Who do you think won? GGG or Jacobs?

[Alpha]

I had Jabobs ahead but could see a draw. There were about 2 or 3 rounds that were very close and hard to score.

I thought that initially watching it live but not scoring the fight. When I did GGG won a large portion of the early rounds, caused more damage not just the knock down but round 9 he hurt Jacobs and had underrated jab which kept Jacobs honest. 7-5 was my score for GGG

I agreed that Golovkin was landing the harder, cleaner shots but he was getting outworked at times. Jacobs was the ring general a lot of the time. GGG is usually excellent at cutting of the ring but he seemed to struggle with Jacobs' switching stance. Especially whilst in southpaw. Jacobs did land a lot on the gloves and arms but GGG was not really effective with his own aggression.

[Spicoli]

I had Jacobs just edging it on fight night but have not rewatched it yet and not sure when that'll happen. I can see some subconscious leaning being honest to "survival bonus" as I expected Jacobs to melt under the pressure and be pole axed unconscious but if anything he grew stronger down the stretch. I didn't see much plan b or adjustment in Golovkin and he was wearing frustration not able to cut him into a corner and rain down. Either way truth be told but it's obvious that Jacobs wins in the bigger picture. It was a tough honest fight where one was more than we believed and one was not the steamroller superior we expected. Rematch would be good. And again I'll catch a replay.

[Mr140]

Either way i am just glad there some talent coming into the 160 division i have not been happy with since Pavlik was champ but he was a drunk and blew his chance which is shame. Now you got Jacobs, GGG and I fell Canelo might make his way to division as well so it not the waste land it been for past few years. Now i am looking forward to fights which only increases my interest so not really anything bad that came out of the fight.

[X]

I watched the fight in Mexico and I don't speak Spanish well enough to follow the commentary, so I wasn't biased by what I heard.

Inclearly saw that Jacobs wasn't frightened by GGG's reputation. He didn't run from him and was looking to land his own bombs and to be the aggressor whenever possible. He used his height and reach advantages well, and Golovkin had a lot of trouble with his movement and his style. He was successful with a lot of eye catching potshots too.

He was also HUGE compared to Golovkin, so GGG was unable to bully him up close like he does to everyone else. I do agree that science seems to have found a way around the current rules regarding weigh ins. I knew that he was going to come in very heavy once he blew off the WBC weigh in. It's a bit silly when a guy that big can fight as a middleweight.

I thought GGG was terrific. Once I got my head around the size difference, the way he dominated the ring and cut it off was incredible. He walked through a cruiserweight power puncher's best shots and never looked slightly hurt. His jab was underrated and his boxing skills are technically excellent (sidenite about lack of head movement though). His power surprised Jacobs and, of course, he got the knockdown.

I agree the fight was quite close, and GGG didn't look too confident while they read out th scores. However, I didn't think that Jacobs did enough to beat the champion.

The reaction to what I saw as a tight but unanimous points victory for Golovkin reminds me a bit of the Leonard v Hagler fight 30 years ago next week.

Leonards victory was much more seismic than a Jacobs win would have been, but I'm reminded of what Hugh McIllvanney wrote after the fight.

McIlvanney wrote in The Observer newspaper about the Budd Schulberg factor, put forward by the Oscar-winning screenplay genius, whereby those of us in thrall to Leonard were "so amazed to find Sugar Ray capable of much more than they imagined that they persuaded themselves he was doing far more than he actually was.

i wonder if people were doing this with Jacobs?

[Master]

Golovkin-Jacobs evokes Leonard-Hagler memories



The recent world middleweight title fight between Gennady Golovkin and Daniel Jacobs was the latest example of a major showdown ending in controversy over the scoring. But will we still be arguing the toss in three decades' time?

Next week marks the 30th anniversary of 'The Super Fight', when Sugar Ray Leonard outpointed Marvin Hagler at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas to win the WBC middleweight crown that still belongs to Golovkin courtesy of his points win.

The headline in the American magazine Sports Illustrated read "SHOCKER" and in all my time involved in boxing in various guises, no fight of such magnitude has created such debate for so long.

In a classic confrontation between aggressor (Hagler) and counter-puncher (Leonard), front-foot prowler versus back-foot stealer, Leonard was awarded a split decision win in a monumental upset that sent Hagler into retirement in his early 30s.

ck then, big fights in Vegas were staged on Monday nights, with high rollers invited to spend (and spend!) all weekend at the gaming tables before heading to the converted car park on fight night.

Here in the UK, satellite TV had yet to arrive in homes and I watched the contest in the early hours of Tuesday morning on a closed-circuit screening at the Royal Festival Hall on London's South Bank. From my plush and plump-cushioned seat, I made Leonard the winner by eight rounds to four.

But were those of us who sided with Leonard - including two of the ringside judges - guilty of succumbing to what the great sportswriter Hugh McIlvanney labelled the "Illusion of victory"?

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/onesport/cps...80_leonard.jpg

Hagler was making the 13th defence of the world middleweight crown he had wrested from Britain's Alan Minter at Wembley Arena in 1980. Leonard had been absent from the ring for three years and had fought only once in more than five years for various reasons, among them surgery on detached retinas.

Rarely had he boxed above welterweight and yet he was prepared to move up to the middleweight limit, a stone heavier, without a warm-up fight to take on one of the greatest 160-pounders of all time. An act of hubris or lunacy?

McIlvanney wrote in The Observer newspaper about the Budd Schulberg factor, put forward by the Oscar-winning screenplay genius, whereby those of us in thrall to Leonard were "so amazed to find Sugar Ray capable of much more than they imagined that they persuaded themselves he was doing far more than he actually was".

There were many keys to Leonard's success but two factors stand out.

His trainer Angelo Dundee, who was in Muhammad Ali's corner almost from start to finish, wrote in his autobiography 'I only talk winning' that he had noticed how Hagler needed two steps to get into position for his most telling punches. Leonard's quickness of mind and foot was programmed to exploit.

Also, the WBA had stripped Hagler of their version of the world middleweight title when he refused to defend against Britain's Herol Graham. Only the WBC belt was at stake - and the WBC had reduced their championship fights from 15 rounds to 12 in the wake of the tragic death of the South Korean Duk-Koo Kim in a fight against Ray Mancini in 1982.



Over 15 rounds, Hagler might well have proved too strong. Over 12, he seemed to be playing catch-up.

For some, including McIlvanney, the 'Marvelous' one was "cruelly misjudged" anyway. For me, the theory of illusion might have held sway on the night but I have watched the re-run many times and cannot fathom how Hagler could be adjudged the winner.

I was, though, a Leonard fan and so have to accept that my reckoning might be influenced by irrational leanings. Whatever our vantage point, we are bound to favour one style over another, one personality against another, and an unconscious bias is present in most of our verdicts.

The three judges sat on raised perches at ringside will claim that experience instils in them an umbilical attachment to neutrality but even they cannot be rendered immune from such tendencies.

As long as there is boxing, there will be controversy over judging. But how many of the arguments will last for 30 years?

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/onesport/cps...978_degale.jpg

ene Tunney, Rocky Marciano, Carlos Monzon, Lennox Lewis and Vitali Klitschko all quit at the top but each bowed out on a win at world championship level. Joe Calzaghe also departed on a win - and on his own terms.

Hagler somehow stepped away on the back of a defeat, with the temptation to return diluted by his failure to lure Leonard into a rematch. Even so, there were lucrative options he chose not to take up.

James DeGale was honoured this week at a special lunch organised by the Boxing Writers' Club at Little Italy in Soho and in an interview recorded between courses he vowed to emulate those in the minority who had navigated their own exit route.

"I will retire before boxing retires me," he promised.

When I pointed out that they all say that, his response was prefaced with a knowing chuckle: "Elite fighters need protecting from themselves. It's a bug, a disease and once you're hooked, you're hooked."

The late Mickey Duff, respected and despised as much as any manager or promoter, once told me in an interview that "a match well made is a fight half won".

His maxim came to mind in reflecting on a busy spell of boxing on BBC 5 live so far in 2017. We have commentated on world title fights featuring British boxers in New York and Las Vegas, Hull and Manchester - and none of the Britons won.

DeGale drew against Badou Jack, Carl Frampton lost out in his rematch against Leo Santa Cruz, while Gavin McDonnell and Anthony Crolla finished a distant second in the company of Latin brilliance. The results serve as confirmation that, whatever influence and judgment a manager or promoter exerts in securing opportunities for a boxer, standing firm at the top is often harder than the climb to the summit.

Crolla upended the odds to beat first Darleys Perez and then Ismael Barroso in world title fights and home advantage was vital in both successes, delivered by his promoter Eddie Hearn.

Then Crolla bumped into Jorge Linares and discovered a different class. Linares is not only well-travelled but travels well and yet he would not warrant a place in the world's top 10 pound-for-pound rankings, except maybe in a vote among his native Venezuelans.

In that context, how special were Leonard and Hagler?

Mike Costello: Golovkin-Jacobs evokes Leonard-Hagler memories - BBC Sport

[Beanz]

I watched the fight in Mexico and I don't speak Spanish well enough to follow the commentary, so I wasn't biased by what I heard.

Inclearly saw that Jacobs wasn't frightened by GGG's reputation. He didn't run from him and was looking to land his own bombs and to be the aggressor whenever possible. He used his height and reach advantages well, and Golovkin had a lot of trouble with his movement and his style. He was successful with a lot of eye catching potshots too.

He was also HUGE compared to Golovkin, so GGG was unable to bully him up close like he does to everyone else. I do agree that science seems to have found a way around the current rules regarding weigh ins. I knew that he was going to come in very heavy once he blew off the WBC weigh in. It's a bit silly when a guy that big can fight as a middleweight.

I thought GGG was terrific. Once I got my head around the size difference, the way he dominated the ring and cut it off was incredible. He walked through a cruiserweight power puncher's best shots and never looked slightly hurt. His jab was underrated and his boxing skills are technically excellent (sidenite about lack of head movement though). His power surprised Jacobs and, of course, he got the knockdown.

I agree the fight was quite close, and GGG didn't look too confident while they read out th scores. However, I didn't think that Jacobs did enough to beat the champion.

The reaction to what I saw as a tight but unanimous points victory for Golovkin reminds me a bit of the Leonard v Hagler fight 30 years ago next week.

Leonards victory was much more seismic than a Jacobs win would have been, but I'm reminded of what Hugh McIllvanney wrote after the fight.

McIlvanney wrote in The Observer newspaper about the Budd Schulberg factor, put forward by the Oscar-winning screenplay genius, whereby those of us in thrall to Leonard were "so amazed to find Sugar Ray capable of much more than they imagined that they persuaded themselves he was doing far more than he actually was.

i wonder if people were doing this with Jacobs?

McIllvanney has written so brilliantly for so long on Boxing and I think you are right in pointing out how prescient his observations the Leonard - Hagler fight are in reference to GGG - Jacobs. There are a few key differences though, one obvious one being the stature and adoration of Leonard, which while Jacobs is obviously pretty universally admired, it is more for his fight outside of the ring than within it. I am also glad that I am not alone in it actually increasing my admiration for Golovkins durability and boxing ability. The jab that saw him through so many fights as a decorated amateur has always been there, but you got to see it as real benchmark in this one, underlining the quality and accuracy of his boxing thru the fight. Huge heart from both guys and a real throwback in a lot of ways. I am a little surprised though, at how quick people have been off the back of this one, to now suggest that Golovkin would struggle with all kinds of opponents, many whom he would most likely still dismantle (because that is what he does, very methodically before stopping them) , and i can only hope he gets a few legacy fights to prove to them exactly how good he is before he is consigned to the history books.

[Fenster]

Scoring is hugely distorted by what we consider under/over achieving. Week in week out you hear commentators/pundits say "I gave that round to so-and-so, who did a bit better."

Fighters that are defensively minded, that don't take as many risks are invariably viewed as more skilled. When in reality they just throw less punches.

[Master]

I watched the fight in Mexico and I don't speak Spanish well enough to follow the commentary, so I wasn't biased by what I heard.

Inclearly saw that Jacobs wasn't frightened by GGG's reputation. He didn't run from him and was looking to land his own bombs and to be the aggressor whenever possible. He used his height and reach advantages well, and Golovkin had a lot of trouble with his movement and his style. He was successful with a lot of eye catching potshots too.

He was also HUGE compared to Golovkin, so GGG was unable to bully him up close like he does to everyone else. I do agree that science seems to have found a way around the current rules regarding weigh ins. I knew that he was going to come in very heavy once he blew off the WBC weigh in. It's a bit silly when a guy that big can fight as a middleweight.

I thought GGG was terrific. Once I got my head around the size difference, the way he dominated the ring and cut it off was incredible. He walked through a cruiserweight power puncher's best shots and never looked slightly hurt. His jab was underrated and his boxing skills are technically excellent (sidenite about lack of head movement though). His power surprised Jacobs and, of course, he got the knockdown.

I agree the fight was quite close, and GGG didn't look too confident while they read out th scores. However, I didn't think that Jacobs did enough to beat the champion.

The reaction to what I saw as a tight but unanimous points victory for Golovkin reminds me a bit of the Leonard v Hagler fight 30 years ago next week.

Leonards victory was much more seismic than a Jacobs win would have been, but I'm reminded of what Hugh McIllvanney wrote after the fight.

McIlvanney wrote in The Observer newspaper about the Budd Schulberg factor, put forward by the Oscar-winning screenplay genius, whereby those of us in thrall to Leonard were "so amazed to find Sugar Ray capable of much more than they imagined that they persuaded themselves he was doing far more than he actually was.

i wonder if people were doing this with Jacobs?

McIllvanney has written so brilliantly for so long on Boxing and I think you are right in pointing out how prescient his observations the Leonard - Hagler fight are in reference to GGG - Jacobs. There are a few key differences though, one obvious one being the stature and adoration of Leonard, which while Jacobs is obviously pretty universally admired, it is more for his fight outside of the ring than within it. I am also glad that I am not alone in it actually increasing my admiration for Golovkins durability and boxing ability. The jab that saw him through so many fights as a decorated amateur has always been there, but you got to see it as real benchmark in this one, underlining the quality and accuracy of his boxing thru the fight. Huge heart from both guys and a real throwback in a lot of ways. I am a little surprised though, at how quick people have been off the back of this one, to now suggest that Golovkin would struggle with all kinds of opponents, many whom he would most likely still dismantle (because that is what he does, very methodically before stopping them) , and i can only hope he gets a few legacy fights to prove to them exactly how good he is before he is consigned to the history books.

The jab from GGG made sure he won the fight. It not only scored the points per round but kept Jacobs honest enough not to over commit. Huge respect for both fighters.

[johnsebastianmiran]

I watched the fight the day before the rerun was broadcast as I didn't have a chance to have the usual fight discussions on fight night. I was not home. I watched it with no volume because I did not want to hear any BS. I am a fan of both fighters. I thought it was an entertaining fight but KO or no KO GGG hits hard and his skill was underrated by the announcers which I was glad I silenced. Isn't technology wonderful at times. Both men brought out the skill of the other and in sheer quantity GGG was better and he hit harder. Jacobs used all the real estate the ring offered without running and his defense kept him honest. As another said before me Jacobs was an over achiever and he did well but he lost. I will not criticize any of these guys they were in a real fight and things went just like I voted for in several polls. If we can get promoters like Chicken Dela Hoya to shut the hell up one of these guys will beat Canelo soon.