hopkins at first sight. Although I was about 9 pints deep at the time, and life's too short to rewatch that fight to see if I was right.

AdamT wrote:Boxing fan, do you hold your hands up and admit GGG isn't is good as you thought he was?

Yes

Already said I got it badly wrong, don't humiliate me any more...

He isn't faded, he isn't passed it

GGG looked well and truly befuddled in the first 2 rounds as well and pretty frustrated

But he did adapt and just put relentless pressure on and Canelo just didn't have the stamina to deal with it

Is it a case of Golovkin not being as good or Alvarez and Jacobs being better? Both put in career best performances.

Dipper Brown wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Dipper Brown wrote:Brilliant fight!

Were it not for the bizarre Byrd card & the fact Canelo has profited from generous cards in the last, I don't think the draw would be that controversial a result. If you added a Canelo +1 or 2 card, to the existing two judges' scorecards, I don't think people could really grumble. It's just that the 118-110 smacks of a card that was filled in prior to the event.

Personally I had Canelo winning by 2. I gave him 1-4, one of the middle rounds, 11 & 12. I think HBO gave GGG every round from 3-9. I guess they favoured his aggression throughout. To be fair, I scored Kov Ward 1 to Ward, maybe it's down to taste.

Or maybe you're not very good at scoring fights! Joking aside, every man and his dog thinks they can score a fight correctly but there aren't many who can get it right consistently. The ones that can need to be drafted in for the biggest fights (and going back to 15 rounds for the super fights wouldn't hurt).

Well that could very well be true. I scored Hopkins Calzaghe for Hopkins at first sight. Although I was about 9 pints deep at the time, and life's too short to rewatch that fight to see if I was right.

You have a case for Hopkins, however he cheated so bad, it was just ridiculous

I'm not going to try and humiliate you mate.

Was just curious. The guys a very good fighter. Either he is past it slightly, or his competition has got tough. I suspect bit of both.

GGG should have the rematches with Canelo and Jacobs. If he wins both, he can make a stab at 168. If he wins his next four or five, he can be called great Imo.

GGG has a phenomenal chin but I really worry about guys that take that kind of leather, that hard, having lots of tough fights. At 35 he's going to get hit clean more and more now. His chin may be like steel but his brain's still smacking his skull too hard for my liking.

AdamT wrote:I'm not going to try and humiliate you mate.

Was just curious. The guys a very good fighter. Either he is past it slightly, or his competition has got tough. I suspect bit of both.

GGG should have the rematches with Canelo and Jacobs. If he wins both, he can make a stab at 168. If he wins his next four or five, he can be called great Imo.

Jacobs has done nothing to deserve a rematch with GGG. He's not fought since.

I thought ggg was better than he was

And I underestimated canelo as well

Canelo is an awesome fighter. GGG beat a really good fighter Saturday.

Canelo really is

I think ggg won but I thoroughly enjoyed canelos performance it was superb

If he doesn't get a rematch with ggg then I would love to see him in with any other middleweight

He is highly skilled

More skilled than GGG just poor stamina

Adam, BF are you two feeling alright, your being rather ummmmmmmmmm what's the word..............................nice :-)

That's why i like big fights like that though as well you often get to see the skill you never noticed before and/or realise your superman is human after all (which imo always makes them more likeable)

Derbymanc wrote:Adam, BF are you two feeling alright, your being rather ummmmmmmmmm what's the word..............................nice :-)

That's why i like big fights like that though as well you often get to see the skill you never noticed before and/or realise your superman is human after all (which imo always makes them more likeable)

Haha we just disagreed on points

We were always civil about it though

We both defend Floyd Mayweather's honour on here from time to time, Adam sometimes more than me..



You are right though and there is no excuses, GGG hasn't faded, its just maybe he isn't as good as many of us (including me) thought he was

But that's no knock on him, he is still a superb fighter

Last weekend was everything I love about boxing and everything I hate about it all in one event

If someone does good, I will always commend them.

The fight was very good. The judging was appalling. Hopefully a rematch is made.

Bit of comedy from Canelo's dear mother to lighten everyone's mood. Bet Golovkin's blood is running cold from the threat near the end...

88Chris05 wrote:Bit of comedy from Canelo's dear mother to lighten everyone's mood. Bet Golovkin's blood is running cold from the threat near the end...

Hahaha wow

I always remember Pacquiao's mum putting a curse on someone, can't remember who that was though...

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Golovkin was a close but clear winner - something like 115-113. Have to say, though, Ward-Kovalev I was exactly the same (close but clear win for Kovalev with some very tenuous arguments from those who managed to score for Ward).

Scoring is a real issue in boxing but ultimately, you should have a sense of who deserves the victory come the final bell. Golovkin won that fight. Just like Kovalev beat Ward.

Depends what you're referring to in terms of having a sense of who deserves the win? You can think one guy deserves it overall but tot your  card up and round by round you get it narrowly for the other guy or a draw. I used it earlier but the best example of this for me is macklin sturm. Macklin was the better man on the night people screamed robbery ... but round by round it was really close.

I scored Ward kov narrowly to kov, I thought there were numerous close rounds that could give a fairly comfortable win for kov or a razor thin one for Ward depending  on how you saw them.

I felt you needed to give Ward the benefit of doubt in all the close rounds to do it... but it was conceivable. Who deserved to win over the fight as a whole?  Kov definitely, though credit to Ward for finding a way back into it.

Same thing here though Milky. If you wanted to give Canelo six rounds you probably could, yet in reality, he didn't win six. So, for me, a draw isn't outrageous - but it's not accurate. The 114-113 for Ward was worse than that. I don't get the outrage for the first but not the latter. P

Have watched it a couple of times and although GGG probably edged it by a point i have not got a big problem with the draw, as said above GGG was made to miss constantly and picked of with very good counters. There was plenty of rounds that could have been scored either way depending on if you score often ineffective pressure with high work rate over defensive skills with sharper but fewer punches. The daft judge has caused this controversy and if she had had it a draw rather than a landslide i think most people except the decision far easier. On second viewing i definitely think Canelo won 4 rounds and another 3 of them could easily have gone either way and scoring a couple of them for him would not be a huge stretch.

What difference should it make if you prefer 'defensive skills with sharper but fewer punches? ' Fights are scored on punches landed, not on how well a fighter can slip a punch. Defense helps you to prevent the other fighter from scoring. Don't know if it should help a fighter win a round especially if he's landed less punches than his opponent.

GGG didn't land all that many more punches (granted it was still enough to win the fight).

He fought well after a slow start.

No it's not Atila, we've had this covo many times now but if it was just about punches landed it would be based on the old Olympic scoring. There's many things to consider including defense and attack which is why scoring is so subjective and why results aren't just overturned when compubox or whatever says X landed more punches than Y.

GGG did a lot better than I expected after the first few rounds and whilst I think he was shown to be maybe not quite as great as some thought (I don't like the word exposed as he's still a very very good boxer) he's still great to watch and a good guy for the sport

Atila wrote:What difference should it make if you prefer 'defensive skills with sharper but fewer punches? ' Fights are scored on punches landed, not on how well a fighter can slip a punch. Defense helps you to prevent the other fighter from scoring. Don't know if it should help a fighter win a round especially if he's landed less punches than his opponent.

Nope.

25% effective aggression
25% defence
25% ring generalship
25% hard clean punches.

Derbymanc wrote:No it's not Atila, we've had this covo many times now but if it was just about punches landed it would be based on the old Olympic scoring. There's many things to consider including defense and attack which is why scoring is so subjective and why results aren't just overturned when compubox or whatever says X landed more punches than Y.

GGG did a lot better than I expected after the first few rounds and whilst I think he was shown to be maybe not quite as great as some thought (I don't like the word exposed as he's still a very very good boxer) he's still great to watch and a good guy for the sport

That bottom paragraph is exactly who I have seen GGG all along. A very, very good boxer.

Scott, you've got a link for the source of your information?

Atila wrote:Scott, you've got a link for the source of your information?

http://www.abcboxing.com/abc-regulatory-guidelines/

Ahh this old chestnut. What the guidelines say and what people do are two very different things. Partly because that 25% break down is preposterous. Ring generalship effective aggression and defence are the fluff basically.

How was your aggression effective if it didn't lead to more good punches landed. If your defence was good, it means your opponent wasn't able to land good punches. As for ring generalship? What is that really, positioning your opponent so you can land good punches. Not much of a general if you didn't make your 'advantage' count.

Problem with these points is they contradict each other. Ooh that was some good ring generalship and effective aggression, he would have hit him... if it wasn't for the great defence.

I get that you can have a situation where one guy is looking comfortable and the other guy uncomfortable, I'm happy as having that as a decider in an otherwise equal round, but the idea that judges sit there computing 25% this 25% that is fanciful. It gives them a damn good opportunity to trump up stupid cards though and avoid criticism with 'well I know golovkin landed loads and canelo didn't but canelo made him miss a few times and his rearguard generalship was exemplary, rendering ggg's aggression ineffective.'

Lederman is not everyone's cup of tea, but he's not a mile off on this subject...

http://www.hbo.com/boxing/inside/features/article/how-to-score-a-fight-right-with-harold-lederman.html

I agreed with you fully there Milky until you got on Harold Lederman, how he worked for HBO for so long is a complete mystery, he'll say one thing one fight and then the complete opposite the next one.

... I say he wasn't everyone's cup of tea! I agree with the gist of the article not how he put into practice.

Generally speaking Milky your going to score more on what you like more, for some people just sloggin forward and throwing punches is enough, for others it's who hits the cleaner punches (and harder sometimes). The rules are there as a guideline so you don't just use Compubox to pick your winner

Get that derby. For me the issue is always one of quality v quantity with punches landed and that will always be subjective to some degree.

I think the other 3... are all things that contribute to whether punches land or not. So are just 'deciders in the event of a draw' ie if you're undecided on the round then fair enough think about them.

If Fighter x landed 10 good shots and only took 3 in return then that likely demonstrates his good defence and ring generalship in that round and that any aggression from his opponent was ineffective.

Compubox is just some guy pressing a button when he thinks a punch is thrown/landed. There's obviously no qualitative judgement to it beyond separating jabs and power punches. However, Generally speaking the consensus winner of the fight wins the Compubox stats. It's an imperfect measure but better than arguing the toss over who the effing general was!

The aim of the sport is to hit and not be hit, the only measure of significance is punches  landing.

You wouldn't have this discussion in many other sports. You might regularly hear  football managers lamenting that they controlled the play when they lost 3 nil... but they don't expect to get the points for it, they get that the aim of the game is to score goals.

... I'm waiting for the willy pep argument to come up!

Won't be by me :-)

You've actually got a really really good point there, especially about other sports. I actually wouldn't have too much of an issue if we started scoring fights on punches landed rather than anything else, therefore you could still be defensive and make them miss whilst also getting points for yours.

Something to think about that is

Im not sure if this is correct in everyones opinion but I always look for a back foot fighter to be more effective than a come forward fighter if they want to win the round. The reason being that if they throw the same and land the same then the guy forcing the exchanges is more likely to seem like they got what they wanted and dictated the action, walking into the spaces they wanted to walk into. Visually it seems more likely that the benefit of the doubt is going to be given to the guy stalking over the guy retreating unless they're retreating but outlanding the guy coming forward.

Just my honest and very basic level take on boxing scoring. It's what makes a defensive counter puncher like Floyd so impressive.

I score like Lederman does

I asked him how to score a fight and that's how I do it

my question is what is a good shot?

Canelo got hurt more than GGG did

DuransHorse wrote:Im not sure if this is correct in everyones opinion but I always look for a back foot fighter to be more effective than a come forward fighter if they want to win the round. The reason being that if they throw the same and land the same then the guy forcing the exchanges is more likely to seem like they got what they wanted and dictated the action, walking into the spaces they wanted to walk into.  Visually it seems more likely that the benefit of the doubt is going to be given to the guy stalking over the guy retreating unless they're retreating but outlanding the guy coming forward.

Just my honest and very basic level take on boxing scoring.  It's what makes a defensive counter puncher like Floyd so impressive.

My approach is similar, but i give it to the guy going forward, if i think the round is otherwise even, as I deem him being the one trying to make the fight and deserving of the nod. That said i'm not averse to a 10:10 as sometimes i think if you're scratching around for a reason to give a round to someone you might as well just accept you couldn't really split them!

milkyboy wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:Im not sure if this is correct in everyones opinion but I always look for a back foot fighter to be more effective than a come forward fighter if they want to win the round. The reason being that if they throw the same and land the same then the guy forcing the exchanges is more likely to seem like they got what they wanted and dictated the action, walking into the spaces they wanted to walk into.  Visually it seems more likely that the benefit of the doubt is going to be given to the guy stalking over the guy retreating unless they're retreating but outlanding the guy coming forward.

Just my honest and very basic level take on boxing scoring.  It's what makes a defensive counter puncher like Floyd so impressive.

My approach is similar, but i give it to the guy going forward, if i think the round is otherwise even, as I deem him being the one trying to make the fight and deserving of the nod. That said i'm not averse to a 10:10 as sometimes i think if you're scratching around for a reason to give a round to someone you might as well just accept you couldn't really split them!

I think what we have figured out is the scoring system in boxing is absolute rubbish

Its all down to opinion and there are no hard and fast rules about scoring fights and so many people have different takes on it

What that also means is records start becoming meaningless as well, because someone might be undefeated, but are they really?

Its not like Football has a guide line about whether its a goal, it is or it isn't

Which is why I really want people to stop thinking about records and enjoy great fights instead, we get so stuck on who has a better record that who, when really you just cannot compare

BoxingFan88 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:Im not sure if this is correct in everyones opinion but I always look for a back foot fighter to be more effective than a come forward fighter if they want to win the round. The reason being that if they throw the same and land the same then the guy forcing the exchanges is more likely to seem like they got what they wanted and dictated the action, walking into the spaces they wanted to walk into.  Visually it seems more likely that the benefit of the doubt is going to be given to the guy stalking over the guy retreating unless they're retreating but outlanding the guy coming forward.

Just my honest and very basic level take on boxing scoring.  It's what makes a defensive counter puncher like Floyd so impressive.

My approach is similar, but i give it to the guy going forward, if i think the round is otherwise even, as I deem him being the one trying to make the fight and deserving of the nod. That said i'm not averse to a 10:10 as sometimes i think if you're scratching around for a reason to give a round to someone you might as well just accept you couldn't really split them!

I think what we have figured out is the scoring system in boxing is absolute rubbish

Its all down to opinion and there are no hard and fast rules about scoring fights and so many people have different takes on it

What that also means is records start becoming meaningless as well, because someone might be undefeated, but are they really?

Its not like Football has a guide line about whether its a goal, it is or it isn't

Which is why I really want people to stop thinking about records and enjoy great fights instead, we get so stuck on who has a better record that who, when really you just cannot compare

Fully endorse this- I have long held the view that great fights make great fighters, not records-Hearns loss to Hagler, Fraziers loss to Ali in 74, and Ali's to Frazier in 71 are all example of fights where the loser has added to their legacy and standing in my eyes. Participation in those sort of fights is a better indicator of greatness than an undefeated record against a bunch of second string opponents.

horizontalhero wrote:

BoxingFan88 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:Im not sure if this is correct in everyones opinion but I always look for a back foot fighter to be more effective than a come forward fighter if they want to win the round. The reason being that if they throw the same and land the same then the guy forcing the exchanges is more likely to seem like they got what they wanted and dictated the action, walking into the spaces they wanted to walk into.  Visually it seems more likely that the benefit of the doubt is going to be given to the guy stalking over the guy retreating unless they're retreating but outlanding the guy coming forward.

Just my honest and very basic level take on boxing scoring.  It's what makes a defensive counter puncher like Floyd so impressive.

My approach is similar, but i give it to the guy going forward, if i think the round is otherwise even, as I deem him being the one trying to make the fight and deserving of the nod. That said i'm not averse to a 10:10 as sometimes i think if you're scratching around for a reason to give a round to someone you might as well just accept you couldn't really split them!

I think what we have figured out is the scoring system in boxing is absolute rubbish

Its all down to opinion and there are no hard and fast rules about scoring fights and so many people have different takes on it

What that also means is records start becoming meaningless as well, because someone might be undefeated, but are they really?

Its not like Football has a guide line about whether its a goal, it is or it isn't

Which is why I really want people to stop thinking about records and enjoy great fights instead, we get so stuck on who has a better record that who, when really you just cannot compare

Fully endorse this- I have long held the view that  great fights make great fighters, not records-Hearns loss to Hagler, Fraziers loss to Ali in 74, and Ali's to Frazier in 71 are all example of fights where the loser has added to their legacy and standing in my eyes.  Participation in those sort of fights is a better indicator of greatness than an undefeated record against a bunch of second string opponents.

As a fan I agree and I don't mind human error but corrupt juding does matter. I'm not a football fan but if a referee is bias and awards one team enough decisions to change the result it taints the game.

Then there's the boxers themselves. It's not just a W on their record. What about future earnings? A loss or a win normally changes the path of a career by quite a degree. At top level a rematch can be called for due to public interest but go a little lower down the chain and often a loss dictates a far smaller purse in your next few fights.

DuransHorse wrote:

horizontalhero wrote:

BoxingFan88 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:Im not sure if this is correct in everyones opinion but I always look for a back foot fighter to be more effective than a come forward fighter if they want to win the round. The reason being that if they throw the same and land the same then the guy forcing the exchanges is more likely to seem like they got what they wanted and dictated the action, walking into the spaces they wanted to walk into.  Visually it seems more likely that the benefit of the doubt is going to be given to the guy stalking over the guy retreating unless they're retreating but outlanding the guy coming forward.

Just my honest and very basic level take on boxing scoring.  It's what makes a defensive counter puncher like Floyd so impressive.

My approach is similar, but i give it to the guy going forward, if i think the round is otherwise even, as I deem him being the one trying to make the fight and deserving of the nod. That said i'm not averse to a 10:10 as sometimes i think if you're scratching around for a reason to give a round to someone you might as well just accept you couldn't really split them!

I think what we have figured out is the scoring system in boxing is absolute rubbish

Its all down to opinion and there are no hard and fast rules about scoring fights and so many people have different takes on it

What that also means is records start becoming meaningless as well, because someone might be undefeated, but are they really?

Its not like Football has a guide line about whether its a goal, it is or it isn't

Which is why I really want people to stop thinking about records and enjoy great fights instead, we get so stuck on who has a better record that who, when really you just cannot compare

Fully endorse this- I have long held the view that  great fights make great fighters, not records-Hearns loss to Hagler, Fraziers loss to Ali in 74, and Ali's to Frazier in 71 are all example of fights where the loser has added to their legacy and standing in my eyes.  Participation in those sort of fights is a better indicator of greatness than an undefeated record against a bunch of second string opponents.

As a fan I agree and I don't mind human error but corrupt juding does matter. I'm not a football fan but if a referee is bias and awards one team enough decisions to change the result it taints the game.

Then there's the boxers themselves.  It's not just a W on their record.  What about future earnings?  A loss or a win normally changes the path of a career by quite a degree.  At top level a rematch can be called for due to public interest but go a little lower down the chain and often a loss dictates a far smaller purse in your next few fights.

Yep

Fortunately these days, fighters getting screwed out of a decision, only really affects the record, they still get rematches or other big opportunities, its not always the end of the line now

BoxingFan88 wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:

horizontalhero wrote:

BoxingFan88 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:Im not sure if this is correct in everyones opinion but I always look for a back foot fighter to be more effective than a come forward fighter if they want to win the round. The reason being that if they throw the same and land the same then the guy forcing the exchanges is more likely to seem like they got what they wanted and dictated the action, walking into the spaces they wanted to walk into.  Visually it seems more likely that the benefit of the doubt is going to be given to the guy stalking over the guy retreating unless they're retreating but outlanding the guy coming forward.

Just my honest and very basic level take on boxing scoring.  It's what makes a defensive counter puncher like Floyd so impressive.

My approach is similar, but i give it to the guy going forward, if i think the round is otherwise even, as I deem him being the one trying to make the fight and deserving of the nod. That said i'm not averse to a 10:10 as sometimes i think if you're scratching around for a reason to give a round to someone you might as well just accept you couldn't really split them!

I think what we have figured out is the scoring system in boxing is absolute rubbish

Its all down to opinion and there are no hard and fast rules about scoring fights and so many people have different takes on it

What that also means is records start becoming meaningless as well, because someone might be undefeated, but are they really?

Its not like Football has a guide line about whether its a goal, it is or it isn't

Which is why I really want people to stop thinking about records and enjoy great fights instead, we get so stuck on who has a better record that who, when really you just cannot compare

Fully endorse this- I have long held the view that  great fights make great fighters, not records-Hearns loss to Hagler, Fraziers loss to Ali in 74, and Ali's to Frazier in 71 are all example of fights where the loser has added to their legacy and standing in my eyes.  Participation in those sort of fights is a better indicator of greatness than an undefeated record against a bunch of second string opponents.

As a fan I agree and I don't mind human error but corrupt juding does matter. I'm not a football fan but if a referee is bias and awards one team enough decisions to change the result it taints the game.

Then there's the boxers themselves.  It's not just a W on their record.  What about future earnings?  A loss or a win normally changes the path of a career by quite a degree.  At top level a rematch can be called for due to public interest but go a little lower down the chain and often a loss dictates a far smaller purse in your next few fights.

Yep

Fortunately these days, fighters getting screwed out of a decision, only really affects the record, they still get rematches or other big opportunities, its not always the end of the line now

It's not the end of the line but it does have a knock on in many cases. Say boxer A "wins" by a marginal amount in a title fight eliminator but lose to boxer B on the cards as boxer A isn't popular enough, Boxer B rarely looks back.

DuransHorse wrote:

BoxingFan88 wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:

horizontalhero wrote:

BoxingFan88 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:Im not sure if this is correct in everyones opinion but I always look for a back foot fighter to be more effective than a come forward fighter if they want to win the round. The reason being that if they throw the same and land the same then the guy forcing the exchanges is more likely to seem like they got what they wanted and dictated the action, walking into the spaces they wanted to walk into.  Visually it seems more likely that the benefit of the doubt is going to be given to the guy stalking over the guy retreating unless they're retreating but outlanding the guy coming forward.

Just my honest and very basic level take on boxing scoring.  It's what makes a defensive counter puncher like Floyd so impressive.

My approach is similar, but i give it to the guy going forward, if i think the round is otherwise even, as I deem him being the one trying to make the fight and deserving of the nod. That said i'm not averse to a 10:10 as sometimes i think if you're scratching around for a reason to give a round to someone you might as well just accept you couldn't really split them!

I think what we have figured out is the scoring system in boxing is absolute rubbish

Its all down to opinion and there are no hard and fast rules about scoring fights and so many people have different takes on it

What that also means is records start becoming meaningless as well, because someone might be undefeated, but are they really?

Its not like Football has a guide line about whether its a goal, it is or it isn't

Which is why I really want people to stop thinking about records and enjoy great fights instead, we get so stuck on who has a better record that who, when really you just cannot compare

Fully endorse this- I have long held the view that  great fights make great fighters, not records-Hearns loss to Hagler, Fraziers loss to Ali in 74, and Ali's to Frazier in 71 are all example of fights where the loser has added to their legacy and standing in my eyes.  Participation in those sort of fights is a better indicator of greatness than an undefeated record against a bunch of second string opponents.

As a fan I agree and I don't mind human error but corrupt juding does matter. I'm not a football fan but if a referee is bias and awards one team enough decisions to change the result it taints the game.

Then there's the boxers themselves.  It's not just a W on their record.  What about future earnings?  A loss or a win normally changes the path of a career by quite a degree.  At top level a rematch can be called for due to public interest but go a little lower down the chain and often a loss dictates a far smaller purse in your next few fights.

Yep

Fortunately these days, fighters getting screwed out of a decision, only really affects the record, they still get rematches or other big opportunities, its not always the end of the line now

It's not the end of the line but it does have a knock on in many cases.  Say boxer A "wins" by a marginal amount in a title fight eliminator but lose to boxer B on the cards as boxer A isn't popular enough, Boxer B rarely looks back.

True, my point probably only applies in more important world title fights, coming up the ladder it is still very much a problem

Scottrf wrote:

Atila wrote:Scott, you've got a link for the source of your information?

http://www.abcboxing.com/abc-regulatory-guidelines/

Thanks for the link Scott, but I'll have to go with Harold Lederman, and though it kills me to say it, milkyboy.

Alas at this point in time boxing seems to rever that 0 regardless of how it's gained, what we need is commentators (and magazines etc) to point out the hypocrisy of unbeaten home fighter A fighting unbeaten away fighter B but B's opponents are either trumped up or at such a level as not too matter.

As Atila above shows as well, boxing seems to be a sport where we throw the rulebook out in preference of personal feelings.

I still can't shake the idea of compubox or some other being a judge and a scorecard based on punches landed, think that's a really wicked idea

Atila wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Atila wrote:Scott, you've got a link for the source of your information?

http://www.abcboxing.com/abc-regulatory-guidelines/

Thanks for the link Scott, but I'll have to go with Harold Lederman, and though it kills me to say it, milkyboy.

Over the rules? Fair enough. But you can't talk like it's fact.