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

Sure, they don't look terrible in contest. I can also find a lot of pro boxers who looked better in the 15th round, which is why I wouldn't rave about their effort.

I think you just argue with me because I don't want to give a lot of credit to Ali for his performance. As you like contextualize things, use context to my take as well. It wasn't a horrible performance, but they don't look good either for a world level boxers.

Well, you actually said that it's impossible to give it to Shavers, so you kinda did it.

I don't disagree with that, Ali won this round, but I think it's up to more interpretations than you imply.

But I talked about the accuracy before the last flurry. I also don't see the same number of punches landed.

 

I wasn't "raving" about either guys performance lol. Like I said there's levels to it. You seem to think boxers either look amazing or terrible with nothing in between. I would hesitate to trust your judgement when scoring fights with that mentality.

Well as I said previously, the bar for what's considered "world level" varies. I'd say Shavers and Ali's performance were about average for the 15th round, maybe slightly below average in Shavers case neither guy was "terrible".

THIS is "terrible":

This content is protected

If I recall correctly these guys were ranked in the top 10...!!!

It's impossible to give it to Shavers if you factor in how much he missed, Ali's accuracy, defense, and domination towards the end. But I can see why people gave it to Shavers even though I strongly disagree.

The fact you agreed with my time stamps of Shavers missing more than a dozen punches while having several other punches blocked or parried yet you aren't convinced Ali should be given credit for responsible defense makes me wonder how on Earth you score fights of guys like Mayweather or Whitaker. They will have entire rounds with a low punch output yet they win those rounds.

We'll just have to disagree because I can literally see Shavers blinking and his head being moved or stopping his movement due to Ali's punches at some of those times stamps.

 

If you still think that's my take here, then I don't see the point to discuss any further. I explained it many times in this thread.

 

You wrote that they don't look terrible "in context" which means you still believe they look terrible without context. Kind of a back handed compliment. I'm not going to try to force you to change your mind.

 

You don't score half the round for one guy or say someone won the first half, you score the entire round for one guy (or call it even). It doesn't really matter if someone looked better the first half if they finished terribly. It's like bragging you were in first place for half the race and then got tired and ended in 5th place.

If you want me to say Shavers was doing better early, then sure. But I will not say he won the "first half" or half the round since that's not how boxing scoring works.

 

Not terrible, but quite mediocre. It wasn't a good round of boxing.

I don't try to convince you either, I just defend my statement. As I said, it seems this discussion reach the point when it became pointless.

 

Again GCC: I am not formally scoring parts of rounds.
But there is nothing wrong with saying someone "won" any part of a round-that does not necessarily denote any actual official judgement.
Use whatever word you like, but I was not implying that is how scoring works.

What I was saying is that is this particular round, each half happened to be clearly identifiable for one guy.
And that Ali got better each roughly last 3 sets of 30 seconds.
Lastly that the 2 halves were so close well balanced, that only the last ~27 seconds where Ali was so dominant & had Shavers in trouble weighted the round in his favor-in my estimation.

I wonder if others check by these time stamps, can they see Shavers becoming less effective & then Ali more offensively successful?
If the round did not seem this well defined-by coincidence-I would not use this method to make a determination.
It is only a coincidentally convenient way for me to weigh the scoring of the whole round.

 

I disagree that it was all Shavers in the first half of the round. Ali had a low punch output, but he was doing other things like, I dunno, blocking, parrying, and using the ring to dictate the pace? There's more to boxing than just who is throwing more punches. Shavers was busier but he also missed quite a few punches even in the first half of the round.

 

OK good, now I get someone responding to the substance of my question!
I just thought that Shavers was easily landing more in that first half, & Ali was more effective in the defense you site in the second half.
Again I am no great scorer, & both of us think the round goes to Ali, but it seems unlike me you did not even see the round as close!

 

You're right, it's not even, Shavers won it.
And if you think Ali landed 15 power punches, then you don't know what a power punch is.

 

Connect percentage does not matter.
If I throw 20 hard shots and land 4 (that's a 20% connect percentage), and you throw 6 and land 3 (50% connect percentage), I still win, cause I landed more.

 

Connect percentage absolutely does matter. And Ali landed more anyways so I don't get your point.

 

Ali mostly landed tappy taps, shots that had no power, and most of them hit Shavers's guard.
Shavers landed the cleaner, harder shots, he clearly won the fight.

 

I disagree.

Have a good day.