Mayweather's IV injection (Master thread)

[The Big Dunn]

genius floyd fans would just say you don't know how to score.

did you count how many jabs were there?

did you know that 4 jabs is equal to a power punch?

did you also know that back pedalling is called ring generalship?

did you also know that if you spent the whole 3 minutes of a round punching away at a slick black murican fighter of the inner city laying on the rope blocking all those shots the black murican wins that round because you don't have effective aggression ?

you just don't know how to score a boxing match.

Actually this is a major problem. Sadly, many fans do not know the proper way to score a fight. Sad because in other sports like wrestling and martial arts the diehard fans know how to score a fight/match properly.

[Rath]

Actually this is a major problem. Sadly, many fans do not know the proper way to score a fight. Sad because in other sports like wrestling and martial arts the diehard fans know how to score a fight/match properly.

would you please enlighten me on how really to score a fight?

with this basic question for example.

they said power punch weighs/score more than a jab

so how many jabs are equal to a power punch?

how many percent of the ten points system does ring generalship comprise of.

which has a bigger score/percentage in a ten points system ring generalship or effective aggression?

if a jab can be considered as an effective aggression can you call it effective if it's missing? but what if the intended purpose of the fighter jabbing was to just break his opponents rhytim is it still ineffective if the opponent can not set up a a good offense because he can not find his rhytim?

just few of the scoring questions i have in mind


SHAME ON YOU

[Lester Tutor]

geez I wonder why Pac never wanted to give blood earlier in his career. some probably read and take that as a myth, when it was the case. I think Floyd owned Top Rank. that ''libel'' lawsuit to Floyd's money was like throwing a pebble at a freight train.

[The Big Dunn]

would you please enlighten me on how really to score a fight?

with this basic question for example.

they said power punch weighs/score more than a jab

so how many jabs are equal to a power punch?

how many percent of the ten points system does ring generalship comprise of.

which has a bigger score/percentage in a ten points system ring generalship or effective aggression?

if a jab can be considered as an effective aggression can you call it effective if it's missing? but what if the intended purpose of the fighter jabbing was to just break his opponents rhytim is it still ineffective if the opponent can not set up a a good offense because he can not find his rhytim?

just few of the scoring questions i have in mind


SHAME ON YOU

I don't know that a power Punch counts x percent more than a jab or ring generalship counts x percent.

Effective aggression is more important. The key word is "effective". Effective aggression isn't just wildly throwing power punches that are blocked or partially blocked. If a jab disrupts the rhythm and timing of an opponent such that it forces him to stop throwing punches I think that is effective.

If a fighter is throwing all power shots and missing, well defense and ring generalship are likely the cause of this. If fighter is keeps moving forward but isn't landing is his aggression effective? I guess thats up to the judge.

[Rath]

I don't know that a power Punch counts x percent more than a jab or ring generalship counts x percent.

Effective aggression is more important. The key word is "effective". Effective aggression isn't just wildly throwing power punches that are blocked or partially blocked. If a jab disrupts the rhythm and timing of an opponent such that it forces him to stop throwing punches I think that is effective.

If a fighter is throwing all power shots and missing, well defense and ring generalship are likely the cause of this. If fighter is keeps moving forward but isn't landing is his aggression effective? I guess thats up to the judge.

in short there is no real standard being followed on how to score a boxing match.

it all depends on a judge perception of the fight. tue or false?

there will be judges who favors brawler and those who faovrs boxers.

sans knock downs and knock outs, what is the chance of a brawler winning the fight if two of the three judges favors a boxer?

sans knock downs and knock outs what is the chance of a boxer winning the fight if two of the three judges favors brawler?

SHAME ON YOU

[The Big Dunn]

in short there is no real standard being followed on how to score a boxing match.

it all depends on a judge perception of the fight. tue or false?

there will be judges who favors brawler and those who faovrs boxers.

sans knock downs and knock outs, what is the chance of a brawler winning the fight if two of the three judges favors a boxer?

sans knock downs and knock outs what is the chance of a boxer winning the fight if two of the three judges favors brawler?

SHAME ON YOU

no, but it is subjective. you can favor whatever style, so long as you score the fight properly.

Judges can favor either, but the fight dictates the scoring, least it should. Most often it does. There are bad scores but it isn't an epidemic.

The problem is that too often fans of guys that lose want to limit what parts of the fight they look at. You have to look at the whole fight and not just what your guy does well.

[Twako]

geez I wonder why Pac never wanted to give blood earlier in his career. some probably read and take that as a myth, when it was the case. I think Floyd owned Top Rank. that ''libel'' lawsuit to Floyd's money was like throwing a pebble at a freight train.

you're talking about random drug tests, which are not really comprehensively random. all boxers, pac included, go thru commission required blood testing for every fight.

[Rath]

no, but it is subjective. you can favor whatever style, so long as you score the fight properly.

Judges can favor either, but the fight dictates the scoring, least it should. Most often it does. There are bad scores but it isn't an epidemic.

The problem is that too often fans of guys that lose want to limit what parts of the fight they look at. You have to look at the whole fight and not just what your guy does well.

is that so?

then where does a judge favors brawler or boxers came from if he scores the fight properly?

if 19 out of 21 fights scored by judges A showed he scores it all for the brawler, is it safe to say he is a judge who faoors brawlers?

or judge A scores all those 19 fights properly, or coincidentally it's just that to his perception the brawler really won?


SHAME ON YOU

[The Big Dunn]

is that so?

then where does a judge favors brawler or boxers came from if he scores the fight properly?

if 19 out of 21 fights scored by judges A showed he scores it all for the brawler, is it safe to say he is a judge who faoors brawlers?

or judge A scores all those 19 fights properly, or coincidentally it's just that to his perception the brawler really won?


SHAME ON YOU

you said they favor brawlers or boxers. i said it didn't matter what the preference, so long as you score the fight properly and let what happens in the ring dictate your scoring.

Not really. those 21 fights are all seperate. The 19 times he scored for what you are calling the brawler might just have been determined by what happened in the ring, not pre determined bias.

The problem is you are using the outcome (you didn't want) to determine how you see everything. Had you gotten the outcome you wanted, you wouldn't be looking for bias.

[Rath]

you said they favor brawlers or boxers. i said it didn't matter what the preference, so long as you score the fight properly and let what happens in the ring dictate your scoring.

Not really. those 21 fights are all seperate. The 19 times he scored for what you are calling the brawler might just have been determined by what happened in the ring, not pre determined bias.

The problem is you are using the outcome (you didn't want) to determine how you see everything. Had you gotten the outcome you wanted, you wouldn't be looking for bias.

Then it's a myth that judge so and so favors brawler and judge so and so favors boxer?

if scoring depends on how judges saw a fight, and two judges scored the same fight differently. who was scoring the fight properly and who was not?

SHAME ON YOU