Im not trying to insult or talk down.... im just merely stating, that i dont understand the people who... in a fight where one guy is pressing the fight, throwing a lot of punches, lets say lands 7 right hands and hooks... is going forward, ect, ect.... and the other guy is retreating, dodging the punches, lands 3 right hands and lets say 7 jabs, with a total of 10 punches landing (just for the sake of the argument yes that would be a shitty round lol) but some of you go... man that other guy was missing like crazy... the other guy won the round. when its like, ya the other guy might have landed a few more jabs that WERENT effective and did NOTHING, its differant and i can understand if the jab is just totally being a force in the fight, like an ike jab, or a wlad jab... but if your just flinging a jab out there while backing up and dodging punches... im going to score it for the guy going forward, being aggressive and who has the momentum. examples of what im talking about - mayorga forrest 2, mayorga spinks, not examples of what im talking about (where the aggresor was thwarted) almost every mayweather fight, but i honestly think thats what causes the biggest rift between two scorecards.... some fans score for the guy pressing the fight, throwing the good punches, being aggresive and assertive... other fans seem to prefer the retreater, dodger of punches that scores with pitty pats. then quote 'its the art of hit and not being hit' i dont now... me personally could never score a fight like that. REAL boxing is MAB Marquez brothers Cotto Oscar de la hoya Lennox Lewis i could go on, but they were a perfect blend of what boxing is... a defensive wizard like pernel whitaker is just as much an extreme as ricardo mayorga imo. just on the opposite side of the spectrum.
It would depend on if they jabs snapped the fighters head back or if the hooks rocked the other fighter etc. Like the round where Mayweather landed 11/15 jabs, I gave that round to him simply based off it was equal round in everything else except he snapped Hattons head back quite a few times.
Only thing that should matter is clean punches landed all this style and looking good has to be eradicated from scoring. Look at the olympics they press a button when a clean punch lands that's as complicated as it should be. If both fighters land the same amount of punches in a round then the round is a draw you cant give someone a round because someones head snapped back a bit that is just ridiculous.
its weird an i alway wonder why they robbed oscar for "running" the last 3 rounds but mayweather boxes like that the whole fight an gets a win.....ill go back to another Dlh fights in both the tito an SSM2 fight he landed over 125 more punches than them an he still lost..... i dont understand how you lose those fights
Because judges at some point have took it upon themselves to judge for style which shouldn't be allowed. Should be black and white clean punches landed end of story.
no its not.... dude, every punch is not equal.... if you land a jab on my face that is nothing, and i land a hook that stuns you and gets you to move back... it is not equal at all.
not to mention the 3 judes on on seperate sides an dont see everything the each judge see an dont get good veiws of the fight in some parts of the ring.... also pay off..... in any case jus putting it out there but Jerry Roth should be banned from boxing why they still let him judge is beyond me
I agree about stunning a fighter should win you the round but not the style of the punch or the way the head moves back as maybe the fighter is moving his head back to try and avoid a punch and it makes it look better than it is and so on.Which makes it interpretation and opinion if the round is very close and one fighter is stunned then yea he loses the round but not from punches that look better stylistically that's just interpretation and viewpoint.
Jerry Roth should not just be banned but put in the ring with fighters he's robbed. But yeah, this whole thread. The first fight I ever saw was Hagler-Leanord. So controversy, for me, has been there since the beginning. I don't expect controversy to go anywhere soon. It would be nice though if people weren't straight out robbed.
its the way i score rounds as well but last night doing my round by round everyone else was using a different formula to score obvioulsy from me or you.
i didnt see the fight, and i do like boxers like judah, mayweather, and sometimes even malignaggi ( i know, i know atsch ) but a lot of the times they just dont do enough ALONG with their dodging to make up for their lack of assertavness IMO. I hear so many differant opinions about the fight its hard to form a conclusion, all i can gather is it was close...
First I take a look at first 2 mins of the round and see wich one is controlling the fight, even if he lands only jabs and/or weak counters and is constantly in retreat mode he stills controlls the situation, the last minute I look closely and if other guy does enough to fight back those lost 2 mins he wins a round on my scorecards, if he doesnt or leaves me puzzled who won the round I give round to a guy who controlled situation first two minutes. I also dont judge on how many punches fighter lands, as long as his controlls situation and lands clean decent but fewer shots than his oponent he can win a round on my scorecard.
Normally, I say to myself after a round is over, "If I were either of the two boxers, who would I rather be and who wouldn't I want to be" (who got the worse end of the stick so to speak or who landed the better punches.) Then I look at agression, who's pressing the action, then ring general ship, who has control of the action. If you follow those simple rules, judging is easy (From your TV) but ring side it's big difference.
