FINALLY re-watched Golovkin vs Jacobs

I'm surprised we had the same score.

Jacobs wasn't actually the aggressor. This is especially evident if you just listen to his trainer speaking. Also, what is interesting is that Jacobs wasn't sitting down on pretty much any of his punches which is why Golovkin looked so clean after the fight. Golovkin seems to have taken more damage from Brook than Jacobs lmao.

 

Double DQ

 

Ok but if defense is prioritized what is the motivation behind throwing a punch? Why not just wait for your opponent to try to throw and just block it. A blocked, slipped shot would be worth more than a landed one. So therefore no one would throw anythng. Can you see how changing the judging criteria would inevitabley also dramatically change what happens in a fight, to the point where no one does anything? No one would bother to take the lead

 

While it's important, it's not a first consideration.

For example, Not that they mean much but if that's the case surely compubox would have "blocked punches" or "slipped punches".

When people talk stats after a fight the first two categories are "thrown" and "landed" I've never heard a boxing fan say "oh yeah, close fight but "Boxer A" won because he blocked more punches".

 

How did Golovkin have an 8 pt round in the 12th?

 

To knock the guy out, defense doesn't mean jack if a knockOUT happens.

Not everyone can defend well, you know how hard it is to defend like Floyd does? There's a reason why only he can do it.

 

But if the other guy is just defending you're not going to get a KO. its just not going to happen. plenty of seasoned journeymen and old pros can just hang on in survival mode. Would they win the fight because they defended well enough not to get knocked out? Again are you aware of the extent to which your ideas about scoring would change the nature of boxing? AT BEST you'd have a guy desperate for a KO pounding on a guy who's covering up or running or clinchng. At worst you have a stalemate. Plenty of people can defend like floyd, its his ability to counter/LAND CLEAN SHOTS, be effectively aggressive in spots, keep the fight where he wants it(be the RING GENERAL) and therefore win the fight against other elite fighters despite his defensive ability that makes him special.

 

Of course you can get a knockout, and you have to defend intelligently for you score. Putting your hands up while you're getting whacked isn't defending yourself intelligently. And no, not many people can defend like Floyd. His ability to counter/land clean shots is important, but his ability to make you miss and make you look silly probably the biggest reason why he's winning them rounds. Obviously you can't just cover up while your opponent is trying to break your guard while you throw 0 punches. That's not what I'm referring to. What I'm referring to is that the 4 categories of scoring should be considered, but defense should rank at #1. That's all.

 

What you want is a completely different sport, a godless abomination where chris byrd would be one of the greatest of all time.
Lord have mercy on your soul.

 

People gave Jacobs the first few rounds because he did better than expected. It always happens like this. If the supposed big favorite doesn't start butchering his opponent from round 1 a lot of fans give his opponent the early rounds.

 

I've just always disagreed with how boxing is scored, it places way too much emphasis on (Knockdowns and ineffective aggression).

You can defend extremely well and win the round clearly for 2 mins and 59 secs but you get flash knockdowned and you're 2 points in the hole.

It's terrible. Absolutely terrible.

In that case, should there also be 10-8 rounds because you made a guy miss the entire round. I think there should be if knockdowns are automatically a round win + an extra point.

Ffs.

 

You're showing Rd 12 as a 10-8 round

 

The goal of professional boxing is the surrender or complete destruction of your opponent

 

No it's not, or else there wouldn't be round limits.

Boxing is a gentleman's sport, the sweet science.

It's about outboxing an opponent in the alotted time.

That's why I've always preferred point wins over knockouts (That's just me), it shows who is truly the better craftsman.

I'm a purist! A 100% purist.

 

You always score the fight as you watch it? I just enjoy the fight and I do have an impression on who I felt won the fight at the end. Or on the initial fight I just take in the fight as a whole, I don't sit down and actually look to score each round individually until I rewatch the fight.. that's how I've always done it. I haven't had the chance to rewatch this fight just yet, but I felt GGG did skim by in a close fight.