Who knows better how to score a boxing match?

[Boxing_1013]

I never said anything like that

I said.....

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

so, was Weisfeld WRONG when he awarded the rematch to Canelo?

yes..... or no..... ?

Already addressed that in my previous posts my good friend

[aboutfkntime]

Good post man...but this is boxing...all it is is who is landing more and better punches...defense gets scored as a result of that anyway...fair to argue who is landing cleaner or better punches...but to potentially score other things like 'what type of trunks' a guy wears...I mean none of that is boxing lol...as Weisfeld said...all boxing is, and all judges look at, is who is landing more and better shots

but, you said.....

..... it is all about hit and not get it my friend...that's boxing.

[IMG]//media2.*****.com/media/lT4sgCJwC7B4c/*****.gif[/IMG]



FACT: defence IS official scoring criteria, you muppet LMAO

Canelo made Plodkin look like Helen Keller LMAO

aside from the fact that you muppets clearly don't know how to score a fight, there are two things you are forgetting.....

1) Canelo clearly beat Golovkin up
2) if there was any doubt after the first fight, following the rematch there was absolutely no doubt who the better, more-skilled, more well-rounded, fighter..... Canelo

so.....

was Weisfeld wrong when he scored the fight for Canelo ?

[aboutfkntime]

Great post...should be simple enough to understand...I think some want to change the basic rules to try and justify their fighter winning a fight they didn't win...my 2 cents anyway

you are the moron who is attempting to remove 3 of the 4 OFFICIAL scoring criteria in order to give Hypekin a compubox win LMAO

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







answer the question muppet..... was Weisfeld WRONG when he awarded the rematch to Canelo?..... or not?

[Citizen Koba]

Good post man...but this is boxing...all it is is who is landing more and better punches...defense gets scored as a result of that anyway...fair to argue who is landing cleaner or better punches...but to potentially score other things like 'what type of trunks' a guy wears...I mean none of that is boxing lol...as Weisfeld said...all boxing is, and all judges look at, is who is landing more and better shots

Of course - I already posted the guidelines from three different governing bodies (if you consider the ABC as a single body) and linked the Weisfeld article that I assume led to this thread. I would have thought that made clear enough that clean, hard punches in a scoring zone is absolutely the single most important scoring criteria... what I'm getting at is that there is naturally room for subjective opinion over how clean and hard a punch lands and - when a round is close in terms of cleanly landed punches - over who controlled the action, showed better defense etc.

If this wasn't the case then there would be no need for judges - certainly not three of 'em anyway -and there would be no call for threads like this one, cos everyone would agree on how every fight should be scored.

EDIT: FWIW I'm of the opinion that boxing scoring should in fact be more accessible and populist - that in fact when the so called 'experts' in boxing turn in scorecards that are incomprehensible to the general public (the 'casuals' who actually drive the sport with their disposable income however much they appear to be looked down upon on here) or that lead to a result that the majority disagree with we're doing the sport a disservice. You shouldn't need a damn course in fight scoring or to spend half your life on boxing forums to figure out who won a fight, though I suspect some self proclaimed experts rather like the opacity involved, as do experts in every other field. Personally I'd advocate some form of mass or crowd sourced scoring - the technology is widely available and the statistical methods for minimising bias and rigging are well understood... at the very least replays and at least an extra pair of judges should be involved if crowd sourcing is a step too far for most.

[R-Hand Southpaw]

but, you said.....




[IMG]//media2.*****.com/media/lT4sgCJwC7B4c/*****.gif[/IMG]



FACT: defence IS official scoring criteria, you muppet LMAO

Canelo made Plodkin look like Helen Keller LMAO

aside from the fact that you muppets clearly don't know how to score a fight, there are two things you are forgetting.....

1) Canelo clearly beat Golovkin up
2) if there was any doubt after the first fight, following the rematch there was absolutely no doubt who the better, more-skilled, more well-rounded, fighter..... Canelo

so.....

was Weisfeld wrong when he scored the fight for Canelo ?

For some old man from the UK you are pretty damn arrogant thinking that Canelo won the first fight when pretty much nobody agrees with you.

Let me open a book and go ha! I told you. It's no different than a boss who has no idea what the **** they're talking about and telling you how to do your job when they clearly never have.

If defense is scoring criteria let's me lower myself to your level.

If defense is scoring criteria how many points does it score during a match eh? Is it 2 points? One point? Is it a point for every flashy move? Or is it effective moves? Does it count by how many inches you pull from a punch? Do I get more points for having the punch get closer to my face?

And "power punches ". How many points do those add? Are they worth double the amount of points a jab is?

And let ask. Is how your face looks like also scoring criteria? Can you point out to me where it says that effective punches means the one who is least cut?

Old man. Lots of guys have threatened to whoop your ass including myself. Why not take up one of these challenges one of these days and show people how smart you are man.

You're so smart. Its almost like you're the only guy in the world who knows how to read and youre secretly a professionally judge or something.

Lmao. Wheres Lou when you need him eh?

[aboutfkntime]

Of course - I already posted the guidelines from three different governing bodies (if you consider the ABC as a single body) and linked the Weisfeld article that I assume led to this thread. I would have thought that made clear enough that clean, hard punches in a scoring zone is absolutely the single most important scoring criteria... what I'm getting at is that there is naturally room for subjective opinion over how clean and hard a punch lands and - when a round is close in terms of cleanly landed punches - over who controlled the action, showed better defense etc.

If this wasn't the case then there would be no need for judges - certainly not three of 'em anyway -and there would be no call for threads like this one, cos everyone would agree on how every fight should be scored.

hey genius, you are the guy who tried to tell everyone that 3 of the 4 official scoring criteria do not apply, unless the number of scoring punches landed are the same loooool

you know what I think.....

I think this muppet has me on ignore, and does not realize that his sillyness has been exposed

maybe someone should PM him and tell him to stop repeating that rubbish?

or..... we can all just sit here and have a good laugh I spose

funny

[aboutfkntime]

For some old man from the UK.....

If defense is scoring criteria.....

I am not from the UK, you fkn idiot

and defence IS one of the 4 OFFICIAL scoring criteria, you fkn idiot

LMFAO

what a tool you are kid..... learn the sport


to kill that..... " all landed punches count "..... rubbish.....





to kill that " defence/effective aggression/ring generalship don't count " rubbish.....
7.32



I guess I am performing some kind of public service

[R-Hand Southpaw]

I am not from the UK, you fkn idiot

and defence IS one of the 4 OFFICIAL scoring criteria, you fkn idiot

LMFAO

what a tool you are kid..... learn the sport


to kill that..... " all landed punches count "..... rubbish.....





to kill that " defence/effective aggression/ring generalship don't count " rubbish.....
7.32



I guess I am performing some kind of public service

You're not from the UK but everyone says you are. I'm pretty sure thats exactly what you told me. 🤷*♂️

But again. Just opening a book and saying here look!

Lmao.

It's like someone who has never worked on cars before telling me that I just need some tools and I can so the job. It's not a science.

And wouldnt you say it's tough to judge a fight objectively because of your own bias? You clearly got Canelo on the mind and you want to give him every advantage you can so you see what you want to see eh?

Just like Byrd. Eh? Eh?

[ReggieKray]

The funny thing is that Canelo gave every advantage to GGG.

The first fight, Canelo went up to GGGs weight class. When GGG was to slow to do anything Canelo put himself on the ropes and asked GGG to come to him, seemingly knowing that where GGG could try to impress his fans. Sadly GGG didn't deliver. Main take away of this fight was that Canelo fought his style as a counter puncher and was clearly the faster, precise, and more impactful puncher. Which is at the top of scoring criteria. Tripe jab was slow and way less impactful. Otherwise why didn't he knock canelo out like the rest. The only good shot GGG had was given to him when canelo put himself on the ropes. And sure Canelos stamina slowed in the middle of the fight but he rallied in the 9th and forward. Sadly I think the casual fans miss all these suddelties and I don't blame them when the majority of the HBO announcers were clearly enfluenced sway favor to GGG to add more controversy. ROY Jones was the only one that you should have been listening to. He's a master class boxer and he called it when canelo put him slef on the ropes get more activity from GGG.

Second fight. GGG and Abel Sanchez gave the excuse that GGG couldn't catch canelo because he ran away...just because you perform poorly when fighting a counter punched does mean the counter punch sucks.. It means you do... It means your effectiveness doesn't extend to moving targets.. Regardless Canelo being the overly proud man he is, said, if you want me to stand in front of you so that you have the advantage you say you need to win here you go. Canelo opens himself up to take that challenge and risk. But what happened this time... Jack ****.. Canelo took everything GGG had and still landed the more accurate, stiffer and damaging shots. GGGs looked like he was in a car accident after that fight..

If you think GGG won both fights, take the time to explain how he won each round. If you say he land more spaghetti arm jabs so he won... Then, Im sorry but you're an idiot.

Please watch the fights again and tell me Canelo isn't the quicker and more impactful puncher of the two..

[kafkod]

Ridiculous, a fighter can completely embarrass his opponent and show he's in control with defence. If a fighter is throwing and not landing then the fighter who prevented him landing gets credit for doing so.

You sound like Peter Fury and Mick Hennessy after the Hughie/Parker fight!

"Hughie clearly won every round. He was making Parker miss all night!

"Shades of Muhammad Ali ..."

Problem was that yes, Hughie showed great defensive skill and made Parker miss with 90% of his punches ... but he didn't land anything himself!