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

Here's a prime example. You claim you watched it in slo-no. You agree with this guy?

This content is protected

 

You're a little too hung up on doing damage I think. By your model taken to its logical conclusion featherfisted people like Malignaggi just don't belong in boxing period. His record should be 0-44 in your opinion, since he basically never inflicted more damage than his opponents?

 

quit putting words in peoples mouths to fit your argument, it's getting pathetic. you just quoted him telling you he awards points to defensive fighters when they LAND MORE PUNCHES, he said nothing about doing damage. why do you ignore the very post youre quoting?

 

That was the most biased video analyse I've ever seen. The guy claims Canelo landed several good uppercuts when he barely landed any clean uppercuts at all.

 

He said nothing about doing damage, eh? Except that he did verbatim in the last sentence of the post I quoted. Pay better attention before you spout off.

 

how about you take your own advice, skippy. the man never said punches that dont do damage never win fights, he said if you have defensive capabilities you are probably doing more damage anyway, but you convoluted it in your mind to say paulie should be 44-0 because he doesnt do damage. he did in fact say that he believes defensive fighters win because they LAND MORE PUNCHES, but you chose to ignore that statement even while quoting it.

 

As a current Pacquiaotard, now GGG fanboy, I agree with you. Canelo was never in survival mode. I thought he looked like he was having the worst of things by a slight margin most rounds but was never in serious danger. He did manage to get off enough punches and land frequently enough and with authority that you cannot say he was just trying to survive. What Malik Scott did against Luis Ortiz or what Joshua Clottey did against Manny Pacquiao was a fighter in survival mode just trying to reach the final round. Canelo fought back and acquitted himself well.

 

He dissected it quite well. He called out both guys best punches. You're just mad because he scored the round the way it's supposed to be scored. G's little putty pat jabs were weak and you know it.

 

You'd take the word of a crackhead if they said canelo won. Isn't that what your mom said?

 

I love outside boxers. Ray Robinson, Benny Leonard, Ali, Ezzard Charles, and Ray Leonard are great.

It's just a term, man, like "boxing in a phone booth" or "the sweet science." It's not really a science. I'm pretty sure that what Roberto Duran and Henry Armstrong were doing was pure boxing too.

Touch and don't get touched are the rules of tag. Boxing is about hurting and dominating another person. It's combat with rules meant to make the fighting less lethal and more palatable to the masses; but essentially it's a type of dueling.

"Just because some people manage to circumvent the craft of boxing altogether to find ways to be successful in the ring (undermining the goal of the sport altogether but still winning in the context of it under the ruleset, fair play) doesn't mean they aren't pure and utter **** at boxing itself." -IntentionalButt

I couldn't have put it better myself. That's why I don't consider what Floyd Mayweather did in the second half of his career boxing. He was basically just exploiting the rules. What Wladimir Klitschko did for much of his second career stage wasn't boxing either. It was a lot of illegal hugging and smothering the work of other people who were trying to box, and getting away with it because of wealth, fame, and lax rule enforcement by officials.

Yes, it does. Being bigger, stronger, faster, and luckier are as important to winning a boxing match as skills and tactics. They aren't cerebral, but they are still essential. Bigger stronger guys beat smaller more skilled guys all the time. That's just a fact of life, why we have weightclasses, and why we have weightcutters trying to undermine the weightclass system to get an unfair advantage. You might like to think that technique is everything and physique is nothing; but there's a reason why all the forty year old fighters are retired. It's a young man's game, and athleticism counts. Canelo didn't beat Cotto, Mosley, or Khan by being a better boxer than them.

I disagree. My ideal boxer is Roberto Duran or Ray Robinson.

 

I'm not mad, I'm perfectly calm. I don't need to look up video after video to back up my scoring because I'm not insecure about my scorecard.

When you say fighter A landed several uppercuts in a round which he didn't land any clean, It means you have some bizarre bias and zero credibility.

 

He's not a part of reality. Douche creates his own world...