Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Boxing Discussion' started by DannyNL, Mar 19, 2017.
Should be a sticky.
Ban repeat offenders. Sarcasm. But kind of for real. Lol
I thought Jacobs/Golovkin was a lot closer than Kovalev/Ward. I think casual fans get too hung up on power. I think a lot of fans score rounds with a bias to whoever has the bigger rep as a hitter.
Yeah, you undermined me from the get go talking shit about my card, 9-3(w/10-8rd) isn't necessarily lopsided, it can still be a fight that was closer than the cards indicate, but cards are cards, and I don't apologize for giving the rounds to who I believe won. I'm extremely passionate about boxing, I score with hopes of deciding who really won, I can't stand when the wrong guy gets it, they leave a piece of themselves in there every fucking time, I'm not letting you or any number of posters or experts, or even judges bully me into doubting what I saw or diminish it's truth. I embrace boxings success stories, and have my sentimental favs, but I embrace the sport as a whole, not selected fighters.
Also, you should learn the scoring criteria, just because you are an MMA fan pretending to have boxing knowledge doesn't = you get to use the 8 sided OCTAGON scoring criteria where you add extra criteria for more extreme results.
Hopefully Jacobs gets the Canelo fight, not GGG, I already know Jacobs can beat GGG, so the fight Im really excited to see is Jacobs/Canelo.
Also Lemeiux is a good option, it's a good fight as a backup.
Danny pure class in defeat, btw. Forging ahead. Good man.
Damage meaning a guy clearly being hurt by a punch. Wobbled, dazed, etc. I'm aware you don't score blood/swelling/etc.
Scoring blood is what screwed Roman.
I like both fighters. I hate MMA, sorry to disappoint you.
Yes, I took issue with your scorecard immediately because 9-3 is absolutely absurd.
Be passionate. Score however you want. Just know that objectively, by every possible measure, and according to literally everyone in the sport (some of whom have spent literally decades in and around boxing), you're wrong.
There have been a handful of.fights I considered to be blatant robberies.
And yes, I agree.this term is used too liberally.
Felix strum vs dlh
Lara vs Paul Williams
These two immediately come to mind.
Ggg vs Jacobs was not a robbery
Nope. Gotta disagree. But you've already committed from the start, something you accuse me of, so why continue? Jacobs ran away with it, sorry, but GGG got a boxing lesson.
On the topic of scoring, how'd you feel about Andre/Kov?
I agree people put too much stock in power. Unless the punches are actually hurting the guy and he's getting wobbled/dropped repeatedly, what does power matter if he's just getting hit like any other punch and is able to box perfectly and land at will against said power puncher, all while eating his shots easily?
Just because someone has power doesn't mean they are actually hitting a guy with it every single time. Otherwise GGG would KO people with every punch he landed.
Thought Kovalev won by a point but it was a close fight and understand the official scoring.
And even if your intentions were pure and you didn't have Jacobs winning the fight before the bell rang, you're still objectively wrong. If you believe the official judges got it wrong because they're protecting GGG-Canela, so be it.
What motivation would people on press row, in the media, and across the Internet that have no voice in how anything gets done in boxing have for "protecting" Gennady?
This is the boxing equivalent of asking for Obama's birth certificate.
Edit: How did you score Jirov vs Toney? Because after seeing your comments on Ward-Kovalev, it helps frame what you see in a fight.
Im not sure this was a fight where one fighter clearly won 7 and the other one 5. There was a lot of close rounds
Which is why I started that post off by saying "This isn't about last night's fight".
didnt catch that my bad
I didn't have any money or personal stake riding on Danny's performance Saturday, I have no motive.
After a fresh rewatch, too, since I hadnt seen Toney/Jirov in a while.
I had Jacobs winning but the more I think about it, I along with a lot of people might have been persuaded by Jacobs flurries from the outside. A lot of them weren't hitting the target. That's what's hard to judge in the moment. What hits gloves and what hits the body/face.
True, and I have always wondered how compubox and whatever can know for sure which shots do connect and do not. Especially against someone with a Floyd like defense. 90% of the shots are hitting glove and who knows how many are counted as clean? I don't put much faith into punch stats personally
Stuff like that falls under effective aggression IMO. If a guy is throwing shots that slow the pace, make the other guy cover up in an otherwise close round, thats what can give them the edge. That along with defense, which Jacobs did well too and ring generalship too. I didn't see Jacobs getting caught on the ropes too often, he seemed to have been controlling the pace of a lot of the fight.
golovkin did win rounds with clean punching, don't get me wrong, but some of those close rounds should have gone to the boxer IMO.
well, apparently you still cant tell who is winning a fight considering you were way off with the actual judges on this one too. Nice try being pretentious tho
Wait. Golovkin was throwimg flurries?
You do know he was the white one right?
Because all i saw GGG doing was consistently landing his jab, jarring Jacobs skull, and trying to cut him off as Danny "Walked him" 'round the ring.
Thats where jacobs excelled, not letting Golovkin consistently put his (power) punches together.
So your totally right about the comfort zone thing. Jacobs denied Golovkin the handplay he likes to use to lull his opponents, gauge their distance, and set his timing.
Thats a credit to Danny's feet, his use of angles, and his wilingness to throw flurries of punches to nullify golovkins timing and rythem.
That being said, i still think he lost.
And on topic: 100% agree with the OP.