The official Mayweather vs. Pacquiao aftermath trash receptacle

YOu really don't know how boxing is scored, do you? You know the judges in Nevada have to follow 4 specific points in their criteria for scoring the rounds to guys:

1. Ring Generalship
2. Defense.
3. Clean punching
4. EFFECTIVE Aggressiveness

You know the difference between being aggressive and being EFFECTIVELY aggressive?? I'm assuming you have no clue.

You know the interesting thing is, in pretty much any sport when people want to compare or debate athletes, they use 2 standard methods to assess them- they use advanced metrics for objective purposes and they use the eye test for subjective purposes.

The eye test clearly showed FLoyd winning 9 rounds in the Pacman fight, and the statistics corroborate that statement. I mean, it's really sad to hear some of these excuses being thrown around.

SO aside from a few Pacman lovers, Skip bayless and Evander Holyfield, the overwhelming feeling of that matchup was not only did FLoyd beat him, but it wasn't really that competitive.

It was ring generalship 101 on display on May 2nd. Plain and simple.

 

Life's too short, bro.

 

Actually about 1% of the boxing community and 3 "Vegas judges" disagree with me.

 

Well you must not know anyone in the boxing community. Open up your circle of friends a little more.

 

Why Is this the only fight being watched in slow motion? I wonder...

 

1.NO-ONE should win rounds due to 'RING GENERALSHIP' UNLESS he lands more punches, period.

2. NO-ONE should win rounds by just using DEFENSE - running and making opponents miss UNLESS they land punches

3. Clean punches. HIGHLY AND LET ME REPEAT HIGHLY DOUBTFUL that Floyd Mayweather landed the more significant punches. Again, a lot of the jabs he got credited with seemed to miss or just slightly tap Pac, which per boxing rules, shouldn't be considered a punch.

4. INEFFECTIVE AGGRESIVENESS should not be rewarded BUT when the other opponent is doing nothing but running, aggressor should probably get the round.


You basically are telling me that a boxer can run for dear life for 12 rounds and if he makes opponent miss, or look ineffective, he has somehow controlled the fight and should win rounds?even when he's not landing punches? learn boxing...

defense and ring generalship are skills that allow fighters to counter and land punches without themselves being hit. If they don't land punches though, it doesn't matter one bit. These are skills that allow boxers to out land opponents, not skills that win fights without the punches. Have you sever seen a basketball team win a game by using great defense but not scoring more than opponent?

 

Watch it in slow motion, at half speed, in reverse, whatever, I think everyone can come to one universal conclusion that can't be disputed- Pacman didn't throw a lot of punches.

FLoyd made an ATG aggressive fighter reduce his punch output dramatically. That's called ring generalship. It's called dictating the pace.

Why pacman wasn't in his chest more, similar to how Hatton fought Mayweather, is beyond me. He decided to stay outside of the pocket for way too long, stayed inactive for long periods of rounds, and his punch output was drastically reduced because of it.

This is the first time I can remember since watching boxing since the 80's that people are using a slow motion excuse. I thought I heard it all.

 

Damn shame really atsch

 

1. Manny didn't do anything either.
2. Same ring size and glove size as normal, nothing different in this fight.
3. So because Mayweather is taller, not heavier mind you, he's the only one that has something to prove?

You scored the fight on expectations, not what actually happened.

 

I think the people rewatching and trying to make a case for Pacquiao only wanted Pac to win and are now trying to convince themselves he did. Majority of people watching the fight live had Floyd winning, no controversy. Just people trying to create it.

117-111 Mayweather. Clear and cut.

 

why do people argue with people like this. the only thing that matters is #48 was beat 118-110 or if your generous 116-112. :deal

floyd goes down as the greates fighter of this generation having beat every atg and hofer in his era:deal

 

First time I watched i had Floyd winning 116-112, I did get a little tweaked by the commentating I have to admit, with them sounding like FLoyd was dominating, although I did not think he was for a second, but they have some influence over my initial viewing.
Second time I watched it, paid no attention to the commentators and was surprised how little Floyd actually landed and how well manny made him miss. I thought Floyd had landed alot more on manny but he wasn't, Pac was right with him. I gave a another round for manny this time and another round was very close and arguably Manny's making it a draw.
Then I saw the slo mo of round 3, where all judges gave Floyd the round for only landing a few clean punches! But manny actually doubled floyd in that round and landed the harder punches. So there is another round that should have went to Manny, making it 7-5 manny.
So I agree entirely with your post. That fight was no worse than a draw. Its interesting to see judges not credit the man coming forward and landing the harder punches, but giving the nod to the man backpeddling, throwing mostly just a jab that was picked off alot of the time by manny's gloves. I saw Trinidad get outlanded by Oscar by 100 punches, his face messed up, yet judges gave him the fight simply just for coming forward and being aggressive. Well manny was MUCH more effective than Tito was vs the moving Oscar, but Boxing wanted Tito to win the Oscar fight (don king) and boxing wanted FLoyd to win the Pac fight (Mayweather promotions).

 

Op I love the pov... I do t agree, especially with strength if jabs, but it makes sense in an academic manner.

However what do you mean watch the rounds holistically. I know what a holon is, I know the def of holistic, but I'm not sure what you mean in this context.

 

LOL as if.

 

I wonder if the punch stat operators calculate those slight taps as punches. We literally don't even know that. We are just given numbers to digest without them ever being tested. There are so many variables that make this hard to provide accurate data. Each fighter is physically so different and lands punches at different angles, I just don't see how real-time punch stats can truly be accurate.

It's no surprise that Mayweather was winning the decision after the fight went how it did. Pac didn't impose his will on FMJ enough to warrant Floyd losing his 0. We get that, at the same time it's important to point out how inaccurate punch stats using this hotly debated fight as a much needed example.

It is for situations like this where I believe 10-10 rounds are appropriate. Especially in low punch output fights, like May - Pac. However, if we are to split hairs in close rounds like this, the only way we can really quantify anything is with punch stats. That or we could try to determine specific "significant punches" and use the round time to say when they landed. I think you could much easier make the argument that Floyd's single punches, like some of those straight rights were the best punch landed in many of those rounds, as opposed to arguing that he landed more punches that round.

Likewise, in the rounds that Manny won, he pretty much won the round because he landed the most sustained flashy combos, that he caused Floyd to back away or stumble. So the reasons why people win rounds don't really have anything to do with the actual number of hits. (assuming hits means everything, even slight taps)

However, I think by re-calculating punch stats manually, we can literally prove how much a myth those live official punch stats are, and we can focus more on significant strikes landed.

This all comes back to 10-10 rounds to me. If a boxer runs for dear life for 12 rounds and makes this opponent miss, but doesn't land, and the opponent can't chase him, those are candidates for 10-10 rounds.

When both guys are digging in and banging, you have more than enough of a sample size to make an calculated instinctual decision on who should win that round. In a slug fest, you can remember all the big punches landed and you can confidently choose the guy who landed the better punches. In a fight like Floyd vs Pac-Man, you got rounds where so little landed clean that a single punch or combo could swing a round. In that case you are grasping at straws to choose who won the round, and we know in that scenario Floyd is going to win those close rounds because he's undeafeated, etc. However I really think fights like this cause the official punch stats to be hugely inaccurate and I will set out to prove it.