Question For The Veteran Boxing Fans.

[Rockford Tyson]

I made a thread yesterday that was deleted due to excessive name-calling. So I will try to keep this polite.

I used to watch a lot of boxing in my teens and early twenties, but granted I am more of an MMA fan and am not very familiar with the boxing judging criteria.

So here is my question: By what criteria exactly did Mayweather win the fight yesterday?

I watched the fight as it was happening, I taped it and re-watched it twice again today. There is simply no way that I couldn't score the win to Pacquiao.

Pacquiao moved forward the whole fight, landed several combinations and had MW cornered on the ropes covering himself several times. All MW did the whole fight was back-peddle and land a few jabs that did no damage to Pacquiao whatsoever. Every time Pacquiao was beating his ass, MW would clinch and hold Pacquiao's head in clear violation of the rules.

The only way that MW won this fight is if you consider clinching and tying your opponent as "successful defense". There is simply no way that MW won that fight based on effective striking, ring control and effort to finish the fight. MW landed some jabs successfully, but they did no damage to Pacquiao. Pacquiao also didn't do much damage, but he did land more strikes and was the aggressor the whole fight. Based on ring control and aggressivness alone, that would give the win to Pacquiao.

Another guy said that MW's jabs landed more cleanly than Pacquiao's strikes. That might be true, but Pacquiao landed so many more combinations and was so much more aggressive that I don't understand how MW won this. Neither of them had very "effective" striking, but I give the edge to PQ based on all the combinations he landed and his more proactive stance. I watched the fight several times to see if I missed something, but I came to the same conclusion.

Again, I am not very familiar with the way boxing is judged, but to my veteran MMA/Muay Thai eyes, Pacquiao won. I just want to understand how it is possible that they gave the win to MW. Since I am not a huge boxing expert, I just want to understand.

 

[Shael]

http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/f53/showthread.php?t=2988473

 

[Seano]

So here is my question: By what criteria exactly did Mayweather win the fight yesterday?
.

Literally all of it.

Fights are judged round by round and the criteria is 1.Clean punching,2. Effective aggression (key word being "effective")3. Defense, and 4. Ring generalship.

Floyd threw more punches in almost ever round, barely got hit. He was aggressive here and there but when he wasn't, Pac was rarely EFFECTIVE and dominated the defense aspect of scoring. Pac was rarely able to control Floyd's position and space so Floyd was the ring general as well.

Pac got dominated.

 

[greenchild]

numbers dont lie

 

[HardStampede**]

I stopped reading at "moved forward". I'm sick of this being considered as a major factor. Plodding forward shouldn't mean you have an advantage. It should only become a factor if the person getting walked down is actually losing the striking, and the stats show a different story.

 

[Seano]

I stopped reading at "moved forward". I'm sick of this being considered as a major factor. Plodding forward shouldn't mean you have an advantage. It should only become a factor if the person getting walked down is actually losing the striking, and the stats show a different story.

Agree. Too many judges and fans give fighters bonus points because of the direction they are moving.

 

[jeremyemilio]

I made a thread yesterday that was deleted due to excessive name-calling. So I will try to keep this polite.

I used to watch a lot of boxing in my teens and early twenties, but granted I am more of an MMA fan and am not very familiar with the boxing judging criteria.

So here is my question: By what criteria exactly did Mayweather win the fight yesterday?

I watched the fight as it was happening, I taped it and re-watched it twice again today. There is simply no way that I couldn't score the win to Pacquiao.

Pacquiao moved forward the whole fight, landed several combinations and had MW cornered on the ropes covering himself several times. All MW did the whole fight was back-peddle and land a few jabs that did no damage to Pacquiao whatsoever. Every time Pacquiao was beating his ass, MW would clinch and hold Pacquiao's head in clear violation of the rules.

The only way that MW won this fight is if you consider clinching and tying your opponent as "successful defense". There is simply no way that MW won that fight based on effective striking, ring control and effort to finish the fight. MW landed some jabs successfully, but they did no damage to Pacquiao. Pacquiao also didn't do much damage, but he did land more strikes and was the aggressor the whole fight. Based on ring control and aggressivness alone, that would give the win to Pacquiao.

Another guy said that MW's jabs landed more cleanly than Pacquiao's strikes. That might be true, but Pacquiao landed so many more combinations and was so much more aggressive that I don't understand how MW won this. Neither of them had very "effective" striking, but I give the edge to PQ based on all the combinations he landed and his more proactive stance. I watched the fight several times to see if I missed something, but I came to the same conclusion.

Again, I am not very familiar with the way boxing is judged, but to my veteran MMA/Muay Thai eyes, Pacquiao won. I just want to understand how it is possible that they gave the win to MW. Since I am not a huge boxing expert, I just want to understand.

I hate Floyd... but, yeah, Pac THREW a lot of combos. He didn't LAND shit. It's not just that Floyd's shots were "more clean"; it's that Manny had entire four, five, or six punch combos that hit nothing but elbows and shoulders. That's not about shots not being 'clean'; that's about shots not landing at all.

Floyd landed waaaay more shots than Pac. That's why he won. Easily.

 

[vespasian]

Literally all of it.

Fights are judged round by round and the criteria is 1.Clean punching,2. Effective aggression (key word being "effective")3. Defense, and 4. Ring generalship.

Floyd threw more punches in almost ever round, barely got hit. He was aggressive here and there but when he wasn't, Pac was rarely EFFECTIVE and dominated the defense aspect of scoring. Pac was rarely able to control Floyd's position and space so Floyd was the ring general as well.

Pac got dominated.

Going strictly by these rules, Tito should have lost to Oscar. Even ineffective aggression can be viewed favourably by the judges if the other guy "runs".

 

[clackers]

I made a thread yesterday that was deleted due to excessive name-calling. So I will try to keep this polite.

I used to watch a lot of boxing in my teens and early twenties, but granted I am more of an MMA fan and am not very familiar with the boxing judging criteria.

So here is my question: By what criteria exactly did Mayweather win the fight yesterday?

I watched the fight as it was happening, I taped it and re-watched it twice again today. There is simply no way that I couldn't score the win to Pacquiao.

Pacquiao moved forward the whole fight, landed several combinations and had MW cornered on the ropes covering himself several times. All MW did the whole fight was back-peddle and land a few jabs that did no damage to Pacquiao whatsoever. Every time Pacquiao was beating his ass, MW would clinch and hold Pacquiao's head in clear violation of the rules.

The only way that MW won this fight is if you consider clinching and tying your opponent as "successful defense". There is simply no way that MW won that fight based on effective striking, ring control and effort to finish the fight. MW landed some jabs successfully, but they did no damage to Pacquiao. Pacquiao also didn't do much damage, but he did land more strikes and was the aggressor the whole fight. Based on ring control and aggressivness alone, that would give the win to Pacquiao.

Another guy said that MW's jabs landed more cleanly than Pacquiao's strikes. That might be true, but Pacquiao landed so many more combinations and was so much more aggressive that I don't understand how MW won this. Neither of them had very "effective" striking, but I give the edge to PQ based on all the combinations he landed and his more proactive stance. I watched the fight several times to see if I missed something, but I came to the same conclusion.

Again, I am not very familiar with the way boxing is judged, but to my veteran MMA/Muay Thai eyes, Pacquiao won. I just want to understand how it is possible that they gave the win to MW. Since I am not a huge boxing expert, I just want to understand.

Three judges had Floyd ahead not even close all I can say is look at punch stats
Floyd was ahead by a lot

Floyd Controlled the fight dictated where it would be fought and landed the cleaner shots

I don't think there needs to be rematch

 

[Rockford Tyson]

Literally all of it.

Fights are judged round by round and the criteria is 1.Clean punching,2. Effective aggression (key word being "effective")3. Defense, and 4. Ring generalship.

Floyd threw more punches in almost ever round, barely got hit. He was aggressive here and there but when he wasn't, Pac was rarely EFFECTIVE and dominated the defense aspect of scoring. Pac was rarely able to control Floyd's position and space so Floyd was the ring general as well.

Pac got dominated.

If Mayweather won the fight by all the judging criteria, then the judging criteria in boxing is terrible and it explains why boxing has declined in popularity so much.
Pacquiao "dominated"? What fight did you watch, because no intelligent person with common sense would watch that fight and come to the conclusion that MW won.

1. Mayweather did land more clean jabs, and this is the only thing I will give to him. But still they did no damage.

2. How do you even define what "effective" is? MW did no damage whatoever to Pacquiao. Should we judge this by how busted up their faces were in the end? Because MW's eyes and lips were clearly busted while Pacquiao's face was not.

3. So clinching and holding the neck of your opponent in boxing count as "defense"? Because this is most of what he did to defend himself. And still, a lot of punhces got through.

4. You kidding, right? You cannot possibly give this to MW unless youi consider a guy that moves back the whole fight the one with the best ring generalship.

 

[Shael]

If Mayweather won the fight by all the judging criteria, then the judging criteria in boxing is terrible and it explains why boxing has declined in popularity so much.
Pacquiao "dominated"? What fight did you watch, because no intelligent person with common sense would watch that fight and come to the conclusion that MW won.

1. Mayweather did land more clean jabs, and this is the only thing I will give to him. But still they did no damage.

2. How do you even define what "effective" is? MW did no damage whatoever to Pacquiao. Should we judge this by how busted up their faces were in the end? Because MW's eyes and lips were clearly busted while Pacquiao's face was not.

3. So clinching and holding the neck of your opponent in boxing count as "defense"? Because this is most of what he did to defend himself. And still, a lot of punhces got through.

4. You kidding, right? You cannot possibly give this to MW unless youi consider a guy that moves back the whole fight the one with the best ring generalship.

So you're saying boxing matches should be scored on superficial damage? Lmfao. Also, matches are scored round by round so Manny would have still lost.

 

[xilliun]

Fuck I hate fight time. These threads are amongst the most painful things I've ever read.

Hurr durr, Mayweather was scared, ran away all fight!
Footwork mother fucker. Not a new concept.

 

[Strange King]

Going strictly by these rules, Tito should have lost to Oscar. Even ineffective aggression can be viewed favourably by the judges if the other guy "runs".

Nope. Tito landed some good punches. Ive scored that fight twice. once live and once a year ago. To be amazement i came out with the same score tito by one.

Im glad to see my scoring never changed

 

[Strange King]

If Mayweather won the fight by all the judging criteria, then the judging criteria in boxing is terrible and it explains why boxing has declined in popularity so much.
Pacquiao "dominated"? What fight did you watch, because no intelligent person with common sense would watch that fight and come to the conclusion that MW won.

1. Mayweather did land more clean jabs, and this is the only thing I will give to him. But still they did no damage.

2. How do you even define what "effective" is? MW did no damage whatoever to Pacquiao. Should we judge this by how busted up their faces were in the end? Because MW's eyes and lips were clearly busted while Pacquiao's face was not.

3. So clinching and holding the neck of your opponent in boxing count as "defense"? Because this is most of what he did to defend himself. And still, a lot of punhces got through.

4. You kidding, right? You cannot possibly give this to MW unless youi consider a guy that moves back the whole fight the one with the best ring generalship.

Dont feed the troll guys. He doesnt know anything about boxing

 

[Rockford Tyson]

Dont feed the troll guys. He doesnt know anything about boxing

You are the one who is trolling my thread, fanboyh. Why don't myou fuck off?

 

[Pugilistic]

It's hard to explain concepts with words. The best way to get how ring generalship, effectiveness, or even damage works is to actually train, spar and maybe even fight. Floyd wasn't moving back the whole night, there were a few times when Pac was moving back and times when Floyd was controlling the center of the ring. Ring generalship means controlling where the fight takes place, and Floyd fought the fight he wanted to fight and in the space within the ring he wanted for the vast majority of the time.

Damage means little because there is no objective way to measure it. Superficial damage means jack because that was the case, guys who cut and bruise easily like Cotto would lose all the time. Looking like you're hurt means little too. Guys can look like they've been wobbled by soft shots if they're off balance. Sometimes guys who are hurt may look fine to an outside observer. There are times when I've been hurt by shots in sparring but you wouldn't be able to tell if you saw the footage.