is counter punching the hardest way to win a fight these days?

Definitely. It seems like you just need to walk forward and you'll get points these days.

 

Generally, if the counterpuncher is being more effective and landing cleaner and harder connects, proffesional judges are good enough to acknowleadge that.

During Chris Byrds Bogus title reign as a heavyweight, he had a list of title defenses against Oquendo, Golata, Mcline, and Williamson, where he was thoroughly outlanded, outfought, and was clearly beaten with his opponents being aggressive and landing cleaner and harder connects.
.......Byrd in counterpunch mode as he always fights, was given bogus decisions everytime.

Why? Because his promoter was Don King and Chris Byrd was favored to win each and every one of those fight.

When it comes to high profile fights, I've noticed throughout the years that fighthing aggressive or in counterpunch mode is'nt really the key factor in what makes a judge side toward one fighter or the other.


Its sad because they're supposed to be proffesionals, but the two keys that influence fight judges are.....

1. Who's more popular.

2. Who's the odds on favorite and supposed to win. Who are the experts picking.


Usually these two keys go hand and hand as the most popular fighter more often than not finds himself as the favorite.


Under these sets of circumstances, unfortunately the underdog whether he fights aggressive and coming foward, like JL Castillo did against Mayweather........or whether its a counterpuncher on the backfoot like any of the Marquez-Pacquiao fights.
.......short of the favorite being propinated a beatdown, the popular and odds on favorite fighter will well more often than not get all the benefit of any doubt during a fight and being aggressive or in counter mode has very little to do with the way official fight judges are influenced to score for during a fight.


In a regular fight between two Joe Blows, if the counterpuncher on the backfoot is consistently landing cleaner, harder and better blows than the aggressor, more often than not, an official fight judge will see it correctly and judge in favor of the more effective counterpuncher.

The current crop of judges know how to judge fights, the problem lies like its always been with fight judges throughout history. They are influenced with outside factors that lye well beyond the scope of what is actually happening inside a fight ring.

 

You cant penalise a fighter for not getting his opponents respect. Maybe his opponents have a great chin. Plus getting your opponent to repect you isnt in the scoring criteria.

 

From the scoring of Pac-JMM III, 'n Harold Lederman's vocal preference for an aggressive, attacking style, judges lean in that direction.

For me, only thing that matters is how AFFECTIVE a fighter is, either leading or countering.

 

Fights should be scored on clean punching. Only when clean punching is equal do you move to other criteria.

I believe people scoring aggression instead of clean punching is like introducing the 3 point line in the NBA. A way to keep inferior fighters competitive.

 

Is this a given?

I know JMM landed the best punches, but Pac connected cleanly as well, though his feets could have been better planted.

 

thats not evan close to what i was saying, im saying some judges look at the aggression of a fighter and give them the nod simply becasue of that. what i was saying by not getting your opponents respect, they continue to come forward and disrupt your offensive output whther you're landing telling blows or not. its not the right way of scoring, but as ive mentioned earlier fighting on foreign soil plays a great role in the scoring of a fight. and a fighting style thats too negative would end up being said fighters undoing

 

If you slow fights down and see who lands more then then you have your winner.

 

The one moving forward is the one taking more risk...

and if all you do is counter all day and not leading much you deserve to lose.

 

I think the key is not allowing the opponent to dictate the tempo too much. There is nothing wrong with counter punching provided you have a good medium between offense & defense, only some fighters seemingly dont. Take Broner in the second round of his last fight, where was the jab in round 2? He allowed the gap to close up cause he wanted to counter punch, only he went too defensive, invited too much pressure, and got outworked.


Counter punching is a great weapon to use, but your essentially inviting someone into range, so you dont wanna wait too long and allow them to get off first on you and beat you to the punch before you can pull the trigger on your counter. I believe this is where a consistent jab is important, it breaks up the dead space whilst you are waiting, so you can get off first and avoid waiting too long.


James Toney basically landed the cleaner shots on Montell Griffin, problem is, he allowed Griffin to dictate the tempo and Griffin got the benefit of the doubt (rightly or wrongly)

 

Counter-punching seems to be overlooked by judges, and spectators in general, these days. Judges aren't educated enough, and, unless the counter-puncher is obviously tearing apart his opponent, the judges generally tend to favour the more agressive fighter, which typically isn't the counter-puncher. All they see is the agression and apparent control, and they think that because the counter-puncher is backing up a bit (to create room to punch, not flee like many judges think) that he is being controlled by the other fighter.

The best recent examples I can think of are the Cotto-Margarito fight and the recent JMM-Pacquaio rematch.

 

marquez gets hit a lot compared to mayweather...there's the difference....

 

seems like alotta guys on this thread still mad Pac won.

get over it

 

This :deal

Floyd is very good at it.