No Idea How Some Folks Score A Fight

[Thraxox]

Wait, what? Numbers are numbers and they missed T almost the exact same rate per punch thrown. I'm not saying Canelo didn't look good on defense but let's not act like Canelo landed everything he threw. And are we really gonna go by historic averages? Fking Canelo probably landed 75% of his punches on the heavy bag Chavez Jr. and Angulo and 20% on Lara. Each fight is a different case, past fights don't mean squat

He literally just said. "No **** percentage. Look at Percentage, Canelo wins"

[Mr Objecitivity]

How were they more effective when most of them missed and many others were blocked or partially blocked.

You could make the case that Canelo landed the cleaner, sharper, heavier punches practically EVERY round.

The only question was did he land enough of them in a particular round.

And in at least 7 of the rounds, Canelo did.

They were 'effective' because the punches that Golovkin did land, ACTUALLY 'effected' Canelo Alvarez more than vice versa (snapping Canelo's head back and forcing him to move his entire body backwards).

Golovkin missed 'most of his punches', relative to the punches he threw in total. Which is to state that Golovkin missed more punches than he landed. However, he STILL landed MORE punches than Canelo Alvarez. Therefore, the number of punches he missed are irrelevant. It's like one football (soccer) team scoring more goals than their opponent but also missing more. If one team scores 3 goals in 50 attempts whilst missing 47 attempts, whereas the other team score one goal out of one attempt, who would be the winner? Obviously the team who scored the 3 goals because in the end, the PRIMARY CRITERIA is who scored more goals, not who missed less attempts. The same thing applies here. Who missed more punches is irrelevant because Golovkin landed more EFFECTIVE punches in total.

As far Canelo landing the "the cleaner, sharper heavier punches practically EVERY round", I have a very strict standard for how I define 'EFFECTIVE' punches. I don't care how clean, sharp or heavy a landed punch looks, if it doesn't effect the opponent much, then it's not an 'EFFECTIVE' enough punch. For all of Canelo's 'sharpness','cleanness' and 'heaviness' in his punches, they very rarely forced Golovkin backwards. They very rarely deterred / discourage / dissuaded Golovkin from applying his offensive / aggressive pressure. They rarely snapped Golovkin's head back enough times. These are all the things Golovkin's punches did to Canelo Alvarez more frequently however. Thus, Golovkin was the more 'EFFECTIVE' punches. There's no doubt about that to me!

[stealthradon]

That you were talking out of your azz when you said 3 powershots.

Let's take round 1, there's not a single power shot landed by Canelo in the provided gifs.

[Derranged]

Yea, most of the boxing world can't score a fight.

Quit crying and be thankful Canelo got a draw because that was pretty generous.

[R-C]

My scorecard

[koolkc107]

They were 'effective' because the punches that Golovkin did land, ACTUALLY 'effected' Canelo Alvarez more than vice versa (snapping Canelo's head back and forcing him to move his entire body backwards).

Golovkin missed 'most of his punches', relative to the punches he threw in total. Which is to state that Golovkin missed more punches than he landed. However, he STILL landed MORE punches than Canelo Alvarez. Therefore, the number of punches he missed are irrelevant. It's like one football (soccer) team scoring more goals than their opponent but also missing more. If one team scores 3 goals in 50 attempts whilst missing 47 attempts, whereas the other team score one goal out of one attempt, who would be the winner? Obviously the team who scored the 3 goals because in the end, the PRIMARY CRITERIA is who scored more goals, not who missed less attempts. The same thing applies here. Who missed more punches is irrelevant because Golovkin landed more EFFECTIVE punches in total.

As far Canelo landing the "the cleaner, sharper heavier punches practically EVERY round", I have a very strict standard for how I define 'EFFECTIVE' punches. I don't care how clean, sharp or heavy a landed punch looks, if it doesn't effect the opponent much, then it's not an 'EFFECTIVE' enough punch. For all of Canelo's 'sharpness','cleanness' and 'heaviness' in his punches, they very rarely forced Golovkin backwards. They very rarely deterred / discourage / dissuaded Golovkin from applying his offensive / aggressive pressure. They rarely snapped Golovkin's head back enough times. These are all the things Golovkin's punches did to Canelo Alvarez more frequently however. Thus, Golovkin was the more 'EFFECTIVE' punches. There's no doubt about that to me!

Neither guy was seriously hurt during the fight.

So how do you have the sporadic clean powershots Golovkin landed "affecting" Canelo more?

Canelo's cleaner sharper and heavier blows landed with much more frequency; Golovkin landed almost as many powershots but the vast majority of them were not clean shots.

And Canelo was moving away basically the entire fight, looking to set traps and counter. I didn't see that change much, so where was the "affecting" you are talking about?

Your soccer analogy is flawed because in our sport we actually score for defense. Soccer does not award points to a team when the other team misses a shot on goal. But boxing judges certainly can award rounds if they think a fighter's defense is helping to win a fight. You make a guy miss 500 times, that's VERY noticeable and gets incorporated into the scorecards of good judges.

As far as effective punches, I simply don't know what you were watching. It doesn't matter if Golovkin walked thru every shot. Canelo took all of Golovkin's powershots quite well too. YOU SCORE THE PUNCH FIRST, NOT HOW GOOD OR BAD A FIGHTER TAKES IT. If a fighter lands a pitty-pat punch one time then after lands a bomb, and neither punch affects his opponent, that doesn't mean you score the pitty-pat punch exactly the same as the hard crisp shot. That's why we usually give more weight to a well landed hook than we do a jab. One punch is usually harder and we score them that way. Of course, if one guy lands a hard shot to no effect, while another guy lands a hard shot that knocks a guy goofy you score the second shot more.

But, that's not what happened. Both guys took each others shots well. But only one guy was landing hard clean power punches with any frequency. And it wasn't Golovkin. And while Gennady did land an occasional hard jab, that could not possibly be enough to offset the lumber Canelo was dropping most of the rounds.

There ARE scoring criteria. While you are allowed to have personal preferences within the framework of that criteria, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED to make up your own or redefine them in a manner that advances your personal biases.

[koolkc107]

LOL, you just spurt out a number then claim that it is a fact. Good try but that is ******ed.

Spurt out a number? Moi?

Here's the punchstats, Einstein
(yeah, I know Compubox is flawed, but it aint THAT flawed)



That's 253 Jabs missed
That's 232 Powershots missed
That's 485 total, 15 short of 500.

Golovkin missed almost as many punches as Canelo threw total.

That gets scored, unless Defense is no longer one of the 4 scoring criteria.

[Metho_4u]

It isn't rocket science, folks.

4 Criteria:

Ring Generalship
Effective Aggression
Defense
Hard Clean Punches

I gave Golovkin Ring Generalship. He dictated the pace and how the fight was fought. But, it is the only one of the 4 criteria he won.

Canelo was not aggressive, seeking to move and counter. But, while Golovkin did cut the ring off beautifully all night, there often was zero payoff when he trapped Canelo on the ropes. I think this was the biggest factor in the fight. Golovkin had mixed results at best when he got Canelo where he wanted him.

When it comes to Defense, it isn't close. Saul constantly thwarted Golovkin when Gennady got close, blocking most of what Golovkin threw, and rolling most of what got thru. By contrast, it seemed that Canelo could flurry and throw in combination whenever he got ready- granted, there were rounds where he did not throw as much as he should have.

Hard Clean Punches was won far and away by Canelo. The fact that Golovkin walked right thru most of them doesn't mean you do not score them. And while Golovkin did land some heavy shots of his own, they were not as clean as Saul's shots nor did they come as often as Canelos. Gennady did display an pretty effective jab at times, but it was also often superfluous as Canelo was moving away too much of the time for it to score as landed.

I had it 7 rounds to 5 for Canelo.

Saul won rounds 1 thru 4, round 6, and the championship rounds 11 and 12.

I had Golovkin taking 5, and rounds 7 thru 10.

3 of the rounds I gave Golovkin (5,7, and 10) were close enough to have been scored the other way.

Only one of the rounds I gave Canelo (4) might have gone for Golovkin.

My guess is in the rematch, Canelo will win a clear and wide decision.

One thing he can do is get in good enough shape to throw more punches more often- which I grant may be much harder than it sounds.

The other thing he can do is look to flurry, then tie up Golovkin more often, keeping things in the middle of the ring more.

P.S.- I can't help thinking that what Jacobs did to Golovkin is looking better all the time.

P.S. II- I know folks are up in arms over Adelaide Byrd's scorecard. 118-110 is absurd. But, that doesn't mean you could not score the fight for Canelo. If she had turned in a card of 115-113 for Saul, we would have the same result. Let's not get so carried away by what is clearly a corrupt or inept judge that we lose sight of the fact that, of the many possible outcomes, a draw was quite within the realm of acceptability.

I agree with most of this. It was Canelo's fault he gassed, but golovkin imo didn't really cut the ring off well at all, he attempted to come in an throw the right hand or left hook and Canelo simply pivoted off to his left, leaving golovkin to miss all night. I literally felt like I was watching the same replay over and over again. Canelo's failing stamina is what got him a draw. Had that not been an issue, you'd have 118-110 across the board.

I'll also add that while I'm not a big fan of making up what if scenieros, it is what it is...a draw. It's unfortunate that judges are not able to score a fight both live and then watching it again.

[koolkc107]

I agree with most of this. It was Canelo's fault he gassed, but golovkin imo didn't really cut the ring off well at all, he attempted to come in an throw the right hand or left hook and Canelo simply pivoted off to his left, leaving golovkin to miss all night. I literally felt like I was watching the same replay over and over again. Canelo's failing stamina is what got him a draw. Had that not been an issue, you'd have 118-110 across the board.

I'll also add that while I'm not a big fan of making up what if scenieros, it is what it is...a draw. It's unfortunate that judges are not able to score a fight both live and then watching it again.

When I went back to watch it again the second time I changed 2 rounds- the 4th and the 10th. So my card remained the same, 7-5 Canelo. I get a draw. I even get 7-5 Golovkin even if I can't see it.

Anything else, and we are starting to stretch reality a bit.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Neither guy was seriously hurt during the fight.

So how do you have the sporadic clean powershots Golovkin landed "affecting" Canelo more?

Canelo's cleaner sharper and heavier blows landed with much more frequency; Golovkin landed almost as many powershots but the vast majority of them were not clean shots.

And Canelo was moving away basically the entire fight, looking to set traps and counter. I didn't see that change much, so where was the "affecting" you are talking about?

Your soccer analogy is flawed because in our sport we actually score for defense. Soccer does not award points to a team when the other team misses a shot on goal. But boxing judges certainly can award rounds if they think a fighter's defense is helping to win a fight. You make a guy miss 500 times, that's VERY noticeable and gets incorporated into the scorecards of good judges.

As far as effective punches, I simply don't know what you were watching. It doesn't matter if Golovkin walked thru every shot. Canelo took all of Golovkin's powershots quite well too. YOU SCORE THE PUNCH FIRST, NOT HOW GOOD OR BAD A FIGHTER TAKES IT. If a fighter lands a pitty-pat punch one time then after lands a bomb, and neither punch affects his opponent, that doesn't mean you score the pitty-pat punch exactly the same as the hard crisp shot. That's why we usually give more weight to a well landed hook than we do a jab. One punch is usually harder and we score them that way. Of course, if one guy lands a hard shot to no effect, while another guy lands a hard shot that knocks a guy goofy you score the second shot more.

But, that's not what happened. Both guys took each others shots well. But only one guy was landing hard clean power punches with any frequency. And it wasn't Golovkin. And while Gennady did land an occasional hard jab, that could not possibly be enough to offset the lumber Canelo was dropping most of the rounds.

There ARE scoring criteria. While you are allowed to have personal preferences within the framework of that criteria, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED to make up your own or redefine them in a manner that advances your personal biases.

No, neither guy was truly hurt. However, the fact that Golovkin's punches was forcing Canello Alvarez backwards more than vice versa, plus snapping his head backwards more than vice versa, means that Golovkin's punches were more effective more frequently. So even if neither hurt the other significantly, it is still possible to determine who was the more 'EFFECTIVE' puncher.

My soccer analogy isn't flawed. The point was, the MAIN CRITERIA for judging a soccer bout is quantity of goals whilst for boxing, it is the quantity + quality of effective punches landed. Defense is a secondary criteria in boxing for judging a bout. As in, it doesn't have precedence over effective punches landed. In other words, if one guy lands more of the effective punches, then who had the better defense becomes irrelevant. Better defense only matters when both guys were even in the effective punches landed department.

Also, boxing is about punching opponent effectively without getting punched in return. As such, true defense is measured in the face of offense. This is to state that credit is given to a boxer who is defensively good whilst attacking. However, a boxer that simply seeks to avoid opponent's punches without attacking himself shouldn't get much credit because that isn't 'defensive boxing'. That is 'survival' mode where the boxer is seeking to not hit his opponent without getting hit, whilst boxing his hitting without getting hit. So any defense which comes at the expense of having one's own offense being limited /restricted isn't 'defensive boxing' that warrants credit or points.

Also, if one boxer is in survival mode (creating distance without attacking) whilst making opponent miss punches without throwing or landing any punches of their own, whilst their opponent is attacking but failing to land their punches despite throwing, I'd automatically give more credit to the boxer who is attacking. I'd rather a boxer throw punches but miss, over a boxer who throws no punches and lands none. Golovkin threw and missed more punches. Canelo Alvarez threw less and landed less punches. Thus, Golovkin > Canelo.

It doesn't matter if Golovkin walked thru every shot.

Yes, it does matter because if Canelo's punches don't 'effect' Golovkin much, then it can't be considered a punch that is too 'effective'.

Canelo took all of Golovkin's powershots quite well too.

Relative to whom? Relative to past opponents? Yes, absolutely! However, Golovkin took Canelo's best punches better than vice versa. This is evident by the fact that it was Canelo who was forced into the back foot from Golovkin's punches more often than vice versa. It was Canelo who had his head snapped back from Golovkin's punches more often than vice versa.

If a fighter lands a pitty-pat punch one time then after lands a bomb, and neither punch affects his opponent, that doesn't mean you score the pitty-pat punch exactly the same as the hard crisp shot.

Actually yes, I would, because the effect of both punches would be the same. Boxing has ALWAYS been about FIRST and FOREMOST, who lands the more effective punches and who is the more effective puncher. It doesn't matter whether a punch looks like a 'pitty-pat' or a 'bomb' SUBJECTIVELY, as long as both are legal punches, then the punch which has more of an effect on the opponent is the punch that gets more credit, irrespective of whether that punch was a 'pitty-pat' punch, or an Mexican punch, or a ***y punch, or a jab, or a power punch and so forth so on. Provided it's a legal punch, then the type of punch is totally irrelevant. What's relevant is PURELY which punch is more 'effective' (punch that effects the opponent more).

But only one guy was landing hard clean power punches with any frequency. And it wasn't Golovkin.

Only one guy was rarely backing up, mostly moving forward, forcing his opponent to move backward more frequently than vice versa and snapping his opponent's head back more frequently than vice versa and it wasn't Canelo Alvarez.

The evidence is contrary to your claims.

There ARE scoring criteria. While you are allowed to have personal preferences within the framework of that criteria, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED to make up your own or redefine them in a manner that advances your personal biases.

Yes and the main criteria of boxing has always been about who the more effective puncher is and who lands the more effective punches. Those other criteria are secondary.