Do people here honestly think that defense wins you points in boxing?

Don't know if that ever happened, but I think its possible for a fighter to win a round without throwing a single punch if consistently he made his opponent completely miss him with punches.

The rulebooks under such circumstance isn't defined, but personally if say Pep never even threw a punch in a round but made his opponent miss every punch he threw, I'd give the round to Pep based on defense and ring generalship wish is part of the scoring criteria.
Defense because of Pep making him miss every punch, and ring generalship because Pep would be doing in that round what he wanted to do, navigating the ring and clowing his opponent, making him miss every punch.

Now say under such circumstance Pep's opponent never hit him cleanly but was landing on arms and elbows while Pep was pinned against the ropes. I would be inclined to give the round to his opponent simply because under such circumstance a fighter pinned against the ropes not throwing back with anything I would assume because he was there not answering back with punches for fear of getting caught by the onslaught.
To me the opponent would be doing damage to Pep hitting just arms and elbows and having Pep feel forced to just cover up.
The making Pep force to cover up wins the round to his opponent based on ring generalship.
It was his opponent the controlled the landscape of the ring and forced Pep to the ropes for cover.

Now you have to remember, these are scenarios I'm depicting where little to zero punches are being landed by either fighter.

I remember a specific fight where most fans gave a specific round to Juan Diaz over Juan Manuel Marquez because Marquez spent the majority of the round pinned on the ropes.
Most fight fans and a lot of ringside journalist not specialized in scoring decide that Juan Diaz should have won that round based on aggressively being able to have Marquez pinned to the ropes.
I however saw a totally different round of Marquez avoiding Diaz' bigger and wider shots, and answering back with cleaner and a lot more impactful countershots from those ropes.
While Diaz was relentless with his pressure keeping Marquez on the ropes, my sense was that Marquez wasn't uncomfortable being there because he was evading most of the shots and firing the cleaner more thudding shots right back, while landing them at a much higher connect % than Diaz was landing his.
Round to Marquez on my card, but those that dont know what to look for but aggression, effective or not, scored that round for Diaz.

 

Bert Sugar seemed to be a reliable boxing historical source, and he's been quoted discussing it in great detail.

 

Bert Sugar himself says he takes Willie Pep at his word which suggests he didn't even witness the round... Reporters that witnessed the fight vary on what happened but most agree he threw at least a few jabs.

 

Typical douchebag noob who creates "Sides" to root for....

 

I saw that quote too, reporters may vary on whether or not he threw a few jabs, but most don't seem to doubt that he didn't land a single punch in the round, a round that he won the cards.

St. Paul sports writer Don Riley insists that Pep swept the scorecards without making any contact. "It was an amazing display of defensive boxing skill so adroit, so cunning, so subtle that the roaring crowd did not notice Pep's tactics were completely without offense," Riley would write many years later.

I'm reading that there was apparently a report that came out in 2003 showing a statement made by a ringside reporter named Hennessey that wasn't printed at the time in 1946 which was supposedly the fight when it happened, in the 3rd round, who described the end of the 3rd round as "A clicker couldn't count the blows. Pep punched Jack into the ropes as the most even round of the evening ended."

However a lot of people doubt this story by Hennessy, and here are some quotes about him :

"Joe Hennessy was a beautiful guy, but if you weren't clued in, you wouldn't realize Pep's punches were all feints," Riley said.

That's another thing, this indicates that Pep was using a lot of feints during this round, and a lot of his feints could have been mistaken for jabs perhaps if you weren't clued in.

Riley added "He eventually became an outstanding editor at the Star. But in '46, he was not at his best."

Here's another quote of Ron Schara, a columnist for the Minneapolis Star Tribune, describing this Hennessey guy who stated that Pep landed a punch at the end fo the 3rd :

"He was the typical reporter from that era. I remember him with his bowtie and a cigar, banging the keys, pressured by deadlines. He came from the old school where the quality of a story varied depending on the number of cocktails he'd had. Joe had his share of those. By the time I knew him his drinking days were long over, but he'd had quite a colorful past."

I'm not sure we can buy the account of this guy Hennessey who said Pep landed a punch at the end of the round. It could have been a feint but he may not have been clued into what Pep was gonna do and just assumed it was a punch since maybe the opponent reacted to it and fell into the ropes.

Sugar emphasized "Instead of saying Pep won a round without throwing a punch, say he won a round without landing one. There's a difference." Even still, if he won a round without "landing" a single punch, then certainly he could win a round without throwing a punch, as throwing punches and not connecting would be worse than not throwing a punch at all.

 

Okay, so because you don't understand boxing (hint: it most certainly isn't reducible to simply "the hurt business", sorry) that means I'm the boxing hipster. Gotcha.

 

if good defense is there with counterpunching and landing cleaner punches, then that is what wins fights. Moving around and not throwing punches is no effective defense the same as effective aggressiveness.

 

The public also doesn't buy Ward's, Crawford's, Spence's, Rigondeux's fights, these guys don't sell either. Actually they draw less than Golovkin. Using your (******ed) logic that must mean that these boxers are nobodies, right?

You make yourself dumber each day, which is quite a feat. And given how much of a coward you are, you will duck this question again which happens almost every time you get owned in a debate.

 

who says it isnt reducible to that? you? who made you the authority around here on all things boxing? because you fancy yourself some slacker boxing sartre, you get to decide just how complex boxing needs to be? gtfoh with that ****.

 

Even on this thread people are so shook of Golovkin that they have to mention his name

 

That's basically the definition of hand to hand combat sports. By definition, the combatants must close to striking range and fight at arms length. An archer or a marksman doesn't have to be close to his opponent to hurt him, but a boxer does.

Ideally, the rules allow for a limited amount of movement so that the fighters can create angles our outflank each other but there's a reason why the competitive space isn't the size of a football field and why we had to put the ropes up (to keep mother****ers from running). To wit, that is also why we had to enact rules against delaying tactics such as running and holding, and one of the reasons we have a referee in the ring to enforce those rules.

If some fighters are unfairly called runners then others are unfairly labeled unskilled lummoxes for coming forward.

I think it would be fair to call Lara, Mayweather, and Rigondeaux runners. Their negativity and nullification of action went beyond what is necessary for outside boxing or counter punching. Out-boxers like Benny Leonard, Muhammad Ali, Gene Tunney, and Larry Holmes hit their opponents a lot more than those three. I also believe that it would be correct to label Wladimir Klitschko's style of the last ten years as much hugging as boxing.

I also think that the recent McGregor fight showed how incomplete a fighter Mayweather was and how difficult coming forward being the offensive fighter is. He looked like **** in that fight and got hit a lot by a novice. Golovkin would not have gotten hit that much. It takes skill to not get hit while coming forward constantly attacking an opponent, skills that Mayweather doesn't have. It takes a certain type of defensive skill to do that, one that Mayweather lacks. You can call Mayweather a good defensive fighter, but he only has one gear and that is backwards. His forward moving defense is pitiable.

 

Good defense doesn't win you points. Example: Floyd or Whitaker two of the greatest defensive wizards ever. They fight Boxer "X" (who ever you want to place there). Round 1 - it's a feeling out round. Boxer X lands 1 good body shot and 2 decent jabs. Nothing else. Floyd or Whitaker lands 1 jab to the body, 1 good jab to the face, and 2 pitty pat range finders to the head. Boxer X was throwing more but was missing due to superior defense. Floyd or Whitaker threw half the punches not wanting to be countered because boxer X is a busy fighter. Even Round. The good defense doesn't give them any more or less points. Only the punches landed does.

Now, Floyd and James Toney are the best at this: Counter Lead Right scores flush after a shoulder roll (good defense). This is a prime example of good defense allows them to score with their offense.

 

agreed, who lands more leather along with who landed the harder leather and inflicts more damage should win the fight. In a close fight, both landing fairly equally overall, then I look for who's the Ring general, dictating the pace and action, whose pushing who more. I could care less if one guy avoids 15-20 opponent punches, if opponent still lands 5 shots to his 2 of lets say 3, 5 beats 2. Only way 2 could beat 5, if those 2 looked to have done some serious damage and opponents 5 didn't seem to do much at all.

 

So according to some people, fans like Canelo because he is elite? Are you sure it has nothing to do with the fact that he is supported by a passionate boxing fanbase, AKA Mexicans? If Canelo was from Uzbekistan he wouldnt be popular at all, period. It must suck for certain people to accept the fact that a Kazakh with broken English is much more popular than Somebody like Ward. Or Crawford, or Rigo, or Wilder, or Spence etc etc. The public isnt buying their hype, as they know Golovkin is the real deal!

 

So you think boxing should eliminate styles of the not getting hit part? No boxer will try to win a fight purley by defence, but it's important.. You're basically saying volume punchers rule boxing.. They can miss a thousand times, but they will sure land a lot too.. I'd rather see a boxer get the nod in a round for making your opponent miss than getting the nod because they can throw a bunch of punches.. But that's just me...