Why does everyone on here seem to think that the slicker or 'technically superior' boxer invariably wins on points? In analyses of various fights (I just saw this logic being used on a Mayweather/ Hatton thread), people here seem to think that in boxer/pressure fighter matchups, the result is either points decision for the boxer, or KO for the pressure fighter. What This content is protected ! Why do people write off a points decision for the pressure fighter as a plausible option?
What the question should be, is this; Is there an exact criteria with which Judges score a fight (If not its subjective then) and what is that criteria? I couldnt find anything concrete on-line about judges etc, but it would explain alot of fights ive scored close!
Personally, I think Mayweather stoppage. I wasn't talking specifically about Hatton/Mayweather though. It just annoys me that many people (read: not 'everyone' Pharoah!) dismiss the option when discussing boxer/pressure matchups. This is not any particular reference to Hatton/Mayweather (although I see Floyd losing on points as more likely than him getting KTFO - I think he has an underrated chin and underrated heart and is not likely to get KTFO).
