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

I recall catching a runners cramp watching B-Hop chase down Morrade Hakkar and laughing all at the same time.

 

Finally a worthy thread spending time on. If aggression isn’t effective, it’s not worth scoring. I’m surprised all these so called boxing fans don’t understand this. Most “fans” believe moving forward is ring generalship and it’s hilarious. Case and point Canelo vs GGG. G didn’t cut off the ring and threw many soft pump jabs. In fact HBO only highlighted one of his jabs during the fight and immediately went to a white screen because Canelo was about to land a heavy counter punch.

I’m never seen so much damage control for a fighter in so long. Easy 7-5 fight to score if you use actual scoring criteria.

 

Just because people have biases doesn't mean they should willfully incorporate those biases into their scoring. If you're consciously dispensing with or emphasizing one criteria above the rest, or defining it in a way that fits your viewing preference, you're not really scoring. I can find a fighter horrid to watch and still score him the victor.

 

Sorry, I meant to type 5 jabs to 2 power shots (or 7 jabs to 4 power shots). I'm trying to see how you weigh jabs against power shots and if you use some formula to say x amount of jabs = 1 power shot.

 

I agree with most of this as GGG failed to cut the ring off and I say it was one of ,if not his biggest failure of the night, along with no body work. Canelo showed (proved me wrong) that his cement shoes were replaceable with fancy footwork

Moving forward is almost always a sign that the guy is looking to cut and unload but looking forward to executing a plan is not executing the plan
Thanks

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_clock
"A shot clock is used in some sports to quicken the pace of the game. It is normally associated with basketball, but is also used in snooker, pro lacrosse, water polo, korfball, and ten-pin bowling. It is analogous with the play clock used in American and Canadian football.

In basketball, the shot clock is a timer designed to increase the game's pace and scoring.[1] The offensive team must attempt a field goal with the ball leaving the player's hand before the shot clock expires, and the shot must either touch the rim or enter the basket. If the offensive team fails to register a field goal attempt within the time limit, they are assessed a violation resulting in a turnover to their opponents; if the ball hits or enters the rim after the clock expires, it is not a violation so long as it left the player's hand before expiration. The maximum time limit of the shot clock varies by level of play and league: The National Basketball Association has had a 24-second limit since first introducing the clock in the 1950s; and college basketball for both men and women has a 30-second limit. The WNBA had a 30-second clock originally; since 2006 the limit is 24 seconds, just like in the NBA.

Background

This content is protected

Stall tactics to limit big man George Mikan (#99) led to the shot clock's creation by the NBA.
The NBA (National Basketball Association) had problems attracting fans (and positive media coverage) before the shot clock's inception.[2] This was due to teams running out the clock once they were leading in a game; without the shot clock, teams passed the ball nearly endlessly without penalty. If one team chose to stall, the other team (especially if behind) would often commit fouls to get the ball back following the free throw. Very low-scoring games with many fouls were common, which bored fans. The most extreme case occurred on November 22, 1950, when the Fort Wayne Pistons defeated the Minneapolis Lakers by a record-low score of 19–18, including 3–1 in the fourth quarter.[3] The Pistons held the ball for minutes at a time without shooting (they attempted 13 shots for the game) in order to limit the impact of the Lakers' dominant George Mikan. The Pistons' performance led the St. Paul Dispatch to write "[The Pistons] gave pro basketball a great black eye."[4] NBA President Maurice Podoloff said, "In our game, with the number of stars we have, we of necessity run up big scores."[5] A few weeks after the Pistons/Lakers game, the Rochester Royals and Indianapolis Olympians played a six-overtime game with only one shot in each overtime - in each overtime period, the team who had the ball first held the ball for the entirety of the period before attempting a last-second shot. The NBA tried several rule changes in the early 1950s to speed up the game and reduce fouls before eventually adopting the shot clock."

 

Ali is a great example of an outside boxer that is extremely aggressive just like Sugar Ray Robinson. They would circle their opponent like prey to attack them. That's outside boxing at it's finest. The emphasis is on aggression, but from a distance. Guys like Lara don't do that. They run away and never initiate an exchange.

 

Well, obviously I agree with you that if the aggressor is not landing and the runner is, the aggression is not effective and the runner deserves the win. Because that is clearly not effective aggression.

Where I disagree with you is that if the fight is even, and one guy is the aggressor, and the other guy is the runner, that the aggressor should be awarded the win.

I quote:

"No. You shouldn't do that.

All things being equal, 10-10.

There's no "coming forward" bonus. That needs to stop already."

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...id-it-doesnt-mean-b-won.600188/#post-18967465

I quote the rules again:

This content is protected

This content is protected

The rules appear to disagree with your interpretation, and I do too.

 

Here's a similar thread in Classic:

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/when-did-safety-first-boxing-become-acceptable.600067/

Seems as though aggression was valued much more in the past.

 

Please tell me you recall the BHop and Hakker fight

 

That was pure comedy, RIGHT?
That should be the fight to watch for all who call legit ring movement RUNNING