Who do you think won the Jacobs GGG fight?

[george14]

I'm assuming these indecisive guys came from the UFC forum?

I thought Golovkin won 115-112 but I can definitely see 10-10 rounds.

 

[nac386]

People are having a hard time accepting that a guy who hit the canvas against Sergio Mora arguably outclassed the best puncher in the sport right now. Thats what this is.

I think that would be a pretty liberal use of the term outclass. I don't think Jacobs looked like a better or more skilled boxer at all. I thought they appeared similarly skilled, with Jacob looking bigger, stronger, and faster and GGG working a bit harder to win rounds.

 

[JayE]

I think that would be a pretty liberal use of the term outclass. I don't think Jacobs looked like a better or more skilled boxer at all. I thought they appeared similarly skilled, with Jacob looking bigger, stronger, and faster and GGG working a bit harder to win rounds.

Outclassed is stating it too strongly, but the way the fight went was fairly surprising to me. I gave Jacobs a real chance largely because of his size and speed advantages (I still thought Golovkin would win, but Jacobs was a more legitimate opponent than a lot of people were treating him in the leadup) and Golovkin's penchant for not having an airtight defense, but what I didn't expect to see was someone who could have been fairly regarded as the best offensive fighter in the sport have their offense considerably stifled throughout the fight.

Golovkin had never had even a bit of trouble finding his opponent and getting his offense off even in fights where he had shown some vulnerability for brief stretches (Ouma, Rosado, Brook). That did surprise me.

 

[Seano]

I think that would be a pretty liberal use of the term outclass. I don't think Jacobs looked like a better or more skilled boxer at all. I thought they appeared similarly skilled, with Jacob looking bigger, stronger, and faster and GGG working a bit harder to win rounds.

I personally thought Golovkin looked lost at points in that fight.

 

[Shoemaker]

Because they scored a round 10-10. The first 2 rounds could have easily been 10-10s.

Even rounds should be incredibly rare. There were close rounds in this fight but I think a judge should be able to find a winner in them. I can't remember the last time I actually scored a 10-10 round (I want to say Salido/Vargas but I'd have to check the threads), I try to avoid it as much as possible and I think judges should too. It's kind of a cop-out imo.

It's sort of weird though. Take a fight like Mayweather/Castillo; I've flipped rounds from one guy to another on separate viewings, but I still don't see them being even rounds; close rounds, but the scoring criteria makes the decision more clear. A fight like Salido/Vargas is easier to find even rounds, because there are rounds where neither guy is being the ring general, neither one is showing good defense, they're both showing effective aggressive, and they're both landing a lot of clean punches. They're standing toe to toe beating the piss out of one another. Those are the kinds of rounds I have a really hard time scoring, unless someone gets visibly hurt.

 

[Seano]

Even rounds should be incredibly rare. There were close rounds in this fight but I think a judge should be able to find a winner in them. I can't remember the last time I actually scored a 10-10 round (I want to say Salido/Vargas but I'd have to check the threads), I try to avoid it as much as possible and I think judges should too. It's kind of a cop-out imo.

It's sort of weird though. Take a fight like Mayweather/Castillo; I've flipped rounds from one guy to another on separate viewings, but I still don't see them being even rounds; close rounds, but the scoring criteria makes the decision more clear. A fight like Salido/Vargas is easier to find even rounds, because there are rounds where neither guy is being the ring general, neither one is showing good defense, they're both showing effective aggressive, and they're both landing a lot of clean punches. They're standing toe to toe beating the piss out of one another. Those are the kinds of rounds I have a really hard time scoring, unless someone gets visibly hurt.

I don't believe in 10-10 rounds. I think its impossible that both fighters were 100% equal for the whole 3 minutes of a round. Its called judging not er..... not judging......

 

[Shoemaker]

I don't believe in 10-10 rounds. I think its impossible that both fighters were 100% equal for the whole 3 minutes of a round. Its called judging not er..... not judging......

It can definitely be a cop-out for not looking hard enough. I almost always try to find a winner because of that, but in incredibly rare cases I can see a point for it. As a judging rule, though, I'd rather them not be allowed. I'd rather err on the side of making a decision than being indecisive.

 

[JayE]

I don't actively dislike the idea of 10-10 rounds, but judges never give them so I tend not to when I'm scoring, either.

 

[george14]

Even rounds should be incredibly rare. There were close rounds in this fight but I think a judge should be able to find a winner in them. I can't remember the last time I actually scored a 10-10 round (I want to say Salido/Vargas but I'd have to check the threads), I try to avoid it as much as possible and I think judges should too. It's kind of a cop-out imo.

It's sort of weird though. Take a fight like Mayweather/Castillo; I've flipped rounds from one guy to another on separate viewings, but I still don't see them being even rounds; close rounds, but the scoring criteria makes the decision more clear. A fight like Salido/Vargas is easier to find even rounds, because there are rounds where neither guy is being the ring general, neither one is showing good defense, they're both showing effective aggressive, and they're both landing a lot of clean punches. They're standing toe to toe beating the piss out of one another. Those are the kinds of rounds I have a really hard time scoring, unless someone gets visibly hurt.

I think Golovkin won round 1, but I think that is a perfect candidate for a 10-10 round.

Your second paragraph is why I do believe in 10-10 rounds. If a round is close enough to where you are flip flopping, it probably is best to score 10-10. Just my opinion.

 

[nac386]

I personally thought Golovkin looked lost at points in that fight.

That is your preferred style, I get that. But anytime you are chasing a guy around the ring for minutes at a time you are going to look bad at times. Fortunately for triple G looking good is not a scoring criteria.

Did you think that Jacobs looked lost while eating 3 to 4 jobs in a row of points in the fight? There were times I could not understand why he was eating so many jabs.

 

[Shoemaker]

I think Golovkin won round 1, but I think that is a perfect candidate for a 10-10 round.

Your second paragraph is why I do believe in 10-10 rounds. If a round is close enough to where you are flip flopping, it probably is best to score 10-10. Just my opinion.

In the case of a fight like Mayweather/Castillo, the flip-flopping has more to do with seeing things on subsequent viewings that I didn't see initially.

It's certainly a preference, but I know judges are heavily discouraged from calling rounds even. There's always a lot of fallout in close fights regarding scorecards, and a lot of it is because people come up with their own scoring criteria for the sport. Meh not important, but those people who give out a lot of even rounds are going to find themselves consistently disappointed when the cards are read.

 

[Shoemaker]

For all the bitching I did about Kevin Kelly in the fight night thread, I'm at least glad I didn't have to listen to HBO. It sounds like they were stirring the pot.

 

[JayE]

That is your preferred style, I get that. But anytime you are chasing a guy around the ring for minutes at a time you are going to look bad at times. Fortunately for triple G looking good is not a scoring criteria.

Did you think that Jacobs looked lost while eating 3 to 4 jobs in a row of points in the fight? There were times I could not understand why he was eating so many jabs.

I think it is significant that Golovkin did relatively regularly have problems cutting off the ring, and that wasn't down to Jacobs running or just staying away. Again, Golovkin hadn't had even a small issue cutting off the ring on anyone. Other than his punching power, it's arguably his most notable asset (I might have called it his best asset going into the fight).

If there is one take away from this fight, it might be that his footwork isn't quite what we thought it was. His chin and power showed just fine against the best opponent so far in his career, but what was most different was his ability to regularly find his man. It actually makes fights against some of the better movers at JMW (maybe a guy like Lara) more interesting than before.

 

[nac386]

I think it is significant that Golovkin did relatively regularly have problems cutting off the ring, and that wasn't down to Jacobs running or just staying away. Again, Golovkin hadn't had even a small issue cutting off the ring on anyone. Other than his punching power, it's arguably his most notable asset (I might have called it his best asset going into the fight).

If there is one take away from this fight, it might be that his footwork isn't quite what we thought it was. His chin and power showed just fine against the best opponent so far in his career, but what was most different was his ability to regularly find his man. It actually makes fights against some of the better movers at JMW (maybe a guy like Lara) more interesting than before.

Golovkin is going to have more trouble corralling a great athlete like Jacobs than a guy like Geale. I wasn't particularly surprised by that.

But he still landed close to 40% of his punches. I think people are looking to point out Golovkin's new weaknesses instead of acknowledging that Danny Jacobs is just a very difficult matchup in his absolute prime. He's huge, he's strong, he's fast, he's smart. He made Golovkin look bad at times because he's very good, and Golovkin is a 35 year old. I did not see poor footwork from Golovkin during the fight, I saw a guy who was smaller, slower, more tired, and had to think his way through it. How do you beat a guy with every single physical advantage in there? He figured that out. That's pretty impressive.

Instead of getting credit beating the clear 2nd best middleweight, we're kinda nitpicking his footwork. He's 35, and we're just now thinking, "Huh, maybe we overestimated his footwork,"? That seems a little bit silly to me.

 

[JayE]

Golovkin is going to have more trouble corralling a great athlete like Jacobs than a guy like Geale. I wasn't particularly surprised by that.

But he still landed close to 40% of his punches. I think people are looking to point out Golovkin's new weaknesses instead of acknowledging that Danny Jacobs is just a very difficult matchup in his absolute prime. He's huge, he's strong, he's fast, he's smart. He made Golovkin look bad at times because he's very good, and Golovkin is a 35 year old. I did not see poor footwork from Golovkin during the fight, I saw a guy who was smaller, slower, more tired, and had to think his way through it. How do you beat a guy with every single physical advantage in there? He figured that out. That's pretty impressive.

Instead of getting credit beating the clear 2nd best middleweight, we're kinda nitpicking his footwork. He's 35, and we're just now thinking, "Huh, maybe we overestimated his footwork,"? That seems a little bit silly to me.

Seeing what I thought was the most polished aspect of his game, one that he's shown no real weakness in before this fight, show some real shortcomings was significant to me. I thought there were areas of his game that could be readily exploited (generally speaking his defensive abilities, which, in some respects, perhaps held up better than I expected), but his ability to cut off the ring wasn't one of them. I'm just saying that's what surprised me.

I didn't think he beat Jacobs, but he gets full credit from me for fighting him and showing that a fair amount of what made him look so dominant against lesser competition holds up against a genuinely elite MW in his prime. I'm not minimizing what Jacobs did by saying that he had success only because Golovkin had flaws, but going into the fight, if you were to say that Golovkin would have had fairly significant trouble cutting off the ring against Jacobs, I don't think very many people would have agreed with you (it's not something that I predicted).

 

[rvzu]

I personally thought Golovkin looked lost at points in that fight.

I agree with you to an extent.

There was a few rounds where triple G looked like he was head hunting, and had an urgency about him. While Jacobs looked composed and was boxing and setting things up nicely.