Bivol clearly won after rewatching

Still, you're being too much of a defeatist when it comes to Bivol and way too hard on him, he did a fine job, won the match and got shafted, and in the process did better against Beterbiev than anyone come close to in the past.

 

How am I being too hard on him? Ive said he fought very well, can be proud of his performance and that it was an ultra competitive fight that I could even see being 7-5 to Bivol.

In what way am I being too hard on him?


The conversation in this thread is about genius saying Arturs punches looking weak, which is absolute nonsense lol.

 

I hear you bandeedo.

What Im responding to is this guy saying Arturs punches were weak.

All Im posting is in response that he was throwing heavy shots in there. Im getting more responses to me explaining that Arturs punches were powerful than that guy is getting for saying Arturs punches were weak.

 

If we can move away from the fight itself and just discuss scoring for a minute.


Lets take two examples of a high guards being used against big punchers.

First lets take Winky vs Trinidad.

When Trinidad attempts to come forward, throws his shots, and is met by Winkys high guard, and Titos punchez ricochet off of Winkys high guard with no effect while Winky consistently uses the high guard in which to block and then attack, and actually using his high guard to base his own offense off of, I agree that that is ineffective aggression on Trinidads part.

However, I am not convinced that its ineffective aggression when a puncher attacks a high guard, resulting in the defender to stop with their offense almost completely and go into retreat while being chased by numerous punches.

There was a form of effectiveness there that is not found in truly innefective aggression; it took momentum away from the fighter, it manouvered the fighter away from where they wanted to be (middle of the ring), it controlled the action, it stifled the defenders offense, and often it does inflict slight damage one way or another.

In other words, aggression that has an effect on the opponent in such a way to do those things, can be seen as a form of ring generalship, because its stamping the round so much so that the aggressor is largely controlling the action at that point.

Controlling the action is a subset to ring generalship.

So my point is, I dont see why you would view those two scenarios as equal (a puncher whose getting backed up by an offensive high guard while not landing anything clean, vs a puncher who makes a high guard stop throwing, retreat around the ring), even if the amount of absolutely clean punches were the same.

Also, I question the notion that a blocked punch is a point for the defender. With this philosophy, an attacker that comes forward all round against an opponent thats turtling all round but manages to block all his opponents shots, would theoretically win the round round without throwing a punch.

I think on some level we have to realise that ineffective aggression does count for something. Its just that its relative to what tge opponent is doing in return. And I also think the term ineffective is debatable.

Why is it ring generalship when a fighter that uses his footwork to lower his opponents output or get his opponents to the ropes, but not ring generalship when an offensive segment has nothing that lands clean but gets the same effect. Why is an offense that yields beneficial results deemed innefective, when its having an objective effect on the opponent.

Im not arguing here just kinda bringing up questions.

 

But that theory/philosophy, taken as an objective scoring method, allows a fighter who throws 0 punches, but blocks 60 of his opponents punches in a round, to win that round without throwing a single punch.

 

You also don't get awards for winning 3 rounds, because there's 12 of them.