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

[AKAcronym]

So what Golovkin detractors/Canelo fans are saying is that jabs shouldn't really matter anymore, essentially. I want these guys to watch Biggs/Sims and tell me how that fight worked out for the guy who jabbed most of the fight. The guys who think Golovkin hardly landed any power punches either haven't watched/don't remember the fight completely or dismiss what Golovkin actually did.

[Citizen Koba]

Although I’m not sure I’d call confirmation bias a form of cognitive dissonance, more like a form of cognitive bias...I wholeheartedly agree.

Ha yeah, just had to check myself there, and I was using (and understanding) it slightly wrong, affirmation bias is one response to cognitive dissonance and a means of avoiding it... so a consequence of it rather than a form of it. I always thought the 'dissonance' refered to the contradictions or disharmony between external evidence and internal beliefs themselves, when in fact it refers specifically to the stress or discomfort produced by these contradictions.

I've been using it that way for a good while too, so I'm kinda glad you caught me on it before I found myself in some RL situation where I could embarrass myself.

Paradigms

There are four theoretic paradigms of cognitive dissonance, the mental stress people suffer when exposed to information that is inconsistent with their beliefs, ideals or values: Belief Disconfirmation, Induced Compliance, Free Choice, and Effort Justification, which respectively explain what happens after a person acts inconsistently, relative to his or her intellectual perspectives; what happens after a person makes decisions and what are the effects upon a person who has expended much effort to achieve a goal. Common to each paradigm of cognitive-dissonance theory is the tenet: People invested in a given perspective shall—when confronted with contrary evidence—expend great effort to justify retaining the challenged perspective.

Belief disconfirmation

The contradiction of a belief, ideal, or system of values causes cognitive dissonance that can be resolved by changing the challenged belief, yet, instead of effecting change, the resultant mental stress restores psychological consonance to the person by misperception, rejection, or refutation of the contradiction, seeking moral support from people who share the contradicted beliefs or acting to persuade other people that the contradiction is unreal.[9][10]

Three cognitive biases are components of dissonance theory. The bias that one does not have any biases, the bias that one is "better, kinder, smarter, more moral and nicer than average" and confirmation bias

Man, if I had a £ for every time I've seen some of the most obviously biased folk on here declare that anyone who disagrees with 'em must be biased...

[Citizen Koba]

So what Golovkin detractors/Canelo fans are saying is that jabs shouldn't really matter anymore, essentially. I want these guys to watch Biggs/Sims and tell me how that fight worked out for the guy who jabbed most of the fight. The guys who think Golovkin hardly landed any power punches either haven't watched/don't remember the fight completely or dismiss what Golovkin actually did.

The simple fact that it was an extremely close fight doesn't fit the desired narrative, man. You gotta get with the program.. Golovkin's a **** average plodder and Canelo's an elite boxing god therefore jabs can't possibly count.

[Citizen Koba]

Yeah when I have the 50/50 too close to call rounds, I really think the best protocol is to more or less split those rounds...I think that scoring actively the other criteria can be a bit of an out for some to give all the close rounds to their guy.

Like if there were 6 close rounds in a fight..I would probably split 3-3 9 times out of 10...if someone wants to shade those to his guy, they could say, well I think my guy had better defense and ring generalship etc in 5 of those rounds actually, so I gave him 5.

If the other 6 rounds were clear...5-1 to fighter A...that could be the difference between an 8-4 win for one guy, and a 6-6 draw...or even muddying up the 'clear' rounds and saying that it was really 3-1 on clear rounds...etc etc...idk man I just don't think most fights are 'could go either way' types of fights...and that seems to be the MO of some on here to try and justify bad cards and decisions.

I definitely see what you're saying though...and we are basically in agreement anyway it seems.

Splitting the rounds that way isn't really how the scoring guidelines for 10 point must work as I'm sure you understand, but it is a way of minimising your own biases if you apply it consitently I guess, or could be. And at the end of the day the must guidelines (effectively that you should try to give a round to one guy or another however miniscule the difference) are just that, guidelines. Historically there's been phases of giving many more 10 - 10 rounds and equally there's room within the actual rules to give far more 10 - 8 rounds than are actually given without a KD, so they ain't set in stone and will always be open to some intrerpretation.

[aboutfkntime]

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.

the official scoring criteria is crystal clear.....

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

punches that do not land clean and hard, are NOT official scoring criteria.,.. and you are a dumbass for suggesting otherwise

kid, in the... " casual fans need to learn how to score a fight " ... thread...

you exposed yourself as a dumbass casual who doesn't know how to score a fight... and you got schooled accordingly

you - like that Boxing1013 idiot - have had plenty of opportunities to smarten up... that thread was created to educate you and kafkod LMAO

do I need to post some quotes from that thread... ?

#fanboyforlife

[aboutfkntime]

(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.

nobody said that you shlthead

I said punches that do not land clean, or hard... are NOT official scoring criteria

and only a fkn moron would suggest otherwise

the rules are crystal clear, and do not require translation...

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

[aboutfkntime]

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."

FACT: when you said this...

a 'half point' for a punch that is a scoring blow but isn't necessarily super hard or clean.

... you proved that you have NO IDEA how to score a fight

you completely invented that nonsense

stop making up rubbish, and stop talking shlt... you dumb fanboy

[aboutfkntime]

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:

yep, he sure did...

[aboutfkntime]

1) insists that Golovkin won 8 rounds in the rematch

2) insists that Steve Weisfeld uses his wacky scoring technique

3) forgets that Weisfeld scored the rematch for Canelo loooool

[j.razor]

When I have a bit more time I just may do that...would be fun...I'll also tell you how I score them...generally give a 'full point' for a good hard clean shot...and a 'half point' for a punch that is a scoring blow but isn't necessarily super hard or clean.

Excellent! Just make sure you don't count 1/2 a point for blocked punches either..lol