HBO 24/7 GGG vs Jacobs

[CatchnShoot]

Based on that fight, Canelo might grow back his balls and fight GGG OR Danny.
Both of those would be great fights.

I know we're supposed to be focusing on JCCjr vs Canelo, but Canelo's just going to crush Julio, so, I can't really care about that fight.

I honestly had the fight (GGG vs Jacobs) a draw, could have gone either way. Both guys were too tentative for large stretches of the fight, so it ended up being a good, not great fight.
Still, I definitely would buy again.

If Canelo doesn't materialize, is a rematch in the future?
I'm sure Chocolatito would LOVE another bite at the apple too. Wouldn't that be a rarity-- main undercard and main event repeating ?

 

[ricioyourdoom]

How does that work? At the end of the fight you just switch two rounds you scored for the challenger to the champion? You realize judges score the fight round by round as the fight goes on, not all at once at the end, right?

Maybe that explains why somebody gave the last three rounds to Jacobs? lol. what was that all about. I think judging in boxing even at the highest level is very very dubious and dodgy to say the least.

 

[Shoemaker]

Maybe that explains why somebody gave the last three rounds to Jacobs? lol. what was that all about. I think judging in boxing even at the highest level is very very dubious and dodgy to say the least.

That's not what I'm talking about. You said that if the challenger wins a fight by 1 round, that the judges shouldn't give it to him. And you said you believed in it "wholeheartedly" so I'm asking how exactly it's suppose to work in general.

 

[Seano]

Very true when you say it like that but maybe, just maybe it should be made known to the challenger he has to be the aggressor to win a close decision?

How would you feel being GGG losing your belts 115-114 when you were the aggressor getting one knockdown? you dont really have to answer that right?

The RDA vs Pettis fight is what I call the blueprint for a decision over a champ, at the very least a Garbrandt/Cruz style fight, a clear win in anybodies eyes for the challenger.

Shouldn't the champion have an equal obligation to prove he's the better guy?

 

[Shoemaker]

How would you feel being GGG losing your belts 115-114 when you were the aggressor getting one knockdown? you dont really have to answer that right?

I'd feel like I should've done more to win the fight. The idea that the champion doesn't have to do as much to win is weird.

 

[ricioyourdoom]

Shouldn't the champion have an equal obligation to prove he's the better guy?

Personally I dont believe so, a good example of a point fighter trying to win a fight(I would not tolerate as a judge) S. Thompson vs T. Woodley.

A. Gustafson vs J. Jones is another.
Guys deliberately being boring, shitting on the fans because they have no other way to beat a champ than dance around and out point him, ye i have a problem with that, I want to see guys bring it especially the champs, that is why guys like Garcia D, GGG, McGregor, Rumble.
These guys are top fighters who bring the fight.

 

[ricioyourdoom]

I'd feel like I should've done more to win the fight. The idea that the champion doesn't have to do as much to win is weird.

I dont know exactly, I never thought about it in such detail as there are so many ways one could rig a fight.

 

[Seano]

Personally I dont believe so, a good example of a point fighter trying to win a fight(I would not tolerate as a judge) S. Thompson vs T. Woodley.

A. Gustafson vs J. Jones is another.

That makes no sense to me.

 

[Rico]

Very true when you say it like that but maybe, just maybe it should be made known to the challenger he has to be the aggressor to win a close decision?

How would you feel being GGG losing your belts 115-114 when you were the aggressor getting one knockdown? you dont really have to answer that right?

The RDA vs Pettis fight is what I call the blueprint for a decision over a champ, at the very least a Garbrandt/Cruz style fight, a clear win in anybodies eyes for the challenger.

So if the challenger isn't an aggressive pressure fighter they're automatically at a disadvantage and must win more convincingly? A fighter must completely change his style in order to win? That really doesn't make sense.

effective aggression is in the scoring criteria not just blind aggression.

 

[Shoemaker]

I dont know exactly, I never thought about it in such detail as there are so many ways one could rig a fight.

Huh. My mistake. When you said you believed in it wholeheartedly I figured you would've given it a bit of thought.

 

[Shoemaker]

edit to hell with it, I'll make a new thread.

 

[quincy k]

So if the challenger isn't an aggressive pressure fighter they're automatically at a disadvantage and must win more convincingly? A fighter must completely change his style in order to win? That really doesn't make sense.

effective aggression is in the scoring criteria not just blind aggression.

perhaps this is unrelated as i dont know your position on the scoring of the golovkin/jacobs fight(like most rational people i believe it could have gone either way) but i would assume that if an opponent lands 37 percent of his punches as did golovkin, and at a higher percentage than his opponent, i would consider that to be "effective agression."

the argument of "blind aggression" might make sense for an opponent that lands only 20 percent of his punches, as was the case with many of floyd mayweather opponents, but a 37 connect percentage is not only respectable it is signfigant

in fact, andre ward only landed 34 percent of his punches against kovalev while throwing less and landing less...something that golovkin did not do against jacobs

when you break down the "bad decision/robbery argument" with the golovkin/jacobs fight its actually quite pathetic when you factor numbers and punch stats

 

[randomg1t]

guys, i mostly just lurk on this forum, but i have to say that it's been an absolute pleasure reading your stuff regarding this fight.

i love the fact that there are so many articulate, knowledgeable people here. i've spent way too much time reading bullshit written by teenagers in the heavies, you guys are refreshingly awesome.

and @RR, you are one cool cat. i'm sorry you lost a bunch of cash and the fight, but for what it's worth, danny gained a lot of respect for his performance, as did you for being a stand up guy and honoring your bets. hope jacobs can get more high profile fights and some serious PPV money in the future.

 

[ricioyourdoom]

So if the challenger isn't an aggressive pressure fighter they're automatically at a disadvantage and must win more convincingly? A fighter must completely change his style in order to win? That really doesn't make sense.

effective aggression is in the scoring criteria not just blind aggression.

I know you dont get it.
I will explain it a bit more clearer.

Jacobs vs GGG - if im a judge at ring side there is not much way of knowing who actually won that fight, there were a handful of points at best in it, so I would look to score it GGG way if that were possible.

guys, i mostly just lurk on this forum, but i have to say that it's been an absolute pleasure reading your stuff regarding this fight.

i love the fact that there are so many articulate, knowledgeable people here. i've spent way too much time reading bullshit written by teenagers in the heavies, you guys are refreshingly awesome.

and @RR, you are one cool cat. i'm sorry you lost a bunch of cash and the fight, but for what it's worth, danny gained a lot of respect for his performance, as did you for being a stand up guy and honoring your bets. hope jacobs can get more high profile fights and some serious PPV money in the future.

Fair play I like this RR guy too, not a complete dick and knows his shit.

 

[tehmvp]

i love the fact that there are so many articulate, knowledgeable people here. i've spent way too much time reading bullshit written by teenagers in the heavies, you guys are refreshingly awesome.

It can get pretty crappy on here, depending on the topic at hand, but usually pretty cool to chat boxing

 

[Rico]

perhaps this is unrelated as i dont know your position on the scoring of the golovkin/jacobs fight(like most rational people i believe it could have gone either way) but i would assume that if an opponent lands 37 percent of his punches as did golovkin, and at a higher percentage than his opponent, i would consider that to be "effective agression."

the argument of "blind aggression" might make sense for an opponent that lands only 20 percent of his punches, as was the case with many of floyd mayweather opponents, but a 37 connect percentage is not only respectable it is signfigant

in fact, andre ward only landed 34 percent of his punches against kovalev while throwing less and landing less...something that golovkin did not do against jacobs

when you break down the "bad decision/robbery argument" with the golovkin/jacobs fight its actually quite pathetic when you factor numbers and punch stats

I don't think it was a robbery. Close fight that I scored for Jacobs 114-113. The decision surprised me a bit but I can't call robbery on it. I have no problem with scoring it for GGG as long as you aren't calling it wide for him.

As far as connecting effective aggressiveness to that fight, effective aggressiveness is what GGG looked like against everybody else, he did have some success last night but there were quite long stretches when his aggression wasn't so effective and he was getting outboxed. I wasn't just speaking about last night's fight with that, though. Assigning some kind of handicap to non pressure fighters is a ridiculous notion was the point I was trying to make there.

Great, close fight by both guys and I'd love to see a rematch but no robbery. I scored Ward/Kovalev for Ward too.

I'm gonna get a second watch in after the gym tonight where I'll pay a little closer attention to scoring and breaking down some things that both guys were doing. I just like to enjoy fights on fight night and have a few beers as I spend enough time in coaching/analysis mode.

 

[quincy k]

I don't think it was a robbery. Close fight that I scored for Jacobs 114-113. The decision surprised me a bit but I can't call robbery on it. I have no problem with scoring it for GGG as long as you aren't calling it wide for him.

As far as connecting effective aggressiveness to that fight, effective aggressiveness is what GGG looked like against everybody else, he did have some success last night but there were quite long stretches when his aggression wasn't so effective and he was getting outboxed. I wasn't just speaking about last night's fight with that, though. Assigning some kind of handicap to non pressure fighters is a ridiculous notion was the point I was trying to make there.

Great, close fight by both guys and I'd love to see a rematch but no robbery. I scored Ward/Kovalev for Ward too.

I'm gonna get a second watch in after the gym tonight where I'll pay a little closer attention to scoring and breaking down some things that both guys were doing. I just like to enjoy fights on fight night and have a few beers as I spend enough time in coaching/analysis mode.

its not even a bad decision when looking at all the facts and looking at ward/kovalev, another fight i thought couldve gone either way.

the reason i brougt up kov/ward is because it appears that some of the same people that believed andre won are the same people that believe danny won even though the punch stats clearly favor golovkin whereas they are ambiguous with the ward fight including the kd.

i okay with both the ward and golovkin decisions and did not bet this fight other than a live bet on danny immediately after the kd, which i ended up losing, after the kd appeared to be a flash.




1 Daniel Jacobs
Gennady Golovkin vs Daniel Jacobs
(Fight Winner 3-Way) 18/03/2017 None +800 Lost

 

[Rico]

its not even a bad decision when looking at all the facts and looking at ward/kovalev, another fight i thought couldve gone either way.

the reason i brougt up kov/ward is because it appears that the some of the same people that believed andre won are the same people that believe danny won even though the punch stats clearly favor golovkin whereas they are ambiguous with the ward fight includig the kd.

i okay with both te ward and golovkin decisions and did not bet this fight other than a live bet on danny, a loser, after the kd appeared to be a flash.

1 Daniel Jacobs
Gennady Golovkin vs Daniel Jacobs
(Fight Winner 3-Way) 18/03/2017 None +800 Lost

To me boxing isn't just marching forward and throwing as many punches as you can. Everybodys scoring criteria is gonna be a lil different, including judges, so I don't mind varying scores.

When it starts getting real wide or you start hearing "fighter x smashed fighter z and it was obvious" in super close fights that's when I have a problem. Nobody destroyed annybody in Kov/Ward either.

Most people don't actually take the time to score round by round live though and just make up something post fight based on the bigger picture in my experience. At least with your general casuals.

I got paid to analyze GGG prefight and I still had him favored fwiw. Told them that too. I'm a fan of the sweet science before I'm a fan of any one fighter (Errol is my favorite fighter, though).

 

[quincy k]

To me boxing isn't just marching forward and throwing as many punches as you can. Everybodys scoring criteria is gonna be a lil different, including judges, so I don't mind varying scores.

When it starts getting real wide or you start hearing "fighter x smashed fighter z and it was obvious" in super close fights that's when I have a problem. Nobody destroyed annybody in Kov/Ward either.

Most people don't actually take the time to score round by round live though and just make up something post fight based on the bigger picture in my experience. At least with your general casuals.

I got paid to analyze GGG prefight and I still had him favored fwiw. Told them that too. I'm a fan of the sweet science before I'm a fan of any one fighter (Errol is my favorite fighter, though).

the fight was close and couldve gone either way

the gonzalez decision was the real travesty last night

flagrant headbuts causing cuts that imparied vision and roman decided to fight the 12 rounds even though he may have been able to take the fight to the cards at any time like cuadras did

probably going to be the worst decision in a championship or eliminator fight this year in both mma and boxing

 

[Rico]

the fight was close and couldve gone either way

the gonzalez decision was the real travesty last night

flagrant headbuts causing cuts that imparied vision and roman decided to fight the 12 rounds even though he may have been able to take the fight to the cards at any time like cuadras did

probably going to be the worst decision in a championship or eliminator fight this year in both mma and boxing

A head butt actually caused the KD too which I didn't catch at first. Roman was even signaling to the ref.