Who knows better how to score a boxing match?

[Curtis Harper]

One is a professional judge.
One isn't.

[aboutfkntime]

Time...my friend...my buddy...I love ya man.

Saying that boxing is about who is landing more and better punches (hitting) naturally takes into account the fact that defense (not getting hit) is important my friend....If Fighter A is landing more and better punches...naturally he is hitting more, and not getting hit as often, with regards to his opponent...that's boxing lol...that's all it is...

Take it from a top boxing judge:

"Defense: Defense is important because it helps a boxer set up his offense. Most judges that I have spoken to do not give credit for defense alone. If a boxer has a good defense, it means that he is not being hit with punches. But let's remember the purpose of the sport: to land punches on your opponent.

If Boxer A throws 10 punches in a round, but lands none of them, and Boxer B lands zero and throws zero, you still have an even round with no punches landing. You don't want to create a disincentive for a boxer to land punches if he thinks he's going to be penalized for missing."

Be well my friend

Weisfeld probably got caught up in the era that promoted that disgusting..... "score for the guy going forward"..... dribble

that was disgraceful, and was driven by greedy TV networks in an attempt to provide more "fan-friendly" fights..... you guessed it, for fatass casual fans

the fact remains.....

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


it is truly hilarious, that fans of the guy who missed 1000+ punches... who could not get his game going... and who got beaten up..... do not appreciate defense, ring generalship, and clean hard punching LMAO

..... no no, " volume "..... is suddenly more important than the OFFICIAL scoring criteria LMAO

[aboutfkntime]

Who brought up GGG here lol...

As Weisfeld mentioned...those other attributes are important...but only insofar as they help a fighter get into position to land punches...that's all boxing is about, hitting your opponent more and better than you are getting hit...

With regards to GGG and Canelo...GGG definitely landed more clean effective punches, round in and round out, according to what I saw in both fights...Canelo did have some of those rounds (in fight 2 primarily) where to me he probably landed the best shot or shots of the round, which makes those rounds close...but when you are getting outlanded like the MoneyMan Canelo was in those fights, it is very hard to find enough rounds for ya...generally at best you have some close rounds...and at worst you are losing some clear rounds...

But it is sad in a way that people try to contort the rules/scoring of the sport to prop up or pile on their favored or disliked fighters...I guess when one guy is winning the punch count almost every round those who feel the need to denigrate him will twist it however they can?

I don't know, just thinking outloud...just seeing some of the rationale for scoring those fights for the Redman (no disrespect to Canelo, I think he is great) makes not really a lick of sense to me as someone who has scored fights for years...but to each his own...I guess I should look forward to this new scoring system, I can find a way to score it for my guy all the time now :0 lol

then you had your head up your ass..... in both fights

[aboutfkntime]

..... it is sad in a way that people try to contort the rules/scoring of the sport to prop up or pile on their favored or disliked fighters.....

casual fan A: (Boxing1013)

right guys, firstly lets ignore #4..... fk that ring generalship rubbish, nobody knows what that means anyway.....

as for #3, defence..... who cares about that rubbish, Golovkin doesn't need defence

#2, effective aggression..... is simply scored for the guy going forward..... oh, unless it is Golovkin going backwards, because he decided to "box" his opponent..... to impress the NON-Mexican fans.....

ahahahahahah loooool

now, regarding the ONLY official scoring criteria that is left..... clean hard punching..... let's remove the "hard" part..... and just leave it with clean punching..... and rather than use the official judging criteria for clean punching, lets use compubox.....?

casual fan B: sounds good to me

casual fan C: Golovkin won, yaaaaay

[Robbie Barrett]

here is the MAIN point Boxing1013 missed.....

even if you exclude ring generalship, defence, and effective aggression (which is INSANE)..... Golovkin did not win 'clean HARD punching'..... Canelo did.....

in order for this foolery to work, Boxing will not only have to remove 3 of the 4 OFFICIAL scoring criteria..... he will also have to remove the word "hard" from 'clean hard punching'

leaving about 10% of the OFFICIAL scoring criteria in place LMAO

just another day in paradise

Steve Weisfeld was a judge for Canelo-Golovkin 2 and had Canelo winning. Hilarious if he's trying to argue Golovkin won by using Steve Weisfeld.

[aboutfkntime]

Steve Weisfeld was a judge for Canelo-Golovkin 2 and had Canelo winning. Hilarious if he's trying to argue Golovkin won by using Steve Weisfeld.

he is a funny wee kid

[aboutfkntime]

Who knows more about boxing and is a better boxing judge?

Who knows more about boxing and is a better boxing judge?

well..... NOT YOU SON !!

because you think that Golovkin won the rematch with Canelo

and yet..... Steve Weisfeld agreed with me.....




just saying

#learnthesport
#defencecounts
#steveweisfeldknowsmorethanaboutfkntime


b,b,b,b,but.....

[Robbie Barrett]

Who brought up GGG here lol...

As Weisfeld mentioned...those other attributes are important...but only insofar as they help a fighter get into position to land punches...that's all boxing is about, hitting your opponent more and better than you are getting hit...

With regards to GGG and Canelo...GGG definitely landed more clean effective punches, round in and round out, according to what I saw in both fights...Canelo did have some of those rounds (in fight 2 primarily) where to me he probably landed the best shot or shots of the round, which makes those rounds close...but when you are getting outlanded like the MoneyMan Canelo was in those fights, it is very hard to find enough rounds for ya...generally at best you have some close rounds...and at worst you are losing some clear rounds...

But it is sad in a way that people try to contort the rules/scoring of the sport to prop up or pile on their favored or disliked fighters...I guess when one guy is winning the punch count almost every round those who feel the need to denigrate him will twist it however they can?

I don't know, just thinking outloud...just seeing some of the rationale for scoring those fights for the Redman (no disrespect to Canelo, I think he is great) makes not really a lick of sense to me as someone who has scored fights for years...but to each his own...I guess I should look forward to this new scoring system, I can find a way to score it for my guy all the time now :0 lol

Steve Weisfeld was an official judge for Canelo-Golovkin 2, he had Canelo winning. Who knows more about scoring you or Steve Weisfeld?

[aboutfkntime]

Steve Weisfeld was an official judge for Canelo-Golovkin 2, he had Canelo winning. Who knows more about scoring you or Steve Weisfeld?

[IMG]//media.*****.com/media/CoDp6NnSmItoY/200.gif[/IMG]

[CauliflowerEars]

Great ones dont get hit but you cant help if your face cuts easy or not. You get what you get.

Some guys never cut and get hit all the time. Some guys get hit once and cut. Lomachenko gets nicked pretty damn easy so it's in his best interests to not get hit at all.

Didn't necessarily mean "cut" by any stretch. In fact, it was a bit tongue-in-cheek.
Loma was joking one time in an interview, how he didn't like to "get his pretty face messed up" (bruises, cuts, welts, red marks, whatever). It was all just an indication for him, how his defense was that night, or what he "needed to work on", after he "looked in the mirror". Basically, that his goal is not to get hit and if he sees marks, he needs to work on his defense more.
So I'd say he'd agree with you, "easy bleeder" or not, it's in his (or anybody's) best interest not to get hit at all.

The bio-science of one's susceptibility to facial bleeding really isn't the point here, it was about defense. But yeah sure, some guys cut up and bleed while others are like tire rubber. Gotcha.
Next time I'll use the term "marked up" instead of "nicked up". Thanks.