Do people here honestly think that defense wins you points in boxing?

Sure Lance. We know who landed the harder shots and best punches in the fight Lance. It's okay. You don't get sunlight in Alaska.

 

Nope. You're trying to play cool because you know your Usyk outboxing Holyfield comment makes you look stupid and you were a crybaby ready to quit the sport because of the corruption. You were also one of the biggest whiners during the whole Kov/Ward saga. Like I said. Boxing isn't for you. Stick to wwe and llamas.

 

There was 24 hours of sunlight you douchebag.... I can see you know as much about Alaska as you do boxing.

How do you know Canelo landed the harder shots again? A guess? His punches were so much harder that he backpeddled for no reason, right? Clown... keep running from giving straight answers...

 

Another idiotic comment, a low IQ simpleton with a chip on his shoulder like you shouldnt be taken seriously at all. How do you wake up in the morning and get dressed without injuring yourself?

 

He did, sort of. He thinks that Canelo landed the harder and cleaner punches.

I think Golovkin landed the harder and cleaner punches.

Alas, we're at an impasse. Maybe we should count punches landed?

 

He was fatigued Lance. He went and left the ropes whenever he wanted too. G the killer was tentative even when Canelo was on the ropes because he was afraid to get hit with a counter at anytime.

It's sad and pathetic how you guys try to play make believe that Canelo was in survival mode when he wasn't at any point in the fight.

I know it's hard for an x-Pacquiaotard, now g fanboy to accept reality.

It's okay.

This content is protected

 

You can generalize that way, but it really isn't as simple as that.
The fighter throwing less punches may have done so because he was throwing his punches when the opening was there to land cleaner and more quality punches.
His type could be of the variety that has more of an effect and wears a fighter down.

When it comes to scoring, there's to many variables involved to just say, fighter A threw and landed more thus he should get the round.
In many cases it does come down to preference. I've always preferred quality over quantitiy, but there does have to be enough of the quality punches being landed to over-ride the quantity.
Landing 15 out of 35 with mostly all of those clean, well leveraged and accurate is probably going to get the round for me over a fighter that landed 22 out of 85 with most all of those connects of the gauging jab types and partial connects.
......but if a fighter landed 5 out of 10, all hard clean shots and his opponent landed 20 out of 85 decent but less cleaner shots.
Even though he landed the harder shots, he was outlanded by 4 times as many shots, and throwing 10 punches means that fighter is trying to avoid displaying skill instead of relishing it. Tells a story of that fighter not being comfortable enough to throw enough punches against his opponent and so he's likely being out-generaled.

Every round and circumstance is different, that's why scoring is so subjective.

To the persons in this thread who are of the idea that connect % shouldn't have anything to do with scoring. Connect % goes hand in hand with defense. If a fighter has a low connect %, it pretty much tells the story that he's having issues landing punches due to the fact that his opponent is sound defensively.

 

Listen, even the experts that argued vehemently that Golovkin beat Canelo, most of those conceded Canelo landed the cleaner more telling blows of the fight. There issue with Canelo was him not being busy enough to over-ride Golovkins activity.

 

You see want you want to see douche. But I guess a few losers on a message board supercedes all those who had 3G winning.

Sure...we're supposed to take the word as genuine from a racist POS like you? You only have cred with the other losers who just come to hate on fighters...

 

Defense alone won't get you points unless you're running with slippery eel sauce smothered over your torso.

 

A lot of the sequences in that video are confirmation to me why Golovkin didn't go to the body. Canelo fights looser and free'er on the inside than the stiffer Golovkin who prefers to be at mid-range.
Everytime Golovkin put the gap at mid-range, Canelo either closed it by stepping inside or elongated it by backpedalling or going to the laterals.
If Golovkins remained on the inside, Canelo would land to the body and go upstairs with uppercuts.
Inside is not where Golovkin wanted to be and that's for sure. Because of that, there was so much more avenues for Canelo to work at because simply he was the more versatile fighter.
That's why Canelo was able to land cleaner and harder shots as he could do it from any distance where Golovkin could not.

 

It's so obvious what the agenda is of anyone downplaying the importance of defense (or making too much of the in fact nonexistent role that aggression in and of itself or "being the one making the fight" has to do with scoring). They hate pure boxers (why do you suppose that's even a term used throughout all of the boxing industry, by coaches, scribes, commentators? Hmm? Maybe because the "pure boxers" are the few practitioners in the entire sport who are indeed ACTUALLY boxing? Not just waltzing around throwing haymakers in a boxing ring and having whatever level of success it manages to bring them, even up to and including championships, without ever actually learning how to BOX?) like Mayweather et al so they want to discredit them by moving the goalposts and pretending that what Mayweather and boxers like him are masters of - hit and don't get hit - isn't the precise object and name of the game.

Then, most insidiously and hypocritically, they retort with "you're just bending the defining rules of the sport to fit your agenda so you can discredit come-forward types/swarmers/brawlers/sluggers" or whatever. No. The whole point of boxing, in the purest and most idyllic form, is to achieve mastery of BOXING, the way pure boxers do it. Just because some people manage to circumvent the craft of boxing altogether to find ways to be successful in the ring (undermining the goal of the sport altogether but still winning in the context of it under the ruleset, fair play) doesn't mean they aren't pure and utter shit at boxing itself. Carlos Maussa was pretty damn successful for a guy that knows how to box less than anyone on this forum, or their grandmother. Just because you can knock out a pure boxer if you have advantages in size, athleticism, or get lucky, doesn't mean that having a style other than pure boxer deserves to be rewarded on the same footing on the scorecards as going to all the bother of learning and then applying the craft and honing your execution of it.

You may not like Mayweather, he isn't exactly a pillar of the community or perfect role model human being and no, he doesn't embody the sort of self-sacrificing, Hulkamania comic-book schoolboy heroics and reckless Leeroy Jenkins "courage" you all seem to not just want but demand from a "fighter" (maybe Toughman competitions or WWE are more your thing) but he is the embodiment of pure boxing and the idealized version of doing everything right in terms of what ought to be rewarded by pro boxing judges.

 

I get your point. The only critique I have of it is the saying that Mayweather is the embodiment of pure boxing which imo couldn't be further from the truth.
Fighters like Mayweather and Hopkins who's boxing skill is at an elite level, are not really pure boxers. Both those fighters incorporate so much illegal tactics that shouldn't be allowed and are not on the rulebooks but the refs let them get away with it.

Pure boxing my friend is what a chain of Nacho Beristain's fighters have done through the years. Fistically without clinching and grabbing, headbutting and elbowing, put their fistic skills on display in its purest, finest form.

I know I'm nit-picking for the point you were trying to make, but I just couldn't let it go when I read Mayweather was the "embodiment" of pure boxing.
So far from that!

 

I don't care what a pathetic female who is supposed to be ignoring me thinks Lance. The truth is I answered your pathetic questions and all you did was resort to name calling because you know who landed the harder shots period. Go pop a xanax and prepare to be disappointed in the rematch. Majority of people like you DKSAB. I never cared what the consensus thought and my reputation is just fine.

You're just a groupie bandwagoner. I'll never be that. Ineffective aggression doesn't make you the ring general. Defense is a scoring criteria. The fight was ruled a draw. Nobody won but we all saw who landed the most effective shots and who the more versatile fighter was. G's power and skills are overrated even against a gassed fighter.

Just like Manny, you have to deal with it and jump ship to the next hypejob. You're a fanboy. Try mma or wwe.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

Jim Lamepley is even on damage control. Embrace reality. Don't fight it. Btw, I dwarf you as a poster. Don't get it twisted. I dwarf you as a man. You're a female tha throws little pooonjabs like GGG lmao

Go stick your head in a ice hole and I'm not talking about your clammy wife's lol

 

Still trying to make a point you pathetic racist *****?