What people with low boxing iqs say....

[Boxer4life]

and tends to piss me off


That a guy won the fight just because he did better then expected, that being the only factor, they don't consider who was the aggressor, who landed cleaner punches, him staying on his feet and fighting back tends to be enough

Or "he won,just look at his face, and look at the others guys face"....different people have different facial structure, and sure the other guy might hit harder, doesnt mean he won.

and i like this one " he deserved to win" wtf does that even mean? he should get a gift decision because he had a hard life and you dont like the other guy?

Now in no way am i talking about last nights fight, i think lamont wins with the 2 point deductions(fair or not they happened). I do think there should be some kinda rule against taking points in the 12tTH ROUND!! either way i wouldn't complain whichever way the fight went both guys showed me something i liked and didnt like but thats beyond the point.


You guys get anything else you hate to hear casual fans say?

[Oggie]

I do think there should be some kinda rule against taking points in the 12tTH ROUND!!?

I think you need to go into more detail with that, you make it seem like it should be an anything goes street fight in the last round.

The most retarded thing to me is when people say; "You have to take the title from the champion (with aggression) to win the fight."

[Boxer4life]

I do think there should be some kinda rule against taking points in the 12tTH ROUND!!?

I think you need to go into more detail with that, you make it seem like it should be an anything goes street fight in the last round.

The most retarded thing to me is when people say; "You have to take the title from the champion (with aggression) to win the fight."

this is another ridiculous one, where did come from, and haha i see what you mean but no, i mean the ref should'nt be so quick to do it, you know scare the guy up a bit, tell him you will dq him or something but dont take a point, especially not in SUCH a close fight

[captainanddew]

it is rather rare for there to be a points deduction in the final round of a fight unless the action is relatively heinous.

[Manos de Piedra]

Like mentioned above beating the champion is one I don't like because it sort of implies that close rounds should go to the champion just because he's champion.

[NuthaPug]

I dunno, I have a low boxing IQ and I don't say any of this stuff.

[Beanflicker]

A funny one I've heard a few times was, in the event that a fight is VERY close but one guy wins by a wide UD, "I agree that (Fighter A) won, but I think it should have been a split decision".

What? You think that one judge should have put in an erroneous score card?

I know split decisions are synonymous with "close fights", but that one always makes me scratch my head.

[TitoFan]

I do think there should be some kinda rule against taking points in the 12tTH ROUND!!?

I think you need to go into more detail with that, you make it seem like it should be an anything goes street fight in the last round.

The most retarded thing to me is when people say; "You have to take the title from the champion (with aggression) to win the fight."

Technically though, if a fight ends in a DRAW, the title remains with the defending champion. So the basic implication here is that the challenger has to at least win by split decision, in order to take the title away. It doesn't mean he has to be reckless, or that he has to win unanimously. It just means he has to win.... period. In the last round or rounds of a close fight, a challenger should do everything in his power to make sure the fight is not perceived as a draw.

[Beanflicker]

Another thing I hate is, when talking about fantasy or potential matchups, people bring up irrelevant shit to justify their opinion, such as Fighter A beat Fighter B, Fighter B beat Fighter C, so Fighter A will surely beat Fighter C or how many times a fighter fought (when discussing old fighters vs current fighters, guys will pick old fighters because they fought more).

[Beanflicker]

Speaking of old fighters, I hate when people nuthug the old time fighters and say dumb shit like "Well everyone was tougher back then". Bullshit. There were tough guys and pussies back then, and there are tough guys and pussies back now.

[ElTerribleMorales]

I do think there should be some kinda rule against taking points in the 12tTH ROUND!!?

I think you need to go into more detail with that, you make it seem like it should be an anything goes street fight in the last round.

The most retarded thing to me is when people say; "You have to take the title from the champion (with aggression) to win the fight."

Technically though, if a fight ends in a DRAW, the title remains with the defending champion. So the basic implication here is that the challenger has to at least win by split decision, in order to take the title away. It doesn't mean he has to be reckless, or that he has to win unanimously. It just means he has to win.... period. In the last round or rounds of a close fight, a challenger should do everything in his power to make sure the fight is not perceived as a draw.

well but as we saw first hand a bunch of the Pacquiao fans were crying how all close rounds in a close fight should go to the champion basically by default, IMO it should be viewed as any other fight without a biased view the only difference is it's 12 rounds instead of 10, the titleholder shouldn't get the advantage of getting the edge in close rounds just cause he owns a strap

[TitoFan]

I do think there should be some kinda rule against taking points in the 12tTH ROUND!!?

I think you need to go into more detail with that, you make it seem like it should be an anything goes street fight in the last round.

The most retarded thing to me is when people say; "You have to take the title from the champion (with aggression) to win the fight."

Technically though, if a fight ends in a DRAW, the title remains with the defending champion. So the basic implication here is that the challenger has to at least win by split decision, in order to take the title away. It doesn't mean he has to be reckless, or that he has to win unanimously. It just means he has to win.... period. In the last round or rounds of a close fight, a challenger should do everything in his power to make sure the fight is not perceived as a draw.

well but as we saw first hand a bunch of the Pacquiao fans were crying how all close rounds in a close fight should go to the champion basically by default, IMO it should be viewed as any other fight without a biased view the only difference is it's 12 rounds instead of 10, the titleholder shouldn't get the advantage of getting the edge in close rounds just cause he owns a strap

Anybody that actually thinks this way is basically clueless. And yeah.... rounds are rounds and should be judged without thinking about who's the champion and who's the challenger. But speaking about the fight as a whole, I do think the challenger has a little bit of an extra burden to take the title from a defending champion..... for the reasons I posted above. Because a champion can retain his title with a draw. A challenger has to WIN to take the title.

[Boxer4life]

Speaking of old fighters, I hate when people nuthug the old time fighters and say dumb shit like "Well everyone was tougher back then". Bullshit. There were tough guys and pussies back then, and there are tough guys and pussies back now.

This is true, for some reason all the old legends ALWAYS win, there is this mystical aura around them that makes them unbeatable..buncha bs if u ask me

[fairyrak]

for me people with high boxing iq are the top predictors or fight pickers in the world and they might bet a lot

[El Kabong]

He never fought anybody

A beat B so automatically A beats C

___________was invincible in his prime

If _______ got back with his original trainer he'd win again