While Hopkins might've technically lost these fights, did he "outbox" them?

cheers man, it's very difficult question to answer without showing bias or prejudice to either fighter. Hopkins 'could' have outboxed them had he worked harder, but then that's not what Bernard Hopkins does, he's the victim of his own tactics to a degree. Sure he never gets beaten up, but he shows signs that he's the better boxer, only to then waste it all by unnecessary clinching and fouling. Subtle or not the pace of the fight and action suffers. He's certainly capable of outboxing these guys though, anyone for that matter, but not to take credit away from the others, as they showed they were quite prepared to do what was needed to win. I thought JC's clever pressure using angles and unorthodox movement made Hops unable to time him coming in and forced him to hold more than usual.

 

Clearly, clearly true. :good I have no idea how this wasn't blindingly obvious to anyone who knows boxing and watched these fights, and realizes one man was over 40 and had considerable age disadvantage v both opponents.

 

No - how can you class 12 rounds of hugging and feigning low blows as winning, in any ****ing sense?

 

What happens if a guy will ONLY throw counter punches? WTF then? Penalize the guy making the fight? This is a PRIZE FIGHT. You are expected to mix it up, not just defend yourself.

 

If it was a "real fight" then Calzaghe would have been the last man standing. Oh the pain of me having to say that......:fire

 

i would agree with that. :good

 

You are making the mistake of prejudice against styles. Do not think about who is being the aggressor, do not think about who is spoiling, do not think about who holds more, do not think about who is gesturing demanding a toe-to-toe war, do not think about what a guy done in his last fight, do not think about who spat our their gumshield to get a breather, do not think about who hit low...

Score a fight on the number of clean punches and the number of significant punches. The quality of the work being done. Leave every single other concern at the door, and score each round objectively on this basis.

If the aggressor scores more clean shots and more good shots, he wins the round.

If the guy on the ropes scores more clean shots and more good shots, he wins the round.

Nothing else should matter IMO.

 

So what happens when two counter punchers meet? NOTHING! Sorry, I think you have to reward the guy willing to mix it up. At this level it is ENTERTAINMENT. Otherwise, no ticket sales. Being a great counter puncher is OK in a street fight, but in a prize fight, if you know you are up against a counter puncher, where is your motivation to throw? He should be willing to make half the fight.

 

I agree with all of that. It is entertainment, and someone should be willing to make half the fight.

BUT, that is just an opinion on what a boxer's attitude should be. If you are objectively scoring a fight on a round-by-round basis, then this should mean nothing. If you are scoring a fight by number of clean punches and number of significant punches landed, then the guy's attitude should mean nothing, nor should it matter who is walking forwards and who is walking backwards, nor should it matter if both guys want to counterpunch and it is a dull fight.

The only thing that should count in scoring a fight, is the punches scored, ie landed clean, and how effective/significant punches are.

That's just my opinion. If yours is different, fine, it's not really worth a neverending debate.

 

You score a fight correctly, being ineffective is not called ring generalship...it's called being exposed.

The only way I would give the fighter more credit who is swinging more but not landing more, is if neither fighter lands during the whole round.

 

I fully understand what you are saying. In a street fight the guy landing the better punches wins. BUT, and this is a big BUT, that is not the only catagory pro fights are scored on. Ring general ship and "effective" aggression ARE counted. "Effective" becomes the point of contention. That is hard to score, so the guy coming forward generally gets the nod. Many thought Margarito was 'ineffective' aggression until the end. And this is where Pavlik STILL gets under rated. His shots didn't LOOK as clean as Taylor's in the second fight, but Taylor's face was telling a different story.

Taylor and Calzaghe both rely on speed and have a tendency to land the perfect looking shot, but they aren't sitting down on it. They are using the speed to play 'tag' yet aren't scoring damage.

 

I know what you mean mate, and I know that is the way judges score fighters nowadays, but I disagree with it, that's my point. In football (I'm from the UK- soccer if that's what you call it), teams don't get points to win a game for having a lot of possession and territorial advantage and attempts on goal- they only win if they score more goals. Often the team with most possession and greater control of the game loses as they can't penetrate the other teams defence, and the other team has more clinical attacks. This is the same principle I believe should apply to boxing.

Most clean shots and most significant shots landed. Absolutely nothing else. No advantage to the defensive or the attacker in this system, just whoever lands more clean shots and more effective/significant/damaging shots wins the rounds.

 

Well, lets ask it this way then. How often does your score disagree with the ring side judges scores and in those cases do you feel they put too much emphasis on things other than punches?