Can someone explain the metric for "harder" shots?

It's similar to how we were debating about when to score a 10-8 round without a KD; there is no objective criteria, or "metric" to determine when to give a 10-8 round (without a KD, or point deduction).

There is no criteria for "out on his feet," but you can certainly see it, and IMO, take it into account. . .

Just so much of boxing is subjective, and I think that is a good, and a bad thing: It leaves room for human error, and moreover, human mischief when scoring.

 

I think you are very close, but when you are sitting ring side you can tell who hits harder (or which fighter is hurt more by punches. If you hit a fighter and sweet flies across the ring, they are physically moved on impact, or they grimace or smile you can tell which shots do more damage. The problem is that some go by the rep of people with "heavy hands" or "feather fisted" rather than what they see in the ring. clean and effective punches is basically what you said but I do not agree with your critic of Kellerman. After looking at the action in the king and it is to close to call I do ask myself who would I rather be.

 

I agree. However, in regards to the 10-8 thing, I think what you guys were doing there was saying he was out on his feet, which was as good as a KD, which is something I don't think you can do. The guy didn't go down, nor was he dominated in the round itself. Actually i think he was winning the round, albeit less than convincingly.

 

Ask BAZOOKA.

He has a "power meter"

LOL

#BAZOOKALIVESWITHALICEINWONDERLAND

 

It is funny too like some fights a guy lands these head snapping shots and the guy doesnt appear bothered and he lands body shots and repeated head blows that dont land as crisp and dont knock the guys head around but inside they are shaking the guy up to the point where he eventually falls

Some times accumulation punchers do all this damage that doesnt become visible til later

like Cotto Margo 1 or chavez Taylor where the guy doing less damage is the guy landing the flashier punches and the guy not landing the flashy shots has the guy in a world of hurt later from shots whose reaction wasnt noticed by fans

 

Yeah, I did rewatch the round 2-3 times, and I think while the argument for a 10-8 round is still completely justifiable, I wouldn't have scored it 10-8. . . Byarm did nick the round (had it continued in the last 30 seconds like the first 2:30). . . It was just so brutal those last 15-20 seconds. . . Literally, three more seconds and he would have been KO'd, forget about just being knocked down.

 

Last nights fight is a perfect example and shows the difference between the two Donaire had clean effective shots and Mathebula the majority of his landed, really cant even be considered effective clean maybe but no where near turned over at all.

 

You can see it in the way body moves and the way a body is positioned when delivering a punch. The way the opponent reacts to punches that hit them is also an indicator.

 

That's how I saw it. I wasn't arguing all that much with you guys about it. He did get brutalized in those last seconds of the round. That fight was pretty much over at that point.

 

I would rather get hit by Malignaggi than Cotto. That doesn't mean Cotto won the round. You don't reward harder punchers unless he gives a reason for you to (Clearly hurting his opponent. This falls under clean, effective punchers either way). When Donaire wings 3-4 hooks that are partially blocked but knock Mathebula momentum back. It's eye-catching stuff but it's overemphasized by HBO and in terms of scoring. When Mathebula lands 10-20 shots, even if some are slaps and most are jabs then he wins the round. I don't care if that one shot that landed on him hurt him more than those 20 punches combined. That's not how you are supposed to score fights. That's why I Kellerman is being over-simplistic. He said it in a round I thought Donaire lost if I remember correctly (Or was losing at the time).

 

very good post.

i was thinking this as i watched hbo and listened to kellerman tell us that pavlik was landing the harder shots...blah,blah,blah... ok. he dropped rosinsky...but rosinsky wasn't hurt at all during that fight and supposedly, rosinsky had less power...but i was watching pavliks head snap back all night from his shots. that wasn't the case with kp's shots to rosinsky. he busted up kp's face. rosinsky didn't have a sing scratch.

i need to see what the responses to this are going to be...

 

they were snapping kelly's head back and busted him up. i'd say his shots seemed to do more damage than kelly's.

 

i know...as a former fighter myself...that shots that sound and look like they hurt don't always hurt and shots that don't look like much, or sound like much....can put u to sleep or have u on ur knees gasping for air.

 

great point.

 

I'd say YDKSAB then. . . Or you would be in the extreme minority in that regard - the minority who DKSAB. . .

Roger Mayweather would like to have a sit down chat with you.