Why does fighting off the backfoot mean you are controlling the fight?

If effectively defending and evading shots while forcing your opponent into selective movement, you are winning the ring generalship and defense portions of professional boxing scoring criteria. That's 2 of the 4 criteria. And, if defending and evading well, the stalking opponent isn't fulfilling the effective aggression criteria.

 

It does not but a bunch of biased Mayweather fans are now trying to re-write the sport. The three scoring criterea are lead, style, defense just take up a judging or coaching course as an amateur. You don't win fights on the back foot by missing most your shots, getting your head snapped by jabs all night and getting dropped and rocked without hurting your opponent badly once.

 

In all fairness you can be in control of the action on the back foot, but you have to be getting clean shots off and making your opponent miss. Mayweather is a good at controlling a fight on the back foot example of this but his fans now seem to think running away is being in control.

 

Good post. It's so simple, but you are really on to something. How is going backwards and eating jabs like they're snickers bars a good thing in boxing?

 

Taking the lead is harder to do in boxing. The aggressor deserves the benefit of the doubt in close fights. Unless you're swinging wildly and missing constantly I like to give rounds to the aggressor. If you are walking down you're opponent and you land many more punches that's a solid decision victory.

 

Juan Manuel Marquez comes to mind. He can take control of the fight without taking the lead and doesn't need to run, clinch or back up to do it.

 

Floyd did that well and won, but Jacobs is no Floyd

 

If you're effectively fighting off the backfoot then of course you're controlling the fight. And to be effective you have to keep the opponent at the end of your jab, set traps, and keep the fight at your preferred range. Jacobs did this in spots but he also engaged in spots. All in all I think he kept the fight at his preferred range more so than GGG. Although GGG was versatile enough to fight well with the looks that Jacobs was giving him. Jacobs fought a good fight but didn't maximize his gameplan to its fullest potential.

 

You asked a question, I gave an answer.

 

No, those are not criteria in amateur OR pro boxing.

Here's a link to international amateur rules. You won't find any of those listed

http://www.abae.co.uk/aba/index.cfm/news/aiba-rules-the-scoring-system/

And this is professional, not amateur, boxing.

The four points of scoring in pro boxing are:

Clean punching

Defense

Effective aggressiveness

Ring generalship

Here's a link:

http://boxing.isport.com/boxing-guides/how-the-pro-boxing-scoring-system-works

This is a good example of how frustrating it is for people who DO know boxing to read/post on message boards where people who have no idea what the rules are think they know how to score and referee fights.

SMH.