Printable View
...you have to really BEAT a champion! Can anyone else stand this notion? I can not. That is like saying the Heat have to lose 5 games to lose the NBA title because they won it last year. Boxing is scored on a round by round basis. There should be no advantage for the champion on the scorecards. Very annoying and I think only Fairweather fans think like this, at least I hope so.
Agreed. Its ridiculous. Sure the challenger must lift the title from the champion but that should be it. Conveniently these kinds of statements almost become cultural with a definition big enough to park a country in. If Leonard beat Hagler and Shane beat Oscar the second time then clearly Murray beat Martinez.Perhaps if Murray was a household name. Its either a 10 point must system or its not. Effective aggression is not popping shots from the hip and hitting gloves. You also don't get points for having your arms at the side bending over at the waist and taunting.Quote:
Originally Posted by amat
For sure. It's one of those idiotic boxing fallacies that has no grounding in fact.
To beat a champ, you can knock him out or win more rounds than he does. That's the way it is, that's the way it should be.
That's another bad one. Too many people (judges included, apparently) score fights for the aggressor, not the effective aggressor.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuit
On the flip side to become a champion, the person you beat has to be a champion :)
Like Martinez with his lineal thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendettos
One would think that with 34 belts in a 17 division league through the Wba alone and another 30 or so with the Wbc winning would be good enough.
In order to be the man you got to beat the man.
Another phrase eroded over time.
i kind of dont mind it
i really think having a consitent champion is good for the sport, if its changing every 5 minutes the non boxing public dont keep up
im not saying you have to win by miles to beat a champ, i obviously still think it should be judged on a round by round basis in a fair way
but i dont think challengers should be able to nick the title, by say running most of the fight and just poping out the odd punch say, or something like that
But, let's say that you are doing that all round and your opponent can't get off any punches, then you won the round by effective aggression, or by ring generalship. Right?Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerThat's another bad one. Too many people (judges included, apparently) score fights for the aggressor, not the effective aggressor.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuit
Who knows? I have yet to see that happen in a fight. If fighter A is not coming forward and flicking shots and hitting air or gloves and fighter B lands five punches and is stalking he should win the round. But then again Pep won a round supposedly against Graves w/o throwing a punch. Must have been ring generalship.Quote:
Originally Posted by RantcatratBut, let's say that you are doing that all round and your opponent can't get off any punches, then you won the round by effective aggression, or by ring generalship. Right?Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerThat's another bad one. Too many people (judges included, apparently) score fights for the aggressor, not the effective aggressor.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuit
I've never prescibed to it. Its more a catchphrase for blow by blow talking heads though at times it would seem a whispered guidline for judges. With the ever growing disregard and skepticism of trinkets it rings hollow with the majority of fans. You just simply don't get to win rounds before the bell rings, its become a default justification to remain the same while what people are really saying is..."shit ???, I think he just pulled off the win".
I'm a little conflicted with this thread. I have always understood this axiom to mean, you have to take the fight to the champion. No waiting for the champion to make the fight, be aggressive,take the fight to the champ, act like a champion and beat the champ.Quote:
Originally Posted by amat
I never thought it had anything to do with scoring and everything to do with attitude.
Almost.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuitLike Martinez with his lineal thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendettos
One would think that with 34 belts in a 17 division league through the Wba alone and another 30 or so with the Wbc winning would be good enough.
In order to be the man you got to beat the man.
Another phrase eroded over time.
Its "To be the man....first you have got to BEAT the man! Woooooooo!"
-
Ric Flair
:cool:
I've never seen that happen, really, but hypothetically yeah, if a guy throws 50 punches that hit arms and gloves, and the other guy doesn't throw a punch, then I'd give it to the 50 punch guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rantcatrat
i rekon the last pac marquez fight that pac won is a good example of aggression winning the fightQuote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerI've never seen that happen, really, but hypothetically yeah, if a guy throws 50 punches that hit arms and gloves, and the other guy doesn't throw a punch, then I'd give it to the 50 punch guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rantcatrat
pac was pushing the fight all the way whilst marquez was on the back foot all the way
marquez probly landed the best 10 punches of the fight mainly due tho to pac trying to make a fight out of it
i havent seen the punch stats or owt but id say pac out landed marquez even tho at times it was less eye catching
i think pac deserved it
Quote:
Originally Posted by beenKOedI'm a little conflicted with this thread. I have always understood this axiom to mean, you have to take the fight to the champion. No waiting for the champion to make the fight, be aggressive,take the fight to the champ, act like a champion and beat the champ.Quote:
Originally Posted by amat
I never thought it had anything to do with scoring and everything to do with attitude.
So kinda like Murray did?
I disagree, I don't think you should get credit for trying to "make a fight" and I don't think you should get discredited for being on the back foot.Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44
Larry Holmes was on the back foot for 15 rounds against Tex Cobb, who was constantly moving forward and throwing punches, and that was about one of the most one sided fights I ever seen.
If you're coming forward and getting countered cleanly, you're not winning the fight IMO.
obviously theres different situationsQuote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerI disagree, I don't think you should get credit for trying to "make a fight" and I don't think you should get discredited for being on the back foot.Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44
Larry Holmes was on the back foot for 15 rounds against Tex Cobb, who was constantly moving forward and throwing punches, and that was about one of the most one sided fights I ever seen.
If you're coming forward and getting countered cleanly, you're not winning the fight IMO.
i think what i meant by pac marquez is that pac was landing as many if not more punches and making the fight what it was, marquez was countering well
but on that occasion due to that fact that pac was the one pushing it, he deserved it
obviously if youre just comming forward windmilling you dont deserve the credit for it
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuitQuote:
Originally Posted by beenKOedI'm a little conflicted with this thread. I have always understood this axiom to mean, you have to take the fight to the champion. No waiting for the champion to make the fight, be aggressive,take the fight to the champ, act like a champion and beat the champ.Quote:
Originally Posted by amat
I never thought it had anything to do with scoring and everything to do with attitude.
So kinda like Murray did?
Yes. We all know Murray got screwed in that fight, he should have had another KD.
That was a close, exciting fight and I appreciated every minute of it. Murray should have started taking it to the champion two rounds earlier, his only mistake in my opinion.
We are not going to agree about this, it's a difference in interpretation about a nonexistent problem.