What was your scorecard?

[ClydeB]

[That wasn't my point, BK. No need to be patronising.

He said that Taylor won the battle of the jabs at times. The punch stats prove otherwise.

Punch stats don't prove who won the fight, but they demonstrate who was more effective in what way.

The punch stats are opinion of someone/people counting punches.

Taylor was the busier fighter.

Wright as always was cute, and made Taylor miss tonnes (literally) of punches.

And this fight was scored over 12 rounds, not one. Wright won his rounds cleaner on my card, but Taylor won just as many IMO, so I can understand the frustrations of the Winky fans, but hey that is 10 point must, and as I stated, I can see a 7/5 fight to either man, but I would struggle to comprehend any bigger advantage... to either fighter.

And, pray tell, where did I say the fight was scored over one round?

Over 12 rounds, I had Winky winning it, along with, it appears, the majority of viewers. The punch stats, while hardly conclusive, go some way to demonstrating how much more efficient Winky was. That, of course, is not even taking into account his superior defence, his aggression and controlling the pace of the fight.

[ClydeB]

I had it a draw, and if Taylor didn't coast the last few rounds he would of won handily imo, easily the more active fighter and his punches had alot more snap than Winky's, basically alot more power.
He was also in better condition, he still looked fresh while Winky was really feeling the presure...he was tired.
What was your scorecard and why?

Winky landed more, threw less, showed better defence, controlled the pace, forced the fight.

On what planet did Taylor win that fight?

Had Winky not pressed the action we would have had another Hopkins-Taylor stand-off.

You can hardly criticise Taylor for fighting a cautious fight, he was throwing punches furiously all night, keeping his hands low the whole time. If anything I thought he was a little reckless at times and I was half expecting to burn himself out. But in no way shape or form was he remotely like the Taylor that fought Hopkins.

No one is criticising him for being cautious and no one is saying that it was the Taylor who fought Hopkins.

What I'm saying is that Winky should have been given credit for being the aggressor. Also, IF Winky hadn't forced the fight, we would have had another stand-off ala Hopkins-Taylor. There is no way that Taylor would have pressed the action and initiated exchanges like Winky did. Had Winky stood off, Taylor would have too. That's just how he fights.

[SimonH]

And, pray tell, where did I say the fight was scored over one round?

Over 12 rounds, I had Winky winning it, along with, it appears, the majority of viewers. The punch stats, while hardly conclusive, go some way to demonstrating how much more efficient Winky was. That, of course, is not even taking into account his superior defence, his aggression and controlling the pace of the fight.

The punch stats can be interpreted in different ways...

It shows Taylor was busier

Wright without doubt was the better defensive fighter, but Taylor was more aggressive, and IMO he controlled the pace of the fight, with Wright fighting in spurts.

Taylor was the better ring general, seemingly instinctively knowing how to impress the judges, whilst Wright was the better boxer, using his experience to keep the younger fighter in check.

And on top of this, to generalize, American judges (in particular Vegas Judges) tend to reward effective aggressiveness, and Chuck Giampa is a Vegas judge. So from that point of view it can argued Taylor fought a smart fight as well.

[ClydeB]

And, pray tell, where did I say the fight was scored over one round?

Over 12 rounds, I had Winky winning it, along with, it appears, the majority of viewers. The punch stats, while hardly conclusive, go some way to demonstrating how much more efficient Winky was. That, of course, is not even taking into account his superior defence, his aggression and controlling the pace of the fight.

The punch stats can be interpreted in different ways...

It shows Taylor was busier

Wright without doubt was the better defensive fighter, but Taylor was more aggressive, and IMO he controlled the pace of the fight, with Wright fighting in spurts.

Taylor was the better ring general, seemingly instinctively knowing how to impress the judges, whilst Wright was the better boxer, using his experience to keep the younger fighter in check.

And on top of this, to generalize, American judges (in particular Vegas Judges) tend to reward effective aggressiveness, and Chuck Giampa is a Vegas judge. So from that point of view it can argued Taylor fought a smart fight as well.

As far as aggression goes, it's not even down to opinion. Wright forced the fight from the first bell, beyond dispute. To even suggest that Taylor forced the fight is as mind-boggling as your Holyfield-Lewis 1 scorecard

Also, activity means nothing if you don't land. Economy is more important. Punches landed mean more than punches thrown and missed.

[SimonH]

As far as aggression goes, it's not even down to opinion. Wright forced the fight from the first bell, beyond dispute. To even suggest that Taylor forced the fight is as mind-boggling as your Holyfield-Lewis 1 scorecard

Also, activity means nothing if you don't land. Economy is more important. Punches landed mean more than punches thrown and missed.

I would strongly disagree with you over the the first sentence of the last paragraph. Boxing in America is generally judged on activity over economy. And although I agree with the last sentence, a judge is only human, and unlike us, do not have the benefit of replays. So Taylor throwing maybe a 100 more punches than Wright, probably has swung it to the draw, over Wright landing more, but throwing less.

[ClydeB]

As far as aggression goes, it's not even down to opinion. Wright forced the fight from the first bell, beyond dispute. To even suggest that Taylor forced the fight is as mind-boggling as your Holyfield-Lewis 1 scorecard

Also, activity means nothing if you don't land. Economy is more important. Punches landed mean more than punches thrown and missed.

I would strongly disagree with you over the the first sentence of the last paragraph. Boxing in America is generally judged on activity over economy. And although I agree with the last sentence, a judge is only human, and unlike us, do not have the benefit of replays. So Taylor throwing maybe a 100 more punches than Wright, probably has swung it to the draw, over Wright landing more, but throwing less.

Oh, you disagree with the first sentence?

Then by reason you must have had Sam Soliman beating Winky quite handily.

Basically, you can throw punches all night and barely land and the activity means more than the fighter who lands more and throws less? Think you'll find it hard to justify that one.

[SimonH]

Oh, you disagree with the first sentence?

Then by reason you must have had Sam Soliman beating Winky quite handily.

Basically, you can throw punches all night and barely land and the activity means more than the fighter who lands more and throws less? Think you'll find it hard to justify that one.

I do disagree with the first part, as I feel American judges generally prefer an active fighter over a fight who uses economy.

But the reason I had Winky beating Soliman, is because like I stated, I agree with your second sentence, the fighter who lands more punches should (with the odd exception) win the round on 10 point must, that is the first rule of judging.

But that said, it is not the only rule in pro boxing, there are other intangibles that a judge may choose award, like effective aggressiveness

[ClydeB]

Oh, you disagree with the first sentence?

Then by reason you must have had Sam Soliman beating Winky quite handily.

Basically, you can throw punches all night and barely land and the activity means more than the fighter who lands more and throws less? Think you'll find it hard to justify that one.

I do disagree with the first part, as I feel American judges generally prefer an active fighter over a fight who uses economy.

But the reason I had Winky beating Soliman, is because like I stated, I agree with your second sentence, the fighter who lands more punches should (with the odd exception) win the round on 10 point must, that is the first rule of judging.

But that said, it is not the only rule in pro boxing, there other intangibles that a judge may choose award, like effective aggressiveness

Activity does not matter if you don't land. How can you dispute that? Boxing is about landing punches. Throwing and not landing does not score. Generalising American judges' style of scoring is really not a viable argument.

As far as offence goes, economy, punches landed, call it what you will, is more important than activity, irrefutably. If it wasn't, you could just flail away all night and, apparently, win fights.

[SimonH]

Activity does not matter if you don't land. How can you dispute that? Boxing is about landing punches. Throwing and not landing does not score. Generalising American judges' style of scoring is really not a viable argument.

As far as offence goes, economy, punches landed, call it what you will, is more important than activity, irrefutably. If it wasn't, you could just flail away all night and, apparently, win fights.

Pro boxing judging is not as simple as counting punches landed with the correct part of the glove, there are intangibles that need to be recognised.

How would score a round, that fighter (A), outlanding fighter (B), 25 punches to 15, only for fighter (B) to knockdown fighter (A) at the end of the round with his 16th landed punch?

I think you are suggesting; 9/9; but we all know it is going to be scored 10/8...

And generally the same would go if Fighter (A) threw 45 punches, landing 18, whilst fighter (B) threw a 100 punches, landing 15, the American judges generally would be attracted to fighter (B).

We can argue weather that is fair or not, and probably would agree, but I am guessing you are not a pro judge, neither am I, so it is not really going to matter, what we think, we are probably not going to change anything. So we have to deal with reality over idealogy, IMO

[ClydeB]

Activity does not matter if you don't land. How can you dispute that? Boxing is about landing punches. Throwing and not landing does not score. Generalising American judges' style of scoring is really not a viable argument.

As far as offence goes, economy, punches landed, call it what you will, is more important than activity, irrefutably. If it wasn't, you could just flail away all night and, apparently, win fights.

Pro boxing judging is not as simple as counting punches landed with the correct part of the glove, there are intangibles that need to be recognised.

How would score a round, that fighter (A), outlanding fighter (B), 25 punches to 15, only for fighter (B) to knockdown fighter (A) at the end of the round with his 16th landed punch?

I think you are suggesting; 9/9; but we all know it is going to be scored 10/8...

And generally the same would go if Fighter (A) threw 45 punches, landing 18, whilst fighter (B) threw a 100 punches, landing 15, the American judges generally would be attracted to fighter (B).

We can argue weather that is fair or not, and probably would agree, but I am guessing you are not a pro judge, neither am I, so it is not really going to matter, what we think, we are probably not going to change anything. So we have to deal with reality over idealogy, IMO

We're not arguing about that here, BK. I know the variables.

We're discussing activity vs economy.

[SimonH]

We're not arguing about that here, BK. I know the variables.

We're discussing activity vs economy.

Hence the Fighter (A) threw 45 punches, landing 18, whilst fighter (B) threw a 100 punches, landing 15, the American judges generally would be attracted to fighter (B).

[VictorCharlie]

I'm pretty sure the wording that judges use is which fighter was more "effective" in the round. I think we can all agree that you don't have to land more punches to be the more effective fighter. I thought Taylor's punches were simply causing more damage than Winky's so to me it didn't matter that winky landed more. I'll be honest I was suprised when I saw the compubox numbers. It didn't seem like Winky outlanded him. The fight was hard to judge. It was very hard to see just how many of Jermain's punches actually landed. Regardless of whether or not his punches got through Winky's guard they stopped his momentum, made him cover up and backed him up. Now maybe not all of the punches got through but I'd say they were effective. Winky has to out land his opponents b/c his punch doesn't scare anybody. I gave Taylor 7 rounds quite often b/c I thought the punches he did land were more effective and meanigful.

[albsur2006]

I had

5 rounds to Taylor

and

7 to Winky

Taylor hit gloves all night execpt about 5 shots

That doesn't make any sense. If Taylor was hitting gloves all night, how the hell did you score the fight so close? Yall are complaining but yall's scorecards are 115-113. There were some rounds that were tossups, so how can people complain about a draw when most people had Taylor down by only one round in a very close fight.

[LarryB]

I had it a draw, and if Taylor didn't coast the last few rounds he would of won handily imo, easily the more active fighter and his punches had alot more snap than Winky's, basically alot more power.
He was also in better condition, he still looked fresh while Winky was really feeling the presure...he was tired.
What was your scorecard and why?

I thought the exact same,
Winky didnt do enough to take the belts

[ClydeB]

I had it a draw, and if Taylor didn't coast the last few rounds he would of won handily imo, easily the more active fighter and his punches had alot more snap than Winky's, basically alot more power.
He was also in better condition, he still looked fresh while Winky was really feeling the presure...he was tired.
What was your scorecard and why?

I thought the exact same,
Winky didnt do enough to take the belts

Didn't do enough? You mean you thought Taylor won or you thought it was a draw?

I hope you're not another one who believes you have to put a champion in the grave to win the belt.

Winning equates to enough to win the title, by 1 point or 10 points, a win is enough.