Golovkin made all his supporters fools yet we still have some defending him.

[TonyGe]

immediately following that fight, because of the sheer volume of casual-fan ******ity... I had to CONTINUALLY post a instructional video "how to score a boxing match for dummies"...

you remember it, because I posted it to you several times

why didn't you watch it, you muppet... ?

this is the ONLY official scoring criteria...

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

keyword... " only "

btw, when you do your video breakdown... be sure to cover effective aggression, ring generalship, and defence

because, you were obviously going to factor in ALL of the official criteria... right?

you casual fans are fkn morons... insist that you know everything about boxing, despite the fact that you have never laced em up in your life... but then immediately prove that you know nothing

punches that are not hard/clean, are NOT official scoring criteria

why did you completely make up the bold, you ****head... ?

who the fcuk are you to change the official scoring criteria ?

guys, don't think that I am picking on this dumb kid... he had plenty of chances to smarten up... but would prefer to come here and "educate" us about... the extremely dumb shlt that he makes up

That is completely off the rails. You have to be a complete idiot not to acknowledge that the number of punches landed are kept track of by the judges and are the primary factor in who wins a round.
If you want to debate whether the punches are clean or hard that's fine but to post those points as the only thing that determine the round winner is idiotic.

[Citizen Koba]

That is completely off the rails. You have to be a complete idiot not to acknowledge that the number of punches landed are kept track of by the judges and are the primary factor in who wins a round.
If you want to debate whether the punches are clean or hard that's fine but to post those points as the only thing that determine the round winner is idiotic.

“…. Judges are to score each round using the following scoring criteria:

Clean punching (power versus quantity).
Effective aggressiveness.
Ring generalship.
Defense.”

The ABC expands upon this in its Certification Program, stating:

”The test to measure the awarding of points for “offensive boxing” should be the number of direct, clean punches delivered with the knuckle part of the closed glove on any part of the scoring zone of the opponent’s body above the belt line. The judges should also consider the effect of blows received versus the number of punches delivered. Punches that are blocked or deflected should not be considered in tabulating your score. Blocked or deflected punches that land foul are not to be considered fouls in the awarding of points at the end of the round.”9 (Professional Boxing Judges, Chapter III – Scoring Zone).

(my emphasis)


AFT doesn't think the number of clean punches landed is relevent, huh? Somebody better let the ABC know that they're teaching their judges all wrong.

The difference might have been a single jab, or a defensive move, yet it was still enough to give that boxer the edge.

And yeah. It's just 'clean' punches, not 'clean hard' punches

Scoring criteria

The scoring shall be done on a TEN POINT must system. Judges are to score each round using the following scoring criteria:

1. Clean punching (power versus quantity).

2. Effective aggressiveness.

3. Ring generalship.

4. Defense.

Ultimately obviously there's always gonna be some subjectivity over the balance been power and number and what exactly constitutes a clean shot, but the ABCs guidelines are absolutely clear a clean jab is every bit as much a scoring punch as a clean hook or straight, and nowhere in any official guidelines does the term 'power punch' occur. That was made up by Compubox and seems to have caused a good deal of misunderstanding about how punches should be scored.

[Boxing_1013]

Just to get you started:





One of the dudes who set up this outfit used to post on here occasionally. They run up the punch breakdowns from slo mo footage rather than live like Compubox and claim to be the most accurate in the world.. Impression I got was a dedicated guy commited to getting the detail right but I'd expect you'll see some cynicism on here cos their numbers show GGG even wider.

Shame though they changed the way they displayed the info... in some ways it's clearer but they used to breakdown the rounds into 30 second intervals if I remember right and use different sized circles to represent more or fewer punches withing that time slot... it wasn't very user friendly but once you got used to it it actually contained more information.

Presumably though they do actually have the raw second by second punch data somewhere, though whether they'd be willing to share for free is a different matter. Couldn't hurt to ask though.

I'd advise that if you want to do a breakdown for your own satisfaction go for it, but don't anticipate convincing any sceptics, you know how this works..

Thanks man...good info...yeah I mean there are a lot of fights that we've all seen, where I've only seen one winner...yet we have some on here who swear the other guy won.

So it just reinforces, as you suggest, that sometimes people will believe what they want to, regardless of what the facts/data show.

I personally think GGG did probably outland Canelo by a bit more than the official numbers suggest...I know whenever I'm watching it and scoring rounds, I have quite a few clear ones for GGG in each fight...and then the rest are close rounds.

I can't recall one round where I saw Canelo outland GGG by a decent margin...and definitely can't recall one where he outlands him by a decent margin and lands the best shot or shots of the rounds.

Canelo did some good things in there too though...were definitely two good fights imho...but yeah in all my years of scoring fights I don't really see how those 2 were anything other than 8-4 type wins for GGG.

[Citizen Koba]

Thanks man...good info...yeah I mean there are a lot of fights that we've all seen, where I've only seen one winner...yet we have some on here who swear the other guy won.

So it just reinforces, as you suggest, that sometimes people will believe what they want to, regardless of what the facts/data show.

I personally think GGG did probably outland Canelo by a bit more than the official numbers suggest...I know whenever I'm watching it and scoring rounds, I have quite a few clear ones for GGG in each fight...and then the rest are close rounds.

I can't recall one round where I saw Canelo outland GGG by a decent margin...and definitely can't recall one where he outlands him by a decent margin and lands the best shot or shots of the rounds.

Canelo did some good things in there too though...were definitely two good fights imho...but yeah in all my years of scoring fights I don't really see how those 2 were anything other than 8-4 type wins for GGG.

Scoring is ultimately subjective and a lot of folk just don't seem to understand that it ain't just as strightforward as people getting it 'right' or 'wrong'.. we literally see things differently based upon our expectations and narratives. In a boxing match that might translate to noticing the punches or defensive work of one fighter more than another or evaluating certain punches as more or less damaging and so forth, so even if everyone was following the exact same scoring criteria and doing their best to be unbiased we'd still have different scores.

And trying to convince someone that what they actually 'saw' is wrong is obviously an exercise in futility, and harranguing them or insulting them in an effort to make 'em change their minds doubly so, which is why I rarely bother getting into that kinda ish these day, in fact as often as not I don't even score fights any more, just enjoy the action and get a general feel for who got the best of it.

FWIW I saw the first bout 116-112 for GGG from what I recall and the second 115-113, but in that case I wouldn't have any complaints with a draw or the same score the other way, I thought most of the rounds were very very tight, with neither fighter really able to get much going. High level chess, man, with neither able to quite impose his will. i could watch 'em both over and over.

[Boxing_1013]

immediately following that fight, because of the sheer volume of casual-fan ******ity... I had to CONTINUALLY post a instructional video "how to score a boxing match for dummies"...

you remember it, because I posted it to you several times

why didn't you watch it, you muppet... ?

this is the ONLY official scoring criteria...

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

keyword... " only "

btw, when you do your video breakdown... be sure to cover effective aggression, ring generalship, and defence

because, you were obviously going to factor in ALL of the official criteria... right?

you casual fans are fkn morons... insist that you know everything about boxing, despite the fact that you have never laced em up in your life... but then immediately prove that you know nothing

punches that are not hard/clean, are NOT official scoring criteria

why did you completely make up the bold, you ****head... ?

who the fcuk are you to change the official scoring criteria ?

guys, don't think that I am picking on this dumb kid... he had plenty of chances to smarten up... but would prefer to come here and "educate" us about... the extremely dumb shlt that he makes up

It's honestly staggering that on a boxing forum, there are still people (like yourself who don't know how to score a fight...or, what is more likely, they pretend not to know how to score a fight because then they can defend certain bad decisions that take place, and try to defend them behind some vagaries they claim exist in the scoring system.

I've mentioned a few times to you as well that a veteran judge, Steve Weisfeld, has told all of us (as if it really needed to be said) how he and every other judge he knows scores fights: that he is scoring punches landed and their effectiveness...fair-minded people could differ on what constitutes a scoring punch...and could differ on how effective a punch is...but that is literally the only thing you score in fights my friend...if you really don't know that, I wouldn't go around pounding your chest about it

"Clean punches: To me, clean punches are the most important aspect, and the other factors are really tied to that. Take the phrase, "effective aggressiveness." How is a boxer effective? He's effective by landing clean punches. How about "defense?" A boxer shows great defense by not getting hit with clean punches. And, finally, the term "ring generalship." A boxer uses the ring to put himself in a position to land clean punches.

So let's focus on the phrase "clean punches." It may not be initially apparent, but there are various elements included within that phrase. First, there's the number of punches. The boxer who lands more punches generally wins. However, harder punches count more than lighter punches.

Now, there's no mathematical formula that equates the number of punches with the hardness of the punch. The judge has to weigh the two based on his experience. But more important than the number of punches or the hardness of the punch is the effect of the punch. For example, a seemingly lighter punch that causes a boxer to stagger is scored higher than a seemingly harder punch that has no effect.

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."

[Boxing_1013]

It's honestly staggering that on a boxing forum, there are still people (like yourself who don't know how to score a fight...or, what is more likely, they pretend not to know how to score a fight because then they can defend certain bad decisions that take place, and try to defend them behind some vagaries they claim exist in the scoring system.

I've mentioned a few times to you as well that a veteran judge, Steve Weisfeld, has told all of us (as if it really needed to be said) how he and every other judge he knows scores fights: that he is scoring punches landed and their effectiveness...fair-minded people could differ on what constitutes a scoring punch...and could differ on how effective a punch is...but that is literally the only thing you score in fights my friend...if you really don't know that, I wouldn't go around pounding your chest about it

"Clean punches: To me, clean punches are the most important aspect, and the other factors are really tied to that. Take the phrase, "effective aggressiveness." How is a boxer effective? He's effective by landing clean punches. How about "defense?" A boxer shows great defense by not getting hit with clean punches. And, finally, the term "ring generalship." A boxer uses the ring to put himself in a position to land clean punches.

So let's focus on the phrase "clean punches." It may not be initially apparent, but there are various elements included within that phrase. First, there's the number of punches. The boxer who lands more punches generally wins. However, harder punches count more than lighter punches.

Now, there's no mathematical formula that equates the number of punches with the hardness of the punch. The judge has to weigh the two based on his experience. But more important than the number of punches or the hardness of the punch is the effect of the punch. For example, a seemingly lighter punch that causes a boxer to stagger is scored higher than a seemingly harder punch that has no effect.

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."

Scoring is ultimately subjective and a lot of folk just don't seem to understand that it ain't just as strightforward as people getting it 'right' or 'wrong'.. we literally see things differently based upon our expectations and narratives. In a boxing match that might translate to noticing the punches or defensive work of one fighter more than another or evaluating certain punches as more or less damaging and so forth, so even if everyone was following the exact same scoring criteria and doing their best to be unbiased we'd still have different scores.

And trying to convince someone that what they actually 'saw' is wrong is obviously an exercise in futility, and harranguing them or insulting them in an effort to make 'em change their minds doubly so, which is why I rarely bother getting into that kinda ish these day, in fact as often as not I don't even score fights any more, just enjoy the action and get a general feel for who got the best of it.

FWIW I saw the first bout 116-112 for GGG from what I recall and the second 115-113, but in that case I wouldn't have any complaints with a draw or the same score the other way, I thought most of the rounds were very very tight, with neither fighter really able to get much going. High level chess, man, with neither able to quite impose his will. i could watch 'em both over and over.

Thanks man...the above post is not intended for you obviously...but I would just say that I don't really subscribe to the notion that you should score anything in a fight other than the punches landed and their effectiveness...all the other criteria is important...but only insofar as it helps you to land clean hard effective punches...whoever does that better, wins...that's really all there is to it.

I do agree though that reasonable people can differ about who lands better shots in a round...about what lands clean etc...that is fair...but generally I think it is pretty clear what is taking place in a ring...and imho you have about 5% of fights that are either-way/50/50 type of fights...95% of fights imho have 1 clear winner...and both GGG-Canelo fights were that way.

GGG-SD was a legit either way type fight that I shade to GGG but certainly live I wouldn't argue with anyone giving Sergei 7 rounds...on the rewatch I think I was maybe giving Sergei a bit more credit than deserved perhaps due to over-achieving based on my initial estimates...but it was still a very close tough pick-em fight imo.

GGG-Jacobs and the 2 GGG Canelo fights were all good fights with 1 clear winner - GGG.

[Boxing_1013]

That is completely off the rails. You have to be a complete idiot not to acknowledge that the number of punches landed are kept track of by the judges and are the primary factor in who wins a round.
If you want to debate whether the punches are clean or hard that's fine but to post those points as the only thing that determine the round winner is idiotic.

Yeah it's certainly fair imho for reasonable people to differ on what constitutes a clean punch, or scoring punch, or how effective a punch is...there can certainly be room for debate in there about that.

But you can tell that 1) people (respectfully) don't really know how to score fights and/or 2) are interested in twisting the 'scoring system' up in vagaries to try and muddy the waters and garner support for their fighter winning (or the other guy losing) a fight that they didn't really win (or lose).

If we really have to have a talk with people that scoring in a fight is only about who lands more and better blows...then I don't really know what we're doing Tony...lol.

I guess some people will always see what they want to see...and when they don't see it, they will try and twist other things around so that they can see it...oh well, hope you're doing well Tony! Good post

[Citizen Koba]

Thanks man...the above post is not intended for you obviously...but I would just say that I don't really subscribe to the notion that you should score anything in a fight other than the punches landed and their effectiveness...all the other criteria is important...but only insofar as it helps you to land clean hard effective punches...whoever does that better, wins...that's really all there is to it.

I do agree though that reasonable people can differ about who lands better shots in a round...about what lands clean etc...that is fair...but generally I think it is pretty clear what is taking place in a ring...and imho you have about 5% of fights that are either-way/50/50 type of fights...95% of fights imho have 1 clear winner...and both GGG-Canelo fights were that way.

GGG-SD was a legit either way type fight that I shade to GGG but certainly live I wouldn't argue with anyone giving Sergei 7 rounds...on the rewatch I think I was maybe giving Sergei a bit more credit than deserved perhaps due to over-achieving based on my initial estimates...but it was still a very close tough pick-em fight imo.

GGG-Jacobs and the 2 GGG Canelo fights were all good fights with 1 clear winner - GGG.

Ultimately the bold is how I see it and I have seen a professional jusge say pretty much the same thing... everything else is just a means to one end... hitting or hurting the other guy more than he hits or hurts you.

I think if they're otherwise inseperable you might work down the list of other factors:

Effective aggression
Ring Generalship
Defense

And see whether you can differentiate 'em that way, but if they are landing about the same amount really how much seperation can there be?

[Real King Kong]

(my emphasis)


AFT doesn't think the number of clean punches landed is relevent, huh? Somebody better let the ABC know that they're teaching their judges all wrong.







And yeah. It's just 'clean' punches, not 'clean hard' punches



Ultimately obviously there's always gonna be some subjectivity over the balance been power and number and what exactly constitutes a clean shot, but the ABCs guidelines are absolutely clear a clean jab is every bit as much a scoring punch as a clean hook or straight, and nowhere in any official guidelines does the term 'power punch' occur. That was made up by Compubox and seems to have caused a good deal of misunderstanding about how punches should be scored.

Not only that, but if a guy is not being affected by the shots at all, how “hard” are they? Everything is subjective, but the flashy shots are usually what catches the eye of the judges. For all the talk of how canelo “backed ggg up”, ggg’s back never touched the ropes. That fight was a case of expectations influencing people’s perception of what happened.

[Real King Kong]

Scoring is ultimately subjective and a lot of folk just don't seem to understand that it ain't just as strightforward as people getting it 'right' or 'wrong'.. we literally see things differently based upon our expectations and narratives. In a boxing match that might translate to noticing the punches or defensive work of one fighter more than another or evaluating certain punches as more or less damaging and so forth, so even if everyone was following the exact same scoring criteria and doing their best to be unbiased we'd still have different scores.

And trying to convince someone that what they actually 'saw' is wrong is obviously an exercise in futility, and harranguing them or insulting them in an effort to make 'em change their minds doubly so, which is why I rarely bother getting into that kinda ish these day, in fact as often as not I don't even score fights any more, just enjoy the action and get a general feel for who got the best of it.

FWIW I saw the first bout 116-112 for GGG from what I recall and the second 115-113, but in that case I wouldn't have any complaints with a draw or the same score the other way, I thought most of the rounds were very very tight, with neither fighter really able to get much going. High level chess, man, with neither able to quite impose his will. i could watch 'em both over and over.

you hit the nail on the head. Heavily biased fan boys or haters may be among the least qualified to score a fight, regardless of what the think they know about scoring.