Topic of the minute - Ali vs Shavers 15th round.....you score it!!!!

You're pointing out Ali's flurry didn't have much on them, but then you're giving Shavers credit for light body punches that didn't have much on them. I gave points to both guys since they landed clean.

I know he's crude, but whether you have excellent form or caveman form, I have to raise an eyebrow when someone misses by nearly a foot. It affects my scoring.

I gave Shavers credit for landing the right hand. The point was Ali won the exchange. I added up the total numbers of punches landed for both guys and then made a decision based on performance, ring generalship, accuracy, etc.

I rewatched it 3x and thought it landed. It wasn't a solid blow by any means but it seemed to connect.

Then i don't know what to tell you.

We are literally not seeing the same thing if you think Ali didn't land anything solid outside the uppercut and last 20 seconds. Shavers did not land more than 4-5 out of over 20 solid/power punches he threw, which is a fairly low connect percentage. 4-5 is not "quite a few". You even agreed with me on more than half my points and then still ended up with the same opinion which is baffling to me.

You agreed on several of my points that Ali blocked, dodged, or parried several of Shavers blows and then disagreed that Ali dominated in terms of defense. That doesn't even make logical sense. Shavers wasn't simply missing due to crudeness, Ali MADE him miss by dodging or parrying but you refuse to give him credit for it and think that somehow doesn't affect the scoring.

 

Don't quit your day job, your jokes are even worse than your ability to score fights (and thank heaven you're not a judge).

 

Normally, I would jump at this opportunity. However, the original pair I bought in the late 1960s still work just fine.

 

My satire is The Greatest (tm) satire there is! I know you loved it

 

I don't, why do you think so?

Well, we may disagree, the quality isn't perfect.

What Ali did was the basic things we can watch in any fight, come on...

 

Thanks I agree with most of that, but I do not know that you understand that I am just saying Shavers clearly won the first HALF of the round.
You did not address that at all.
I said I edge the round for Ali, but it seems to me Shavers landed more & had more effect in the first 1:30.
Then he missed more & Ali became more of an offensive force, the last 27 seconds clinching it for me, since Shavers was nearly out & Ali landing at will.

Not that Shavers was perfect in the first half of the round, but even with his misses, deserved that part of it before Ali took over.
You do not see the round being divisible this way-& will Ali getting better & more "offensive" each ~ 30 seconds of the back half of round 15?

 

Tbh, I only score by way of aggregate quality of punches landed - end point focus.

All other skills/attributes displayed by a boxer (defence, ring generalship etc.) are just a means to an end - if successfully applied, they reward themselves in terms of aggregate quality of punches landed.

But a punch doesn’t have to necessarily hurt/damage to warrant a fundamental score though it’s value can be magnified by its apparent absolute power and/or its apparent effect.

Between the two fighters over the whole fight, Earnie was THE most hurt in the final 30 secs, notably not returning fire. Ali was rocked periodically but he was never hurt like that.

Earnie’s punches on average might’ve been harder throughout -but Ali had a great chin, so the “effects” were mitigated - Ali’s resilience being rewarded in so far as offsetting potentially greater points being rewarded to Earnie.

Conversely, Ali’s own punches had Shavers rocking and reeling for a protracted period in the latter stages of round 15 - a near KO. Ali didn’t have to punch as big as Earnie to be rewarded BIG for that effort.

Whatever contributed to the “effect” of Ali’s punches - Muhammad’s own power, accuracy, the resilience (or lack thereof) of Earnie’s chin and/or fatigue - it doesn’t matter - boxing scores are ALWAYS relative - so if Earnie was lacking in the aforementioned depts as compared to Ali - then it naturally and justifiably cost him in terms of “effect”.

Also, a fighter doesn’t “win” the first half or two thirds of a round - though he can be perceived to be leading at those stages.

That’s simply an artificial compartmentalisation of a round - mentally scoring per minute segments - but that isn’t an official approach - it merely makes it easier for some to mentally to ingest the action by breaking the round down into chunks.

So of course, the round still has to be viewed and concluded upon in whole terms - this concept that fighter A or fighter B “won” the first 2/3 rds of a round is false and incorrectly suggests an unassailable lead - which, in many cases, is clearly not the case.

 

So if a punch lands but it doesn't have much weight or doesn't look very impressive you don't factor that into your scoring? Yes or no?

No boxer in the history of the universe threw perfect punches all 15 rounds, especially not the last round.

And Shavers failed to do even that. He did not have even basic defense, basic timing, basic accuracy, etc. Ali did. He had a higher connect % (punches landed vs thrown, I counted), had better defense, timing, etc than Shavers. That isn't really up for debate. My point wasn't to try to act like this was some master class performance, just that you can easily argue Ali won the round clearly and it wasn't particularly close unless you just give a guy a round from throwing a lot.

 

Punches landed & their effectiveness are the main thing.
But it is proper & universally done that other things are considered as more than a means to an end-of scoring-so for example if it is really close, defense & ring generalship easily can be determining factors.
They are supposed to count for something on their own...

I agree completely that there is no reason to formally credit any fighter for portions of a round.
But looking at it this way need not imply that someone wins based upon that, or the other guy cannot come back...

Thus far nobody has seconded my observation, but it still seems to me that these guys were virtually as dominant in 1/2 of the 15th round.
Ali getting better in ~30 second increments starting from 1:30.
Since they seem so closely matched by dividing it into 2 equal parts, yet Ali had the most one sided & efficacious about 16th of the round...

I use this as a mental excercise to compare them, & in this case decide that Ali deserves the round.

 

I do factor them, I just find it strange that you always bring up how Shavers punches were "glancing", while you don't mention that in Ali's case.

Of course.

I also have it Ali winning, so that's not where we disagree

Keep in mind that you said Ali landed like 7 punches in the last 20 seconds. That means his accuracy was also mediocre before that period, which proves my point - Ali didn't win the round before the last 20 seconds and Shavers did land some shots that could have given him this round without Ali's last flurry.

That's all, here is where we disagree.

 

If a round is ever so close that you can’t determine a superior margin for either fighter in terms of aggregate punch quality - you just call it EVEN. Not difficult.

 

There is a difference between a glancing blow and someone simply not having a lot of destructive punching power. Yes some of Ali's blows were glancing, but he also landed plenty of flush solid punches but Shavers simply didn't get hurt that much. Ali even planted his feet and straight up exchanged with Shavers at one point which took huge balls.

My point being you yourself said Shavers was a crude boxer, but you won't even give him credit for still throwing heavy blows even in the 15th (for the first time) and are criticizing how "sloppy" he looks. Did you expect him to look like Mayweather? As for Ali, he looked ok for a man pushing 40 with parkinson's whose had a very long career. It was the 15th round for crying out loud.

No it wasn't, Ali landed several of his punches earlier in the round. I time stamped everything for you. His accuracy was great.

 

Most of these Ali blows were glancing, here is where we disagree.

Well, in a context my criticism may look too big, but I just said what I see. Of course we have to take into account that Ali was old and far from his best, I literally said that 5 years younger Ali would look significantly better in 15th round. I don't get why you push this so hard, to force me to tell that Shavers and Ali look impressive? They don't, you can try to contextualize why they don't look good but still.

You said that Ali landed 22/30 punches. If you take away "at least" 7 punches from the last 20 seconds (your own words), then ali landed 15/23 punches. That's decent accuracy, but also very low volume.

Of course, I don't agree with your evaluation in all moments of the round, so my estimation would be a bit worse for Ali accuracy than that.

 

It doesn't have to be one or the other, black or white was my point. I wasn't saying that they looked "great". There's a huge number of layers between terrible and great. They looked ok for a crude slugger and an old boxer. I can name dozens of pro boxers younger than them who look terrible in the 10th, let alone 15th.

Yes Ali's performance was low volume, high accuracy. I acknowledged this in my very first post. It's for that same reason fights like Tua vs Ike are hotly debated because one guy was busier while the other landed more telling shots. I didn't say people who scored it for Shavers were crazy, but their reasoning is flawed because his accuracy was often bad and he was made to look silly occasionally.

As for 22/30, compared to Shavers the accuracy is way better. There's context to it.