What we believe and what is true regarding fighters and fights.

[billeau2]

And well it should not. It's a prize fight not a boxing match. Punching your opponent only gets half the job done. You have to hurt him to beat him.

Yeah I think we agree on this actually.

[DeeMoney]

And well it should not. It's a prize fight not a boxing match. Punching your opponent only gets half the job done. You have to hurt him to beat him.

I get what you are writing, but fights are scored round by round, and to be honest in most rounds nobody is clearly hurt. Do we default those type of rounds to 10-10, do we give it to the fighter who delivered the hundred paper cuts? Along those lines, a lot of paper cuts do add up, at some point within a given round, their cumulative damage can be greater than just a big punch or two (and this coming from a guy who tends to favor big punching machines)

[The D3vil]

I know I'll catch a lot of heat for this, be put on ignore by many, and possibly banned, but here it goes.

Pacquiao v Bradley 1 was not the robbery that so many argued it was.

There, I said it, its out there. I accept all the insults and torment coming my way. But here were my thoughts:

I remember watching it live in a bar, and most everyone around me was certain Pac was gonna get a clear decision when the final bell rang. I told people they had to remember its scored round by round, and for many rounds Pac would be silent for most of the time, only throwing a flurry near the end. That Bradley's overall work throughout given rounds could be enough to carry them. Rewatched it several times and still feel the same way.

You know, you're like the 5th person I've heard say this, including Andre Ward & a few other fighters.

I think I'm going to have to watch that fight again, because I was so disgusted after it happened, I just took for granted it was a robbery.

I changed my mind about Leonard/Hagler, y'all might have changed my mind about Bradley/Pacquaio, too.

[billeau2]

I get what you are writing, but fights are scored round by round, and to be honest in most rounds nobody is clearly hurt. Do we default those type of rounds to 10-10, do we give it to the fighter who delivered the hundred paper cuts? Along those lines, a lot of paper cuts do add up, at some point within a given round, their cumulative damage can be greater than just a big punch or two (and this coming from a guy who tends to favor big punching machines)

You have to be more subtle in assessing damage and lose "hurt" as an operative term. Damage can be assessed through watching the effects of the punch. A head snapping back, a physical reaction like a slight buckle, or even the sound of the blow. And yes it's tough but judges should be able to discern a pattern.

Also the point you make about cumulative damage is a good one. A good judge should be able to connect a strategy of using tactics and a successful outcome along the same line. So it's not just a question of somebody is hurt, it's a question of are attacks effective?

And I think this has always been important but it's even more important now as boxing becomes more and more shifted away from the puncher who depends exclusively on more sudden damage then many other boxing strategies.

To me this is what makes professional prize fighting different. Amateur fighters learn how to put things together, use good technique, and do so managing time restraints given the length of an amateur contest. A professional brings those techniques and strategies to a conclusion.