Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Activity vs. Accuracy.
FightHype Community > BOXING HYPE > Boxing
HazConvictedFelonMane
What's up folks? It's been a while since I've created a topic but I have an interesting one here. We are all boxing fans here so I wanted to get everyone's opinion on this matter. In boxing I've heard that judges are more likely to score what you throw more than what you land. I don't agree with this and if this is the case, then I feel that we have identified a major factor in why boxing gets such a bad rap for decisions. Boxing is my favorite sport of them ask. There are members of my family who are active fighters, retired fighters, and active judges so when boxing gets gets bad press, I take it personal.

De La Hoya-Mayweather was a SD fight. Oscar did business in the fight but the numbers after round 10 read like this: DLH 7 of 62 for 11%...FMJ 20 of 44 for 45%. I don't know exactly how the judges scouted that round but the aggression displayed by DLH could've had him win that round on the cards even though he landed very few punches. I just used this particular fight as an example but how do you guys feel about this within the sport? There have been a few bad decisions in boxing recently so I just wanted to address this. Thanks.
mgrover
accuracy ftw, I mean if i think both fighters landed equally its who had the better defense, who was getting out of harms way etc etc.
Cheesey1
QUOTE (HazConvictedFelonMane @ Aug 19 2012, 10:20 AM) *
What's up folks? It's been a while since I've created a topic but I have an interesting one here. We are all boxing fans here so I wanted to get everyone's opinion on this matter. In boxing I've heard that judges are more likely to score what you throw more than what you land. I don't agree with this and if this is the case, then I feel that we have identified a major factor in why boxing gets such a bad rap for decisions. Boxing is my favorite sport of them ask. There are members of my family who are active fighters, retired fighters, and active judges so when boxing gets gets bad press, I take it personal.

De La Hoya-Mayweather was a SD fight. Oscar did business in the fight but the numbers after round 10 read like this: DLH 7 of 62 for 11%...FMJ 20 of 44 for 45%. I don't know exactly how the judges scouted that round but the aggression displayed by DLH could've had him win that round on the cards even though he landed very few punches. I just used this particular fight as an example but how do you guys feel about this within the sport? There have been a few bad decisions in boxing recently so I just wanted to address this. Thanks.

You beat me to the punch (pun intended). I was going to write about this general difference in boxing styles i.e. ring technician vs. pressure fighter, but now I've got to think of something else (thanks man..).

To be serious though, for me the ideal boxing style is a combination of something like 70% accuracy and 30% activity (maybe 60/40). Obviously it matters who you're fighting as that mix can definitely change depending on the style that you're facing. It could even go up to 80% accuracy.
Cheesey1
QUOTE (mgrover @ Aug 19 2012, 10:45 AM) *
accuracy ftw, I mean if i think both fighters landed equally its who had the better defense, who was getting out of harms way etc etc.

Agreed.
daprofessor
depending on the who the judges are....sometimes the judges are too blind to see the single shots landing cleanly so u have to throw in combination to score.


l
mrchitown
It all depends but I would favor accuracy. Some fighters throw 100's of punches around and don't even get lose to landing all the while leaving themselves to get countered time and time again. Accuracy is very important, the amount of timing, focus, and precision it takes is what trumps activity in my opinion
HazConvictedFelonMane
If a fighter is using his wheels while the other guy presses forward does the other guy win the round if he threw more punches but landed less than the fighter who's moving. The fighter who's moving lands at a higher percentage while picking his shots, loses a round or a whole fight just because his opponent was more active??? I'm just wondering because the last 2 Pacquiao fights have had the kind of scoring that can cause someone to question what the judges are looking for and wondering who really won a fight. I don't think Bradley won but he did some business. I don't think Marquez won but he did some business as well. Last November Pacquiao won because Marquez tried to outbox and be judicious with his ounch output while Manny attempted to make a fight of it. In June Bradley was trying to outbox Pacquiao but Pacquiao landed the crisper shots. I just don't understand what the fuck is going on. A decision that Mr. Pacquiao had go his way was disputed and a decision that went against Pacquiao was disputed as well. I don't dispute the Marquez decision because I didn't think that Marquez did enough to take the title but I dispute the Bradley decision.
HazConvictedFelonMane
QUOTE (mrchitown @ Aug 19 2012, 08:54 PM) *
It all depends but I would favor accuracy. Some fighters throw 100's of punches around and don't even get lose to landing all the while leaving themselves to get countered time and time again. Accuracy is very important, the amount of timing, focus, and precision it takes is what trumps activity in my opinion


Nice. I can dig that and I have to agree.
mgrover
i just dont understand how judges can score a fight for someone who just threw more punches and was more aggressive even if they didnt land, the fucks the point in the sport then?
Cheesey1
QUOTE (mgrover @ Aug 20 2012, 11:19 AM) *
i just dont understand how judges can score a fight for someone who just threw more punches and was more aggressive even if they didnt land, the fucks the point in the sport then?

If I had any say, it'd be mandatory for all judges to be former professional boxers.
Franchize
Is Khan vs Mayweather on deck or something? lol
neophyte7
If accuracy was the litmus test no way in hell calzaghe would have beat Hopkins.. I JUST got done watching Cal miss about 7 girl flurries followed by sharp right hand counters from Hopkins that were plain as day.... LMAO... activity should not mean shit if you aint landing..
mrchitown
QUOTE (neophyte7 @ Aug 23 2012, 11:25 AM) *
If accuracy was the litmus test no way in hell calzaghe would have beat Hopkins.. I JUST got done watching Cal miss about 7 girl flurries followed by sharp right hand counters from Hopkins that were plain as day.... LMAO... activity should not mean shit if you aint landing..


I don't think Calzaghe beat B hop. The first 6 rounds were Bernard's easy and you include the knockdown, that gives him a 10-8 rd in the 1st. I gave the last 6 to Calzaghe though. And that comes to a score of 115-113 for Hopkins. But that's old news lol.

I've never heard anyone say Calzaghe is an accurate puncher, I'd laugh my head off. The only way he won his fights were off those 6th grade flurries he threw. But you give me a fighter who is well schooled in boxing and knows the advantages of accuracy vs activity, I'll take that accurate fighter all day
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.