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

Lol... Definition of boxing... The sport or practice of fighting with the fists, especially with padded gloves in a roped square ring according to prescribed rules.

 

Thank you IB for your words of support. Sometimes it is good to be succinct, but there are times when you really need to go into depth with a longer post. I like what you said and it seems like we're on the same page. I respect everyone's view but I was honestly insulted by the OP who basically said that those who value defense as "what's wrong with boxing" lol. I mean, it really insulted me because I see a lot of fans, like you seem to see, that don't really pay attention to details. Sometimes I maybe pay "too much" attention to detail, but at the end of the day, it's like you said not just about coming forward and punching air, that's not what wins you a fight. Boxing isn't just getting a trophy for participation. There's certainly a lack of appreciation for defensive wizards and gurus who can make opponents miss. And that's certainly something that shouldn’t be ignored, in fact it should be rewarded and celebrated by all boxing fans. And for someone to say that that appreciation is what's wrong with boxing is really insulting to me as someone who really appreciates and gives credit to stuff like that. I mean, when that type of stuff happens, it's really some of the best moments we've ever seen in boxing.

 

A layperson's definition we all know isn't entirely accurate. Not all hand to hand combat is boxing. Fighting and boxing are not synonyms and they are not treated as such. You wouldn't say you caught a couple of 1st graders "boxing" at recess.

"All fighting is boxing" and "all boxing is fighting" are both falsifiable statements.

 

Post bookmarked for the next, inevitable boxing vs MMA debate

I'm OK with that, because Golovkin still beats Canelo UNDER THOSE DEFINITIONS, having landed more, and harder punches.

 

When the main point is indefendible, you can write an entire essay and it still wouldn't matter. So no need for me to read a page long writeup for it.

 

True, but the point he's making is correct. He could have added an agressive fighter landing hardly any of his trown punches too, but the main issue stays the same.

 

I mean, that's fine with me. A) I still haven't seen the fight yet and b) I don't really have a pony in the GGG vs. Canelo race and therefore am dragging no fighter-specific agenda into this more generalized debate on the methodology of scoring.

(unlike, say, bandeedo or even my buddy Robney, who definitely have styles they like and styles they don't, and bend the supplied criteria of scoring to suit their agendas to promote fighters that embody styles they value while putting a hard limit on the creditability of work done by those whose styles they resent for not being "fightery" enough or whatever...then claim that anyone espousing the merits of defense is actually in fact the one bending the criteria to suit their agenda...)

 

Honestly in that match I'm not even sure who is supposed to be the "boxer" and who's the aggressor-for-aggression's-sake? I'm so outta the loop on all the petty agenda BS on here?

Is GGG the caveman and Canelo the "boxer"? Because the latter played the exact opposite role versus Trout and Lara (while GGG has always been considered very technical and not just some bruiser)...but I've seen a lot of posts dismissing GGG's work as ineffective aggression and suggesting that Canelo was the slick defensive boxer?

I need to find time to watch it for myself at some point.

 

All things being equal, I'll give the round to the fighter that did that. I'm not going to give the round to him if he slips 6 punches, gets socked in the kisser 5 times and lands 3 of his own. Because then it's clear that his defence is not effective, no matter how pleasing it looks.

Golovkin often uses distance as a defence and makes people miss. I've yet to see somebody praise him for it.

I guess so. Look, I like the way Canelo fights. He's got a world class defence, and he actually does try to engage from time to time. But if he's getting outlanded, he's losing, in my book and the book of most observers.

I scored the fight to Golovkin 7-5 in real time. In hindsight, I wonder if 8-4 might not be more accurate.

When I watched it the commenters were going on about Golovkin as "una autentica mitralia" and "pelligrossisima dinamite". Granted I didn't understand everything and those ads were fuggin annoying.

Make sure to give Golovkin extra credit for those punches that whipped Canelo's head around like a bobblehead then

You score effective punches over pitty pat punches, it's clear. What if Golovkin has a heavy jab and Canelo's best punch feels like a pitty pat punch to GGG? What if partially blocked power punches are actually having an effect because of their power? See Sprott's comments on getting hit by Corrie Sanders for example.

Your "clean punches" definition is not as clear as you might want it. That's my point.

 

Only G didn't land more "harder" punches. He may have landed "more" punches in total if you count all the partly blocked, partly slipped "hard to tell if they landed' punches that Canelo was avoiding and basically negating. If you include some of those light "touching" jabs that have grazed Canelo's forehead with no impact whatsoever, then you may have a higher total number of landed punches G, but that's not how boxing is scored round by round or even within a round. Canelo clearly landed more "harder" punches Than G, and not only that, but Canelo clearly landed the "hardest" most impactful punches of the fight.

I mean, why else would Danny Garcia say Canelo had "great defense and he landed some bombs". Why else would Danny Garcia say Canelo "Canelo landed a lot of big punches on him." Why else would Danny Garcia say "Triple G was taking some punishment"? You don't say that about somebody who landed the harder punches. And DSG had G winning lol, but he at least admitted that Canelo landed the better harder punches, so why can't you admit that?

 

Whaaaa ...

Why the F not? It was a great fight, I watched it three times and I'm still enjoying it.

It was close, highly competitive, and even though I'm a Golovkin fan, Canelo did some great work himself and probably proved more than GGG did. He took some big shots, he moved extremely well, he had some fantastic little flurries and he managed to dig deep and come on strong at the end too. It's clear he belongs at 160 and is a world class fighter.

He just didn't outland Golovkin, and in most people's opinions, lost a close, hard fought match.

Run along and watch it before I get mad

 

Neither were actually true, Golovkin wasn't nearly a caveman but wasn't nearly as accurate and effective he usually is, and Canelo was far from a slick boxer with flawless technique countering at will.
At the end Golovkin both landed but also missed more punches as Canelo in nearly every round. So his "effective agression" seems to be enoughto have won the fight like 75% from all watching believed

 

I gotta go do something useful now.

 

Well the main point of basically claiming that those who value defense is "what's wrong with boxing", that's very debatable, and frankly insulting to me as a boxing fan. We've seen this phenomena on full display in the Canelo G aftermath, and this main point is bascally being used to argue that G deserved to win the decision because all of a sudden Defense shouldn't matter lol.

 

oh come on, I thought we were just getting started lol. No that's OK I'll try to respond to the rest of your stuff, surely you'll check back at some point and we can continue this fascinating discussion.