Which is why I gave most rounds to Bivol, he simply landed more punches. However I did try to give a nuanced opinion to understand why some people gave it to Beterbiev. There were rounds where Bivol just clammed up for long stretches and didn't do anything, but overall I thought Bivol won.
Which is something I find frustrating with a large portion of the boxing fanbase. Defensive fighter does not equal more skilled or winner to me. Pauli is one of the worst and most biased commentators in my opinion. However, I do have a bias for aggressive fighters and I still scored it for Bivol. Landed punches still matter the most to me.
Same here, I generally favor the aggressor..but clean punching is always #1. Wrt to your other reply to me, also same. I understand why some people felt Beterbiev won, I just disagree. There’s a comment I made on one of these threads saying as much
This is in reply to myself on another forum (PNE-Online) in their Other Sports section. I asked as per earlier in this thread / forum... "Just to add, shouldn't the judges be ex-fighters who actually know both how punches and ringwork works. On the Arms / Gloves don't score yet we are seeing this too often. Thoughts?". The reply.... "You make a great point in that other forum post. It's about punches. I know that sounds really simple but boxing is about punches. Taking up a particular place in the ring doesn't make you 'more aggressive' as loads of pundits say. Punches=aggression. Standing nearer the middle of the ring for most of the fight doesn't make you the aggressive winner, you just stood in a different spot and got punched more (like Beterbiev last night). A lot could be solved by not allowing 'stylistic' interpretations. Throw more punches and more heavy punches and land more of them and you win. It doesn't need to be a cryptic art form. It's almost maths.". An excellent point or two is made here. Especially about fighting in the center / outside shouldn't make no difference towards scoring, a punch is a punch,
This is the old hagler vs leonard argument in a way. A small flurry of a few light jabs doesnt beat less bigger punches landed by the guy being agressive. I feel the runner/defensive boxer/tactical fighter tends to get favoured by fans more often than the guy chasing the fighter on his bike. Like he gets rewarded more for making the other guy miss than what he lands himself. Round 8 last night is a good example of that. I still dont get why people consider it a clear Bivol round. He hss the earmuffs on most of the round, ends it with a flurry that hits mostly arms and yet most people give it to him cause Beterbiev was mostly hitting arms outside of the bigger mistake. I guess you can consider it kind of close I guess but the majority thinks its a clear Bivol round for the srl stunt he pulls at the end. Like nothing big landed, amd he pulls of a quick flurry at the end that the dazn commentators hype like he is messing him up and suddenly its a clear round for him when almost everything got blocked.
Bigger punches landed? Beterbiev didn't land anything. You Beterbiev scorers are just shamelessly lying now
Judges often erroneously place emphasis on blocked punches as sign of aggression rather than defense. That's why you get decisions like 118-110 for Canelo over GGG or 116-112 for Beterbiev over Bivol.
What light iabs? Bivol nearly blew ABs head off several times, if anything AB showed how great his chin was on this fight, Bivol gave beterbiev more concussions this fight than AB did him, this is factual. Go rewatch the fight
I find this interesting. They are not scoring punches, but of they are part of a strategy that is allowing a fighter to control his opponent, stopping him from throwing, forcing him to move around, controlling the pace of the fight, they are surely a scoring technique...? If they are wholly ineffective, sure, they can't score. But, if they are part of controlled, efficient aggression and are marking one fighter over another as having a better understanding, better use of, ring generalship.