"Fighter A ran all night!" - 1st off, he probably didn't; 2nd, even if he did, it doesn't mean B won

Agree loaded language for the options. Ultimately, whilst we can all appreciate genuine sweet science, the sport is a fight not a track meet. It isn't all that hard to make a guy miss if you are forever going backwards and refusing to stand your ground. Likewise, it is hard to land with anything significant if the other guy is constantly retreating because as soon as you set your feet, he's gone. Glancing blows are about the best you can hope for. For me, if one guy is constantly making the fight and forcing the other backwards then he should get the benefit of the doubt. If both guys just retreated and waiting for the other to come at then then there would be no fight!!!

 

To a lot of fans, doing anything other than standing and trading while blocking punches with your face Rocky Balboa style is considered "running".

 

Tricky one...in close fights though the aggressor should be rewarded....

 

At least they showed some aggression though, even if it was ineffective better than being submissive.

Clean punching
Effective aggression
Ring control
Defense

They are our scoring criteria and that is how I score it too, how about you?

Aggression is part of the criteria so you should score points for being aggressive .

Ineffective aggression still rates higher than ineffective submission.

Going forward shows intent and it does have an element of ring control making the fighter appear to be the boss in the ring.

 

Clean punching is the key criteria though, and my interpretation it isn't just clean it's hard and damaging punches which accumulate the most points.

 

People need to stop defending cowardice and boring fighters.

 

Best thread iv seen in a long time. People employ this flawed logic to make up for their hurt feelings over their boys loss

 

Delahoya was crucified for "running" in rounds 10,11,12 against Tito. Go back right now and watch those three rounds and it doesn't look all that different from the "masterclass" from Fury, Floyd or BJS.

The fans, announcers, and fighters have changed since then. Back then, the only stat they would show between rounds was power punches landed. They didn't care about jabs which Oscar was landing plenty of in those last three rounds. Tito was getting more credit for throwing (and missing) powerful punches than Oscar was for landing light jabs. I'm not saying Oscar won the last three rounds but he was doing a lot more than running in those rounds. I think Oscar landed more shots in the last four rounds against Tito than Fury landed all night against Wlad.

 

I’ve never understood how folk think Lara was robbed in that fight,yes he did well for a time but truth is once Canelo started going to his body Lara wanted none of that and he did run and lost as a result

 

Just wanted to say IB is right on the money here, this is an amazing thread and the way he worded it, I couldn't have said it better myself. Especially the part when he talked about using the faulty "all things being equal" logic becoming a "fundamental part of your go-to scoring methodology" with in practice results in giving any ballpark close round to the come-forward fighter, as opposed to having to make intelligent substantive decisions about who won a round.

 

this is what happens when soft nerds try and define the world of fighting, they lay out an image of fighting devoid of all the things they dont identify with, things like heart, courage, tenacity, determination, and good ole fighting spirit. instead, they champion guys who hold, to avoid fighting, retreat, to avoid engaging, bend the rules, to avoid losing on an even platform, and then pat themselves on the back for being as smart as these incomplete champions. it's a little mans world, they just outnumber the rest.

 

The best fighters don't complain about "running", they sense whatever fear there may be and make sure its capitalised on one way or the other, and get the job done. Got 12 long rounds in there to do the business