Freddie Roach Says Judges Sometimes Prefer Aggressive Fighters

:deal

This is a reason some fans believe Pac will beat Floyd... Activity.. not good clear clean effective punching...

But this **** was a robbery to me!

 

Pacquiao busier?
If he was busier it was'nt by much. What needs to be said is that one Pacquiao was amatuerishly busier. Thowing shots off the wrong foot, throwing himself off balance because of it, and being for long stretches made to look like a rank amatuer.

Marquez on the flipside like you said, stood his ground, was cohesive and balanced, and just shot out his punches with such crispness and fluidity that as you said, was making Pacquiao make funny faces and being made to hesitate to come at Marquez with leverage in his punches.
I think the only shot Pac attempted to land with real leverage was his straight left in potshot form (which ironically the *******s now criticize Mayweather for)

Marquez was so much the ring general that if you look at just the highlights or the best of both fighters that fight, you can see how Marquez stands out as the ring general with Marquez dictating everything as if he's got a string laid out and is pulling it at his leisure for Pacquiao to follow it.


Doc, I missed the first 3+rounds of Williams-Lara as I was watching Rios-Antillon, which is why I did'nt make out and score the Willliams-Lara, but from where I saw it foward, I'm hard pressed to find a single round to wish to give Williams.

Which rounds did you give each fighter?

 

So when a fighter fights like Pac (williams), you're automatically gonna score it for the other guy..

glad YOU"RE not a f'n judge.

 

I've scored every Pac decision since those Marquez losses, decidedly in favor of Pacquiao.

For example, Pacquiao was'nt all that effective in most of his rounds vs Shane Mosley.
In throwing his shots vs Mosley, Pacquiao often looked off balanced and uncomfortable.
......the fight however is clearly Pac's because he not only landed more, he landed cleaner and more effective than anything Mosley did.

On the flipside in the Marquez fights and this Williams-Lara fight, both Marquez and Lara clearly and without question were consistently landing cleaner and more effective shots on the counter.
The countershots were jolting more than what the aggressor was dishing out.


Aggression does'nt mean you should win, but neither does just being the counterpuncher if the punches are'nt landing cleanly and more effective when the aggressor's are.

Focus should be paid on who lands cleaner, crisper, more effectiveshots whether they're being landed by the aggressor or the counterpuncher it does'nt make a difference.
The credit should be given and more emphasis should be put on consistent cleaner more effective connects.

 

Amen. :thumbsup

 

The reason why busier fighters are normally given rounds through activity is for one reason:

The other guy who's doing the cleaner punching isn't stopping the busier guy from throwing. He's throwing cleaner punches, but he's not deterring the other guy from throwing even more shots at him.

So in the end, it comes down to who is more effective.

The cleaner puncher has clean punches and yet he is not effective at stopping the other guy from showering him with punches.

The swarming puncher may lack in the clean punching category, but he is effectively pushing his opponent's punch count down in comparison to his, because his opponent is forced by him to counter instead of attacking.

In this respect, it is the swarmer who is imposing his sheer will on the counterpuncher, not the other way around. And many judges look at that. Besides, you don't win rounds by landing punches every other minute.

Counterpunching is only a good strategy if you want to knock some mofo out. It's not a viable way to earn a points victory.

 

In the pac vs jmm fights, both guys got their asses kicked (although jmm was more in trouble in both). In the PW vs Lara fight, who got his ass kicked? If you had to, which beating would you rather take?

Yup...

 

The Calzaghe/Hopkins look just like the Williams/Lara, the only difference was Hopkins didn't have as much sting in his punches as Lara cause if he did, Calzaghe would of been busted far worse. But if you really compare Williams threw a lot of punches like Calzaghe did but actually landed more in percentage. Hopkins didn't throw a lot like Lara but landed the cleaner punches and didn't get any credit for it.

 

what about Whitaker/Chavez?

 

You're referring to people from a blind convention, right? That's the only logical way to explain your use of, "many fans." If majority of fans didn't side with Lara then they wouldn't have suspended the 3 judges. Paul did throw a lot of punches but he also missed a lot. He slapped Lara a few times while they were clinching but that shouldn't count as effective hitting. It's gotten to the point where I don't even care about the decision anymore. Just make the rematch happen. Please. Either that or have Lara go on to fight a marquee fighter like Angulo or Canelo or anyone in the top 4 or 5 of the division.

 

And there's the difference. Hopkins just didn't work as hard as Lara did. Didn't have an effect just as Lara did. And he had to act to get away from Calzaghe which Lara did not do. By the end of the fight Calzaghe was the stronger of the two, and that was something that wasn't apparent in Williams/Lara.

I mean, if you made those two fights into 15 rounders, Calzaghe would have beaten Hopkins worse in 3 extra rounds, Lara would probably have KO'd Williams.

Activity itself isn't enough to win rounds on its own.

Activity has to stop the opponent from throwing a lot of punches or by putting him on the defensive all night long.

Because you don't win rounds by blocking punches. Heavy bags don't win rounds inside a boxing ring. If that was the case, Clottey is the clear winner vs Pacquiao when they fought because he busted Pac's face.

 

I know better than to discuss a Chavez fight with someone who does'nt think Chavez was even a great fighter......

......but I will say this about the Chavez-Whitaker fight.

Except for two rounds in that fight, Whitaker's punch output consisted of gauging shots that had little to zero punching leverage on them.

In the meantime, Chavez was in full chase of a running Whitaker, and with neither fighter being much effective as far as clean effective connects in most rounds, it becomes an issue of what a judge is looking for.........the amatuer style get away from me while I tap you in the head with a punch that could'nt hurt a 70 year old grandmother, or give more credence to the aggressor who's relentless in his pursuit and landing glancing blows off the body and head.

Let me say this clear *******ed Boom_Boom. Chavez-Whitaker is the perfect example of what most judges do when neither fighter lands effectively in a round.
......in most circumstances when neither the aggressor or the counterpuncher are landing effectively, the judge almost everytime will chalk the round up to the aggressor.

This was'nt the case with Lara or Marquez as they clearly and consistently round after round landed clean, clear, and hard!!!!dealdeal

 

Let me add to what Williams was doing offensively.
He was moving his hands, but did any of you notice that almost everything he threw was without leverage.
Arm punches that had just about almost nothing behind them.

There was no rhythm or timing to Williams' punches that it got me to thinking that Williams' lack of timing and snap to his punches may have been for lack of sparring during training camp.

 

An arm punch is still a punch. You only start scoring hard punches when it actually hurts the other guy from post to post or causes a KD. Because if you don't do this, light punchers like Malignaggi won't have a chance to win in the game.

The hardness and leverage of punches are only taken into account when both fighters are throwing the same amount of punches and are hitting each other at the same frequency. Otherwise, judges don't take that into account.

 

Sure the arm punch is still a punch, but if a fighter throws and lands three arm punches that visibly has no leverage or snap behind it, and that three punch arm punch combination is countered with a hard shot with real snap behind it that jolt his opponents head back.
.....guess who won that exchange????

.......on my card the jolting shot wins the exchange.

.....but of course scoring is not the simple.

A fighter like Malignaggi or Juan Diaz who dont have alot of power, should be credited when visibly if not powerful, their shots have snap and crispness behind them.

There have been alot of fighters that dont have alot of power but still manage to bring leverage and crispness with their punches, Juan Diaz and for those that remember Greg Haugen was one of those.
......those guys were'nt arm punchers, but brought good leverage and crispness with their punches.
If these types of guys are consistently landing their crisp shots and their opponents only occasionally land an effective scoring blow with more power than they're recieving behind it......then of course, the few harder connects are not going to supercede the many crispier connects.


When you are landing the harder shots, but you are being outlanded by a fighter that throws alot of crisp clean but not as powerful shots, you have to keep in mind that the harder puncher also has to be consistent (not land as much) but be consistent in his percentage of hard shots connected "per round" because you only win that round when you are the more effective connector.

For example, the crisp puncher may land 18 out of his 30 shots, most of them clean and crisp, enough to make your opponent take notice and be alert.
......the harder puncher may land 8 out of 28, harder shots but not the type that would make an opponents legs wobble.
In most circumstances the the less powerful puncher in what I just described wins the round.

But if I were to say that the harder puncher landed 14 out of 25, thats pretty close to the numbers of the crisp but less powerful puncher, though he was outlanded by 4 crisp punches, more often than not I'll give that round to the harder puncher who was landing even though he was outlanded by 4 punches.

You have to weigh each round.......the less powerful guy has to land more than the more powerful guy of course to win the round.
The more the less powerful guy seperates himself by landing more punches than his harder punching opponent, the better chance he has to merit the round.



****, I'm going to stop here, because I can go on and on giving examples with different scenarios.
The important thing is that the round as a whole needs to be weighed with the different criteria to scoring being taken into account.