Don't The Earlier Rounds Count Anymore

who did you give round 1 to?

 

what about round 7?

round 9?

round 12?

 

How the **** can you score rounds to a guy who lands five falshy shots when the other lands constantly thru the whole round?

 

I wouldn't change the number of judges from three to five judges but that could also solve a lot of things in the pros. But I would definitely enforce judges to score 10 points to the winner of the round and not necessarily 9 points to the loser ( even if he doesn't get dropped or penalized). There would be less margin for controversy afterwards... With 12 rounds and this scoring system, the results can never be fair enough - Fighters should be given credit in scores for clear round dominance ( 10 points to the winner, 8 or less to the loser) and only close rounds should be 10-9 rounds.

 

I agree. The judges have alot of points to play with why limit them so much?

a guy wins a round by a hair or closely? 10-9 or 10-8

wins it convincingly? 10-7 or 10-6

dominates it? 10-5 or even 10-4

Why be limited to 10-9 or 10-8 in extreme cases?

also, the more judges the better. Especially in big fights where they can easily afford it.

 

Despite Taylor actually winning that fight in my book. Close but clear. I love that triple jab he throws. He has serious snap in his jab.

 

You get the odd sporadic judge scorecard but when the judges give the fight to someone who didn't deserve it - it's annoying.

He didn't land more punches. He barely hurt Taylor. Taylor counterpunched, defended and ought to have won more rounds. Taylor was the better BOXER over 12 rounds. How did Pavlik win it.

It's frustrating.

 

Taylor's strategy was to keep his hands up, save his limited stamina and throw in spurts. It was smart and I think was the best he could do, but it wasn't enough. Pavlik's effective jab and consistency won it for him. How can you score a fight for the guy who is being outpunched and outlanded? While Taylor`s blows may have looked more impressive, they were too few and far between to count for anything.

And who cares if many of Pavliks blows landed on the gloves and arms of Taylor? The point is that they HIT him, and wether they landed on his arms or his ****ing leg makes no difference as long as the punch finds its mark. Most of you who scored this fight for Taylor make it seem as if Kelly was hitting nothing but air all night and getting countered silly in return by Taylor, but that wasn`t the case.

Kelly outlanded, outpunched and outfought Taylor all night, while getting tagged on a few occasions with some good counters that he just shrugged off once they landed and went right back to work. His jab although not spectacular was a constant thorn in Taylor`s side throughout the fight, and it kept him backing up all night and on the defensive. Taylor is very fortunate that Pavlik neglected to work the body in the early rounds and all but forgot to throw the left hook, because had he done so the judges wouldn`t have been a factor to begin with.

 

brilliant post i had jermain winning by one round and that was biased towards pavlik. jermain won this fight with the more meaningful punches pavlik was hitting glove all night

 

Oh dear me......atsch:--(

 

I don't accept that Taylor was outpunched OR outlanded.

You can't give points to Pavlik on the basis of his thrown punches which didn't connect with Taylor. He threw tons of shots which were absorbed by Taylor's guard. On that basis Mayweather would lose every fight he does the Philly Shell because all those wasted punched are at least hitting Floyd, right? WRONG. They are wasted punches, wasted energy.

The art of scoring in boxing should reward boxers who defend well and counter punch. Pavlik barely defended himself. Taylor did, and landed counter punches and general punches all night. It was a close fight, but he was the better BOXER.

All your post is a load of crap. Basically you're saying whoever throws the most punches wins, which is daft. On that basis Foreman would have beaten Ali if it had gone to points, despite doing less damage than Pacquiao would have.

 

not to mention(and i'm not specifically talking JT v. KP II) they have ABSOLUTELY NO ACCOUNTABILITY to explain how they scored a fight.

The judge that scored it 117-111 should never allow to score any fight again

 

TO the OP.

I know what your sayin man. I had JT ahead too. But the big thing was this.

At the end of the fight, it looked like JT who was ready to go down and would have gone down had this fight gone on longer.

For some reason judges weigh the ladder rounds with more weight. Always been like this. Hence , "championship rounds".

 

So, you pull this little gem out of the press conference and ignore that he said he thought he landed more, and landed the better shots? My feed wasn't good enough to judge the action, I'm looking for link lead. I've said in other posts that even my son who was closest to the monitor couldn't tell if Pavlik was landing or if JT was slipping. I really need to watch a better version. SUBTLE LINK HINT.