"Fighter A ran all night!" - 1st off, he probably didn't; 2nd, even if he did, it doesn't mean B won

This guy!

Look at my AVI. That's the expression on my face after reading ur comment.

 

Ain't no anaconda going to eat me! Im too elusive..

 

OK, I'm exaggerating. I only ate roadkill once

 

Was it a roach? Lol

 

Guinea fowl. Freshly hit by the car in front. Made a nice change from spitting out lead pellets every two minutes.

 

Sometimes i wish someone would make roadkill of you.
Sometimes...

 

Those 49 more punches and 53 more jabs are based on numbers that I've proven to be off by counting the number of Canelo landed jabs in Round 8. If you use the HBO live stats from round 5 plus the real number of Canelo jabs landed in Round 8, that's approximately 18 less "more" punches by G right there. So that 49 turns into 31. (and that's only looking at 2 rounds)

And don't just take my word for it as if I'm just making this up. Count the Canelo jabs landed in Round 8, follow my timestamps and it's impossible to deny he landed at least 7 jabs in that round. You're whole argument as to why Golovkin "so clearly" won is based on the fact that he landed "so many more" punches. These numbers are very misleading which is why it's imporant to check how accurate these numbers are on a round by round basis. Not because I particularly like compubox or punch stats, but because punch stats have become such a crux of Golovkin's fans arguments as to why he won.

 

Which is why I scored the fight myself. My scores don't correlate exactly with Compubox but they're more or less in line. I use Compubox because it's generally accepted as "more or less" correct.

I guess we can use Artorias' punchstats if you prefer:

This content is protected

Golovkin 181 Canelo 82

Notice how he pauses on each counted punch. You'll love it!

 

Actually, you're wrong. In a way, but boxing scoring his highly subjective. Compubox leads people to believe it's about punches landed only.. and it's not... the problem though is how much you value each of the categories that you are judging a fight.

Some people value ring generalship, some value power shots landed, some people value volume, some value you defense... it all depends on what you look for the most. We all have our biases. Judges do as well.. which is why scores can be all over the place.

 

Oh dear, anybody can decide what punches they thought landed and what didn't. In that video he's fast forwarding pausing and unpausing, I don't love how he did that at all. The music is terrible, in the first round he didn't count an Alvarez body punch because it landed on the belt-line and he deemed it "low".

It's far more effective and accurate to show clear examples of where Compubox's round by round numbers are wrong, like I did in the 8th. You cannot dispute that. That guy's video is obviously picking and choosing what punches he thinks landed to prove Golovkin won.

I'm not picking and choosing anything. I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Canelo landed more jabs than 1 in round 8. He landed at least 7 and more like 10-13 if you include the borderline stuff and I gave the timestamps.

Since you scored it yourself and since you've determined that your score is more or less in line with Compubox (even though it doesn't take into account hardness or quality of the punches landed) would you say Compubox's numbers for round 8 were "more or less" correct? Not only do we have a massive uppercut by Canelo in that round, that in any reasonable boxing fan's mind would negate several of Golovkin's punches by itself, but we have a large amount of Canelo jabs not counted. Those two facts alone suggest that the round could be scored for either fighter, but it's much more fun isn't it to just go on about how Byrd had that round so wrong right?

 

I would argue that in retreat both offense and defense are easier. The defense is easier because there is more space between you and your opponent, plus you aren't taking any chances initiating any exchanges. The aggressive fighter has an added level of difficulty going forward against a retreating fighter for the same reasons. Therefore, hitting a fleeing opponent is more difficult and requires more skill, than defending against an oncoming opponent.

If both fighters are neither advancing nor retreating, then the difficulty of defense and offense is balanced and equal. If both are advancing towards each other then aggression is easier and defense is harder. It's not a matter of defense or offense being inherently more difficult or skillful. It depends upon the direction of movement which is harder. Going backwards makes defense easier and offense harder.

 

Where's my dog?

 

I would never eat a dog