casual fans need to learn how to score a fight.....

[aboutfkntime]

I feel like this is an attack on the LGBT community

it is an attack on the ****** community

[YOU WILL LOSE]

nothing worse than elitist douchebags writing paragraphs telling u what you saw with your own eyes!

casual fans: leave this thread as fast as u can and enjoy the fights, leave these groveling elitists to themselves

[aboutfkntime]

Moretti fancied 2 more rounds for GGG over Canelo. Had he been indecisive about a couple swing rounds he could’ve also had it a DRAW.

Don Trella, had he some swing rounds for either guy, STILL CLOSE, 7-5 either way, but equalized it a DRAW.

At this point, it’s already proven a chess match, means Canelo was well prepped for GGG. GGG fans coast on the idea that underperforming with Aboutfkntime’s point was good enough to win, as if Canelo and GGG were wearing head gear and GGG didn’t go into second gear. Remember everyone said “what is Canelo going to do when GGG has him on the ropes?” Many had GGG ko’ng Alvarez with fanboyism without really thinking or illustrating the 4 criteria - round by Round - if in the event it’s not the fight or game plan they had thought GGG would impose

So here comes Byrd, had she felt any insecurity given girls like Ross... she would’ve systematically also preplanned 116-112 at the get go. Had she scored it a Draw like Trella and everyone saying the judges favor Canelo then Byrd and Trella knew a majority Draw from the get go...

No, instead, I think Byrd simply wasn’t impressed with GGG whom literally sold himself and talked trash goal planning for years that when he finally stepped up with Caneo, he underperformed and she wasn’t impressed considering she knew GGG’s reputation with “power.”

I had it a Draw. I’m not afraid to admit that even though Canelo had the more accurate punching, I still think he didn’t do enough to win, and I thought GGG just pressed a jab with many missed attempts and allowing the smaller guy to capitalize on mistakes..

Draw was more than justified. Many GGG fans just can’t accept that.

Byrd is old-school

in a matchup with a boxer, against a pressure-fighter....., Byrd will score for the boxer unless the pressure fighter is being effective..... which makes perfect sense

she obviously did not see much effectiveness from Golovkin during mush of that fight..... and compared to the hype surrounding Golovkin for YEARS before that fight, she was correct..... Golovkin fired a lot of blanks

she had the right idea, but spent too much time watching Canelo and missed some of the work G did in those middle rounds

Byrd's poor score aside..... I think the judges got it right, a draw

[Boxing_1013]

it is literally RIDICULOUS to suggest that damage will have no bearing in a judges mind

this is the fight game you pvssies, suggesting that damage has no bearing is beyond ridiculous

As previously stated, punches landed and punch effectiveness are the only two criteria that matter.

I see in an earlier comment you said that a guy getting outlanded 10-5, with all punches equally effective, should clearly win that round according to your criteria. Bizarre argument my friend. Come on we can be better than that, let's keep it real. Peace bro, be well.

[kafkod]

kid, two pages ago..... you insisted that effective aggression, defence, and ring generalship, are not even a valid scoring factors..... unless the scoring punches landed are exactly even

which is absolutely and utterly ridiculous

you, along with the other casuals..... need to realize one thing.....

this thread was not created to provide a platform where you muppets can change the rules as you see fit..... and eventually determine a suitable scoring method that fits your silly agenda..... this thread was created to teach you dumb cvnts how to correctly apply the existing rules..... which are fine

listening to casuals grumble unhappily about scoring for defense, really does make for a humor-filled afternoon LMAO

you guys are clueless about the sweet science

My agenda? LMAO!

Do you constantly play that transference trick deliberately, just to be annoying, or are you so lacking in self awareness that it really is a subconscious thing?

[aboutfkntime]

As previously stated, punches landed and punch effectiveness are the only two criteria that matter.

I see in an earlier comment you said that a guy getting outlanded 10-5, with all punches equally effective, should clearly win that round according to your criteria. Bizarre argument my friend. Come on we can be better than that, let's keep it real. Peace bro, be well.

no, that is just your..... hopes, dreams, and, wishes LMAO

the rules are quite clear dude.....

* clean hard punching
* effective aggression
* defence
* ring generalship

like I said earlier..... listening to casual-fans grumble unhappily about scoring for defense..... really does make for a humor-filled afternoon LMAO

this is obviously not your game

you need to watch lower-level fights dude

..... stuff like the old streetbeefs, which used to be much better, more similar to low-level club fights..... now they have a lot of first-timers and guys who are awful, but their old stuff was better..... watch BKB, that kind of stuff..... fights that are less complicated

boxing caters for everyone

when casuals watch that level of fight, they seem content..... the only complaints you really hear from casuals involve top A-level fighters with difficult styles

either stick to following club-fighters, or switch-off when your guys finally step up in class

[aboutfkntime]

My agenda? LMAO!

Do you constantly play that transference trick deliberately, just to be annoying, or are you are so lacking in self awareness that it really is a subconscious thing?

a lot of big words in there bro

I just keep it simple.....

you clowns NEEEEED to ignore the official scoring criteria because allowing for defence, effective aggression, and ring generalship..... make is extremely difficult for you muppets to justify your "but Golovkin won" argument

shlt got real when I posted a video explaining why/proving that punches landed are not official scoring criteria.....

suddenly..... you clowns are all trying to change the OFFICIAL rules..... which is hilarious

* clean hard punching
* effective aggression
* defence
* ring generalship

where is your link kafkod

your link, proving your bullshlt

you owe me a link regarding your ridiculous assertion that defence, effective aggression, and ring generalship..... do not become valid scoring factors unless the punches landed are exactly equal

link me to that HORSE-SHlT !!

[aboutfkntime]

don't get it bent guys.....

this thread addressed ONE issue

casual-fan morons have been running around insisting that "landed punches" are the only official scoring criteria

and lets be honest here..... casual-fans do that, simply so they can use compubox to justify their assertion that Golovkin won

compubox !!

it is hilarious that you morons need to change the official scoring criteria in order to justify Golovkin winning LMAOOOOO

but now..... we got clowns running around insisting that only one of the official scoring criteria is valid, clean hard punching (which is a step in the right direction LMAO)..... and effective aggression, defence, and ring generalship..... are not even valid scoring criteria unless the landed punches are exactly even

oh boy..... 4 seasons in one day, this site is a laugh-a-minute

[Boxing_1013]

a lot of big words in there bro

I just keep it simple.....

you clowns NEEEEED to ignore the official scoring criteria because allowing for defence, effective aggression, and ring generalship..... make is extremely difficult for you muppets to justify your "but Golovkin won" argument

shlt got real when I posted a video explaining why/proving that punches landed are not official scoring criteria.....

suddenly..... you clowns are all trying to change the OFFICIAL rules..... which is hilarious

* clean hard punching
* effective aggression
* defence
* ring generalship

where is your link kafkod

your link, proving your bullshlt

you owe me a link regarding your ridiculous assertion that defence, effective aggression, and ring generalship..... do not become valid scoring factors unless the punches landed are exactly equal

link me to that HORSE-SHlT !!

My friend...and I mean that, I consider you a friend Mr Time.

How exhausting it must be to wake up every day hating a fighter or fighters...and trying to contort the data to somehow show they are less than, and their opponent more than.

Just seems like a tremendous waste of time and energy and I feel you would be better off taking a step back, taking a deep breath, and just enjoying the sport more...trying to leave personal biases at the door.

It's hard for all of us to do that, but I can tell the people who more or less do that on here seem to get a lot more enjoyment out of the sport than the others. They don't get so much of their self-worth tied up in a fighter or fighters, and can just enjoy the sweet science and take a win or loss in stride.

Be well my friend

[aboutfkntime]

As previously stated, punches landed and punch effectiveness are the only two criteria that matter.

not according to the official rules son

* clean hard punching
* effective aggression
* defence
* ring generalship

you said that two things matter, but only one of those things is official scoring criteria..... so you score 1, out of a possible 2

and there are 4 official scoring criteria, but you only acknowledge one..... so you score 1, out of a possible 4

so..... your score is 2, out of a possible 6.....

which is..... 33%

not a very good score really

take the test again bro

you can have a do-over, there is no time limit..... we just hope that you guys will get it eventually