Scoring aggression in boxing...

So your of the opinion that defense is not a skill or attribute that a fighter should have or use? If not, when is it best to give a fighter props or acknowledge his defensive skills?

 

No, i didn´t imply that. Boxing skills include defensive and offensive skills obviously. I said, pro boxing is hurt business - the one making more damage should be given nods more often.

For example in a GGG vs. Monroe Jr. fight. Some people are giving rd 4. to Monroe jr. because it was his best round of the fight. He connected more (3 punch more according to punch stat 33/30), but IMO it was clear he didn´t do more damage. That said, neither did Golovkin (at least visible damage), but he pressed and controlled the action and was following the strategy which was obviously steadily break his opponent. Therefore, I would give round 4. to Golovkin even though Monroe jr. connected couple of more punches. You can see it differently.

Btw. just comparing GGG vs. Monroe Jr. and Rosado vs. Monroe Jr. fights gives some great insights: 1.) GGG offensive ability compared to Gabe (who did pretty good offensively against Quillin and other good fighters) 2.) Monroe Jr. defense gives him points, he just couldn´t pair his defense to Golovkin's offense 3.) the pressure that led to 6rd stoppage.

 

Yeah, your assessment goes along the same logic as max Kellerman. He likes to say who would he have rather been that round. From that perspective, would I rather get hit with 6 jabs or a sledge hammer right? I'll take the jabs!

 

Movement to set up angles and keep away from angles is what most people don't see and/or value. "Ring generalship."

 

In essence yes,but no matter how much effective aggression,if you dont land any punches then you shouldnt win a round against someone who does

 

The counterpuncher isn't taking a risk, the risk was forced upon him.

I mean seriously, if you understand boxing you understand range. If you're out of range, you're not at risk. When the aggressor enters that range, he's in danger of being hit thus he takes the risk. The counterpuncher has the option to create more gap to get out of risk. If an aggressor is really good, he can force that risk upon the counterpuncher by closing the gap quicker, cut him off etc. Either way, the whole time, it's the aggresor taking risks.

 

No the risk isn't necessarily forced on a counter puncher. Most counter punchers want to and actively try to land counter punches. Purposely using their movement to avoid their opponents punches and land their own.

A counter puncher is taking a risk because he has to be close enough to land therefore he as at risk of being hit himself.

 

Scoring on aggression is lazy judging IMO

 

Toney vs Jirov is the fight that best illustrates this argument. Jirov was all over Toney, relentlessly throwing, landed about 1000 body shots and clearly lost the fight. Demonstrating skill and clean punching is what matters most when a fight goes to the cards and rightfully so

 

Footwork is just bad dancing until you hit somebody.

 

Kovalev was the aggressor and SOB was on the defensive after getting staggered by a left jab and knocked down by a right hand. Ward grabbed Kovalev's leg, wrestled, ran, held because he was afraid he would get knocked out, plus he knew the referee and judges were on his side. Good thing the judges and referee were SOB fans!

 

Aggression is meaningless if u dont land anything. Foreman was very aggressive and had bad intentions against Young but he got schooled. Tua was very aggressive against Byrd and Byrd boxed circles around him for a clear win.