Is it becoming more difficult for back foot fighters to win BIG fights?

lol

 

Judges have a tendency to reward the one who takes more risk. Especially moreso when it is a close round. Boxers who fight off the backfoot have this image of being safety first, so it's natural to expect they won't get the benefit of the doubt in a tight-knit affair. Counter-punchers also come off as trying to "steal" rounds even when they do have success just because of their relative lower workrate---and alotta judges make a point, rightfully or not, of scoring against that.

I've said this before and I'll say it again; unless it's a total schooling where fighter A is just breaking fighter B down round after round and taking away his will, or knocking him out....a "technician" will always be hard-pressed to win a close decision against a skilled attrition-type-mentality offensive fighter. This is why Pac is a tough matchup for any skilled technician...you may get the better of him in some rounds but he always looks undeterred. He's always throwing punches, and he's always coming forward. He is showing the judges something. At the end of the day, judges needs for you to do something so they'd actually have something tangible to judge.

 

Sarcasm :thumbsup

 

yes and good riddance!

 

Depends on who you're talking to. According to Pacquiao fans, someone who fights off the back foot is a 'runner' and automatically not aggressive. :roll:atsch

If you have good judges it shouldn't matter. If you outbox someone off the back foot you've still won the fight.

 

You can win backing up, you just can not run and hold on. It's not olympic boxing, at some point you have to fight.

 

You shouldn't score well for a fighter because he takes more risks, but I believe as paolo said that this occurs. Scoring shouldn't be related to aggressiveness or taking risks (Key word aggressive, not effective aggression). It's not a tough-man contest, it's boxing.

 

I'd say the opposite myself, back peddling fighters get away with far too much today and get too much credit on the cards.

 

Yes, and neither is it the 100 meters.

 

Its supposed to be about landing clean effective punches.

There are instances where the fighter on the backfoot might land a 2 or 3 punch combination that were the only clean punches in a round.
.....but if this fighter spent nearly the whole round running, clinching, and doing everything in his power to avoid punching and getting punched, thats when I as a scorer and I find that judges as a whole will score for simply pure aggression, even though it may not have been very effective.

Fans and even judges misinterpret the criteria for judging a fight.
Where in the criteria does it say effective aggressor has to be coming foward?

I submit to the clowns that scored for Pacquiao vs Marquez, that it was quite clear that JMM was the effective aggressor.

It was Marquez who turned his body into his shots and scored the cleaner and harder blows.

Pacquiao was not an aggressor. He came foward, but in no way shape or form was he aggressive in the way he threw his shots.......Paquiao lunged, and he threw a great ammount of arm punches for fear that commiting to the shot got his a hard counter shot as a return. That my friend is not effective aggresiveness. Its not even aggressiveness, its timidness.

The aggressor on fighting off the backfoot here was Juan Manuel Marquez who was not timid in the least to let his punches fly with torque and punching power.

An aggressor does not necessarily have to be advancing foward. As long as he plants his feet and throws his shots with hard emphasis, it is without a doubt called aggressiveness.


I submit to this forum that JMM for example fought aggressive vs Paquiao and it was Paquiao who after repeatedly getting countered hard, fought timid.
The effective aggessor was clearly Juan Manuel Marqeuz!bbb:bbb:bbb

 

This.

 

You shouldn't score against someone who travels 100 meters if he's landing the more telling, cleaner, significant punches.

 

Disagree. What Marquez displayed that night was more along the lines of superior ring generalship than effective aggression (and ring generalship encompasses many factors which make it a more potent scoring factor than something as vague as effective aggression).

Pacquiao was the aggressor. It was not effective enough to secure the win.