"Attaboy rounds" - a common fallacy in scoring boxing matches RBR.

I like to think I'm the anti - IB when it comes to scoring rounds.

You're an incredibly convicted guy when it comes to you're scoring (arrogant seems harsh but you "speak" with conviction so that adjective will have to do) and you strongly believe in what you say and do in terms of the score cards.

I'm exactly the opposite of that, I embrace the subjectivity and often find myself actively looking for rounds that could be scored the other way (so I will rewatch Bradley vs Pacquiao 1 with a view to seeing which rounds can be argued for Bradley so I don't have to class it a robbery)

You see I used to be extremely arrogant about my scoring, counting losses as wins and vice versa but boxing isn't that simple is it not, for example Escalera got a poor decision against Tyrone Everett, but he still remained the man to beat in the division by virtue of that decision so boxing history itself isn't in sync with many common robbery claims. So I had that issue irking me, then I had the problem of where to draw the line with my convictions, I found myself going down an incredibly murky path and for someone like me murky ness is not something I enjoy. I used to think "so what if 3 men don't agree with me" but then I have to remember that ultimately those 3 men matter a lot more to the process than I do. Tyrone Everett was never champion and nothing will ever change that.

So then I began to think how can I combat this and the solution was to go to polar opposites of what I used to do. Sure Tyrone Everett put on a good performance and that should be remembered but the decision went to Escalera and rather than debate that I would try instead to understand that and watch the fight to see which rounds I can accept being given to the champ. Boxing isn't judged on a TV screen and rather than worry about what should or shouldn't be I can now focus on what is or isn't. The scoring of a round is subjective, the decision rendered is not. I like to deal in absolutes and whilst I might initially see things one way I can mow appreciate how they could be seen the other way. I can credit a performance but I can't change a decision.

Do I think the best performance of Pernell Whittaker was against Chavez? I most certainly do, but that doesn't mean I have to detract from Chavez doing enough to convince the judges he won half the rounds on offer.

So where you have conviction in your scoring I have conviction in the decision rendered. What is, is.

So regards this particular fight would I argue rounds for Canelo, probably not, but that doesn't mean there aren't rounds I could say "yeah I guess that could to him"

The burden of proof is not on me, it's on the judge, I'm just here to enjoy the spectacle.

I'm the anti-IB.

 

Well I suppose you are like Michael Jordan in the sense that you're both highly motivated by delusions. He was motivated by personal grudges, too many to count, that he mostly invented himself. You are motivated by the delusion you are a better judge than average. I recognize sources of motivation are important for any task. So I won't try to spoil yours.

 

You should also coin a name for people who post agenda driven scores in round by round threads when they clearly aren't even watching the fight. Like MidniteProwler did in the Horn-Corcoran round by round thread.

 

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...-ustarkhanov-rbr.598709/page-12#post-18922054

 

Why do sympathy rounds even matter? They wouldn't give them in A Close Fight. In A Blowout, who cares anyway, as long as the right guy Wins?

 

I Know, Max Kellerman discusses this on ESPN, back around 2001, I think. But in the grand scheme of things, all I really care about is that the right guy Wins. If it's 10-2, or 9-3, doesn't mean much really. It's like a baseball team Winning 3-0, or 5-0.

 

I generally agree, but when you're talking about the only loss of a fighter who's the top draw in the sport, a consensus Top 5 P4P fighter, arguably the #1 P4P fighter in the sport, whether that fighter was "shutout" 12 rounds to 0 or whether his only lost was a close competitive fight is worlds apart. A close competitive respectable loss to Floyd Mayweather (while drained at a catchweight no less lol) is very different than being "shutout" or dominated. The latter did not happen, so when somebody makes that claim, it's important that we set the record straight.

You really can't have a shutout loss on your resume and be seen as the top P4P fighter in the sport. So when you have fans making such a claim about a fighter who is ranked so highly on the P4P rankings, out of principle that kind of smack talk needs to be called out. I mean, clearly Canelo gave Floyd his closest most challenging fight in years and anyone who claims otherwise better be ready for a ESB showdown.