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

Haters like Theymakeexcusesevenmore7 seek for whatever reason to discredit the fighters they don't like, even if that makes their favorite fighters look worse. Logic is not their strong suit.

 

Fans of Floyd, Ward, Canelo believe it to justify their terrible scoring.

 

This is wrong and easily fact checked. Here are the compubox numbers for Klitschko/Haye. http://www.boxnews.com.ua/en/news/9243/2011-07-03/Wladimir-Klitschko-vs-David-Haye-CompuBox-Stats Klitschko outlanded Haye in 11 of 12 rounds with Haye outlanding Klitschko by one punch in the fourth. Over the course of the fight, Klitschko outlanded Haye 134 to 72, nearly doubling Haye's connects. Klitschko even landed at the higher percentage: 26% to 25%.

 

What are you talking about? I specifically said power punches. Haye landed 7 more power punches than Wlad. This is a fact and says so right there so how can i be wrong?

 

If it was an amateur bout Haye would have won by domination. You want to bring the amateur game into the discussion then so will I.

 

I never said anything remotely similar to the gibberish you just posted.

 

This reminds me of two fights. First, it reminds me of Pernell Whitaker vs Oscar De La Hoya. Remember that Whitaker outlanded De La Hoya overall and in jabs, but De La Hoya outlanded Whitaker in power punches; so it could be argued that he did more damage. De La Hoya was way bigger and a way bigger puncher than Whitaker so it could be argued that Whitaker's punches did nothing while everything De La Hoya threw hurt Whitaker. But when you watch the fight, Whitaker has far superior technique and is giving a great performance. There was a stretch when De La Hoya had him pinned against the ropes where Whitaker slipped or dodged about ten punches that was one of the coolest things I've ever seen in a boxing ring. Then Whitaker bounces off the ropes away from De La Hoya and just struts. If you can give a guy points for defense and making his opponent look like nothing it's that fight. De La Hoya didn't look like the same quality fighter, wasn't doing anything as complicated or difficult as Sweet Pea, but I would still find it difficult to believe that he hadn't hurt Whitaker more than he'd been hurt. But then, that was a foregone conclusion just based on their size differential and Whitaker being featherfisted; so why hold the match in the first place if one fighter couldn't hurt the other?

The other fight that I'm reminded of is Timothy Bradley vs Juan Manuel Marquez, a fight that I am in the extreme minority saying Marquez deserved a draw in. Again, when we check the compubox stats Bradley has a small edge in overall punches landed, a large lead in jabs, and a large deficit in power punches. I felt like Marquez was doing more damage with his counterpunching. People gave Bradley credit for being the aggressor but I thought Marquez was doing what he wanted as a counterpuncher. Marquez gave away round 2 through 7 by being too cautious and allowing Bradley to outland him, but he changes gears in the 8th and I thought he won the rest of the rounds. There are three of those late rounds where Bradley connected as much or one punch more than Marquez, but again we are talking jabs versus power punches.

Some people say with the GGG/Canelo fight that Canelo deserved the ring generalship because he wanted to be against the ropes. I think that's partly true. I think Golovkin wanted Canelo on the ropes, saw that Canelo wanted that too, and then let him. But if Canelo wanted to be in the center ring Golovkin would have put him back on the ropes, therefore ring generalship, establishing where the fight is taking place, taking the lead in exchanges has to go to Golovkin.

(This was in regards to your comment about Marquez wanting to be on the ropes counter punching against Diaz, if I wasn't clear.)

 

Only the Floyd fanboys who act like they are the only "real" boxing fans because they are fan boys of him and he has great defense.