Compubox numbers for Pavlik v. Taylor:

Thanks. I'm not sure how many people got a chance to realize just how active Kelly was during this fight.

 

that explans it

 

I don't need compubox to see that Pavlik convincingly outworked Taylor.

 

It really doesnt.

Look at the Navarro - Mijares fight. Where Navarro threw over 1200 punches, yet clearly lost.

Your supposed to score on clean punching first...then effective aggression, defense and ring generalship. Punch stats are all well and good, but only tell part of the story.

BTW, I had Taylor by a round...but EASILY could see Pavlik by a round as well. It was a close fight with a few swing rounds...I wont argue close either way....tho I will vs someone who has either man winning big. That just plain insane.

 

Taylor by a round? I don't know what you were watching, go watch it again. All the close rounds go to Pavlik. Taylor was fighting sporadically
and backing up while Pavlik was the effective aggressor.

 

How was he the effective aggessor if he was being hit by the cleaner, bigger shots? How was he the effective aggessor if he couldnt differentiate himself in those "close rounds" by throwing more.

The emphasis in boxing (when going by the actual rules of scoring a fight) is on CLEAN PUNCHING. Not aggression....which BTW, is not effective if you are still being hit by the CLEANER, HARDER punches.

Again, I have no beef with Pavlik getting the nod, as there were quite a few rounds that could have went either way. But you should really google how to score a fight...aggression is only more important than clean punching when it takes the fighter completely out of his game. This is NOT that case.

 

I would like to see people's round by round assessment once I have the fight on video for replay. I had rounds scored for Kelly that couldn't have possibly went for Jermain. As of now it's all "he said, she said" and I don't take anyones scorecard for much (either way) because the judges had it for Pavlik. I'll probably ask the question later on, just for sake of conversation not for an arguement as I've seen plenty of fights differently yet been cruficied by the stubborn and bias.

 

There's alot that factor into scoring rounds besides "cleaner" punches. It's easy to call as shot clean if you're hit on the elbow and half of Arkansas is sitting in the front row shouting each time it lands on the arm. Ring Generalship should also be taken into play.

 

Just as there is more than aggession. I understand this. I bring up clean punching (which btw, the rules state the EMPHASIS is on) to show just how insane people are to say this was a blowout Pavlik win...or that the punch stats tell the whole story. No more reason...no less.

 

I'll say this about the jab numbers; Pavlik may have "landed" more, which I doubt, but 9/10 of the nasty, eye-popping, head jerking jabs were thrown by Jermain.

These numbers completely fail to register how many of Pavlik's punches Taylor either partially blocked or slippped, especially over the first two thirds of the fight.

 

I agree Taylor showed great defense. But slipping, ducking, dipping, dodging, etc. isn't going to win you a round if you only throw 11 punches (forget which round that was). Taylor has one of the best jabs in the sport, but it was inconsistent, and inconsistency cost him. He still did a good job, and I respect him more in this loss than I did before. I still felt like he was saving himself for the end of the fight and it wasn't going to work with Kelly outworking him.

 

Sorry, didn't know you were a professional judge.

 

Im not....but I play one on TV.....:good

 

I had the fight 8-4 Pavlik. What does that come up to?