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

What about light and fake punches that Loma throws during the fights with purpose of opponent defence openning? It does not creat a good statistics for clean punching.

 

this is the clearest and easiest way I ever seen this issue explained.

 

It's that simple huh?

You have defense way way down down on your scoring criteria, and you specify that you'll only give the round to a fighter that made the other miss more if you're 1-4 criteria are equal. That's a cop out because in your mind those first 4 are never going to be equal. And usually it’s very difficult to tell who is landing more punches. This is why I score fights generally on who landed the better punches in a round, not who landed more punches.

I watch a round and generally give the round to the guy who landed the most impactful, memorable, significant punches. I don’t really count punches landed when I’m scoring a fight in real-time because that would steer me away from observing other more important aspects of the round. If I go back to watch a fight later on I may count punches or do a punch summary, but when scoring a fight in real-time (as judges do) it’s really more about the quality of your punches landed than the quantity of them. That’s what truly wins fighters rounds. Like if one guy lands 10 party blocked, party slipped jabs in a round, but none of them really are impactful, but then another guy who lands nothing in a round except for a bomb on a guy that sends him crashing into the ropes, that single punch could negate all those jabs. (it depends on how well those jabs landed, and also how many times he missed trying to chase the guy)

That’s not to say that somebody can’t win a round just by landing light partly blocked partly slipped jabs. It depends what the other guy manages to land himself.

Everybody including official judges have their own mindset and their own criteria on what they are looking for. Everybody has their preferences, and everybody argues how fights should be scored since it’s very subjective. Given that, I don’t see how you can say that it’s simple.

Scoring boxing rounds is a very cerebral and instinctual task. Sure, there’s guidelines, but regardless it comes down to someone watching a fight and making a single decision after 3 minutes as to who won the round.

The 4 boxing criteria doesn’t seem to me to be a list of priorities, as you are suggesting, making it seem like defense is the least important. I think they are all equally important, however I just think clean effective punching is the easiest to see usually. Most casuals and even some hardcore boxing fans are going to prioritize that over the other criteria. However I think many casuals seem to put “effective aggression” sometimes ahead of clean effective punching. (when a guy is coming forward, they’ll give him the close round)

Although the term “clean effective punching” doesn’t specify whether it’s about who landed more vs who landed the better punches, Inherently, “clean” “effective” punching sounds like it’s referring to impactful “clearly seen” punches that land as opposed to partly blocked, partly slipped, glancing punches that seem to get counted often in Compubox.

So right there BCS8, your priority is clearly that of “more punches” vs “clean effective punches” and that’s where the disconnect is. You can watch a fighter like G vs Canelo and just claim he’s landing more because you’re seeing him throwing more and you want to believe he’s landing more because you are rooting for him.

That’s not really clean effective punching. Some fighters are better at defense than others, and the OP here acting like valuing defense is what’s wrong with boxing is really insulting to me as a fan and to boxing history.

I would argue the opposite point, that those who don’t value defense, and those who tend to score fights for the aggressor without paying attention to what’s actually landed is what’s wrong with boxing.

 

It is not optional.
Defence is the fourth and last criterium in order of importance.

 

Offense, punches landed, even a jab counts, often called the most important punch in boxing, making the fight, Golovkin missed some punches, but Alvarez did also, all fighters miss punches, Ali missed punches, defense if good, but not as important as punches landed, making the fight.................hell, if not for Golovkin there would have been no fight, just a chicken running around the ring........................El Pollo is back! Golovkin dominated the fight, almost 100% had Golovkin winning................including Harold Lederman, Nacho Beristain, etc.

 

Then there would be less of the need to move around the ring more. Over mobility in a fighters style is mostly used if they have defensive skill deficiencies. They back peddle to create space to avoid exchanges rather than using actual defensive skills to stay within punching range so their punches can land.

Not that switching things up and using strategic mobility to lull your opponent to run them into a shot isn't skillful. It's the over use of ineffective movement that is a sign of a fighter with a lack of defensive skills. Sometimes fighters back peddle a lot to catch a second wind which indicates stamina or conditioning issues.

Real defensive skill blends both offense and defense in a balanced combination. Those fighters use less of the real estate inside the ring and have high punch output and high connect percentages

 

If you're coming forward trying to land shots and your opponent is moving backwards just trying to avoid them then you should be awarded the round. If fighter B is constantly popping you on the counter and making you miss that's a different matter entirely.

Parker Fury was an example of the former being treated as an example of the latter.

 

It's not a cop out. The primary use for a defense is to NOT GET HIT. An effective defence is a reward in itself because if you're getting hit less, then, theoretically, you should be up on the scoring, all other things being equal. I'm not going to give extra, EXTRA credit to a fighter because he made the other guy miss. I will only if it's a dead heat.

1) In the age of the slomo it's not THAT difficult to count punches landed
2) Some of GGG's punches seemed to snap Canelo's head around like a leaf in a storm. Was that the force of Golovkin's blows? Or was that Canelo rolling with them? How "effective" were they, really? Canelo's best shot on Golovkin didn't make him blink. Clearly, ineffective. Does GGG get "chin" credit? My point: judging a better punch is not so easy, either.

Defense is important because if you're as easy to hit as a wall, you're going to get outscored, all other things being equal. On the other hand I think giving additional credit for every punch slipped is redundant.

All things being equal, the aggressor SHOULD be favoured. He's taking the risks, and he's making the fight. This is about FIGHTING, and not synchronized dancing, after all.

What casuals often fall into the trap of, is scoring 30-40 second bursts of action over a whole round of dominance. If the guy fighting in bursts is actually outlanding the other guy, then I guess that's OK. But very often the guy flurrying is getting outscored and driven back, as in Canelo / GGG.

Golovkin DID outland Canelo, it is not a debate. people complain about Compubox, which had GGG comfortably ahead, well, OK. When I did my own scoring I likewise had GGG ahead, as did every objective commenter.

Golovkin doesn't get credit for his excellent defence, for example. He picked off a ton of Canelo's punches on his gloves, and used distance to make him miss

Agree especially with the part I have bolded. GGG > Canelo in landed punches.

 

Dude, are you kidding? Please told me you quoted the wrong post and you didn't mean to quote bandeedo's there. I refuse to believe that is the clearest and easiest you have ever seen the issue explained in all your time on here.

Now, shadow111's post a bit further down the page from yours, THAT is a strong candidate for clearest and easiest the issue has been explained.

 

No no no no no no no.

No no no no no no no.
No no no no no no no.
No no no no no no no.

No.


Boxing isn't fighting.

Let me repeat.

BOXING ISN'T FIGHTING.

Is it synchronized dancing? No. You know what else it isn't? ****ing fighting. At no point have boxing and fighting ever been synonymous.

Fighting is fighting. Boxing is BOXING.

Boxing is a sport and combat discipline with the AVOWED GOAL of ending a conflict (whether in the ring in an organized contest for the gladiatorial entertainment of an on looking crowd, or applying the skills of a boxer in the real world, ie fending off a mugging or coming to someone's aid, or in hand to hand combat in a military context) as efficiently as possible while ideally minimizing damage taken yourself...preferably taking as close as possible to zero.

The aim of FIGHTING is to just fight. Fighting is chaos. Fighting is drunken tempers, scores being settled, wanting to hurt or punish someone or take their property or defend your own at whatever cost. If you get hurt, whatever, as long as you hurt them too. That's human fighting on a primal level.

Boxing has NEVER, and I mean never, not now, not when codified under the Marquees of Queensberry rules, and not even in the bareknuckle era, been about just plain old fighting. Boxing is BOXING. Boxing is more nuanced and elegant than fighting and has a completely different goal. Your goal isn't to "give a good scrap". Your goal isn't to be the aggressor just for the sake of doing so. Your goal isn't to show off or entertain anyone that may be watching. Your goal isn't to throw the most punches. Your goal isn't necessarily to even inflict as much pain as possible. Your only goal is to win (by whatever given definition, by whatever allowable method given under the rule set you're operating under- by a knockout, by making more empircally observable and countable instances of contact under the old amateur system, or by shading more rounds on the more subjective clean-effective-punching-based 10-point-must pro system - WITHOUT getting hit or taking damage yourself, ideally. Literally none, if you can help it, is the goal. That's what makes it BOXING, the ART and SCIENCE of boxing, and not just crude barbaric Neanderthal fighting.

 

One, I don't read Shadow111's posts if they're that long, when I already know he's favoring punch percentage over actual punches landed. So 1/1 (100%) is better as 6/10 (60%) in some extreme example.
Second, this is an issue I see far too often here, on yt, pundits and even in discussions of professional boxing writers... changing criteria to fit their own agenda, then changing it up for the very next fight because their favorite in that case has an opposite style. It's human nature, but wrong non the less.
He put that issue into one small sentence without needing a page long rant. Compact and to the point.

 

I wholeheartedly disagree, and this is where we have a disconnect. Please try to understand where I’m coming from. It takes more skill to actually move into punching range, then make your opponent think you’re close enough to hit, then when your opponent tries to land a punch, you quickly maneuver yourself to make him miss.

When this happens, this is some of the most eye catching, crowd pleasing moments in a fight. When a father does this well, it may actually be better than landing a punch. Even if you don’t counter the punching. If you make someone miss like that, THEN counter the punch, even better.

I totally get what you’re saying, that making someone miss is a “reward in itself”, I just happen to vehemently disagree with that and the level of credit you think one should get for doing that . . . because some fighters don’t have the skill and ability to do that, so when it happens, it should be rewarded, as much more more than some punches.

Understand that staying out of punching range is much safer than getting in range, making a guy think you’re close enough to hit, then avoiding a punch, and making a guy look silly. That’s skill, that’s something that should count as far as who wins a round. This scenario is different than just somebody missing short, because they mis-judge the range. I’m taking about situations where a guy ducks under a punch making him miss (like Canelo did to Triple G) or situations where a guy has such a speed advantage that he can make an opponent look silly. (think Prime RJJ or Prince Naz)

Not that Canelo made G miss to that extent, but he did make him miss impressively several times, enough to where those were better than some of the partly blocked, partly slipped jabs that G was getting in. This is just an area that we disagree on. You value somebody just moving forward predictably throwing a jab that probably got blocked and I value somebody with better overall skills setting traps for an opponent, making an opponent miss.

1) First of all, judges don’t have the benefit of slo-mo replay. As you know, judges can only score the fight in real-time. And remember, they have different angles of the fight that we may not see on TV. In the age of slomo, yes I agree that you can count punches, which is basically what I did on the round 1 punch summary. The problem with this is that every punch isn’t equal. And you really have to ask yourself if a punch that halfway lands and halfway is blocked, does it count? Is a punch that is slipped, but may graze the opponent as he’s moving away, does that count? I tried to do the round 1 punch summary, and I had to really describe everything to point out what happened on each punch. You have to make judgement decisions to actually count punches. And if you remember there were several punches that were “hidden” due to where the camera was. A number of punches in round 1 at least were hidden because Canelo’s back was facing the camera. We couldn’t really tell whether those were blocked or whether they landed because we couldn’t see the gloves. Also, the biggest punch in the round probably with 30 seconds left the camera switched angles right as it landed, and we never got a replay. So what Jim Lampley saw and said “hard right hand by Canelo” we still believe it or not, never actually saw where that punch landed due to the camera switch. So it’s not really that easy to count punches 100% accurately given the camera angles that we’re getting. There could be rounds that you count punches landed are partly blocked, partly slipped, etc. Those punches are not as important or as significant as a clean “easy to see” punch let alone hard impactful “easy to see” punches. This is why counting punches is very misleading. I’d also like to point out that as far as we know Compubox is counter in real-time. What happened with the round 5 totals with Canelo having a 14-9 advantage during the round but then G magically having a 18-14 when they were released after the fight? Whatever did happen there, whether Compubox went back and looked at round 5 in slo-mo and redid the numbers, still the official judges don’t have any benefit of slo-mo replay. As you know, it’s totally instinctual in the moment for official judges. We can go back and look at the rounds, like I did in round 1, but there’s still a number of punches that are hard to determine if they landed let along count since each punch are not equal, not by a longshot.

2) Judging a better punch in my opinion is easier than trying to count punches, because that way you just focus on the clean significant punches. In real-time, you’re brain can only process so much information. When you see a fighter partly block or partly slip a punch, in most judges eyes that punch is probably not going to swing a round. The punches that swing a round generally the punches that make an impact, that you remember, that clearly land clean unblocked.

You said “Canelo's best shot on Golovkin didn't make him blink. Clearly, ineffective.” That’s a ridiculous statement lol, I mean seriously? It didn’t make him blink so that means its ineffective? You can’t be serious. Your priorities seems really out of whack with statements like that, but I’m happy to continue the discussion.

 

agreed, but it shouldn't effect the score if your a defensive master. Its what lands that counts !

 

You don't read my posts if they are that long lol. Why not, do you get lost in them or something lmao.

 

Yeah and then he singled out two particular types of style that he is clearly biased against, tipping his non-objective hand in that same breath. We get it, he doesn't like people that don't fight like Gatti.