The **BOXING** thread (Vol 4)
Discussion
EddieSteadyGo said:
Ah... you are right. That was the wrong expression. That was just my recollection of the fight, when they both looked very limited.
Definitely shows the levels there are in boxing. This guy stopped Babic and that Polish dude Szplika that Wilder and Chisora KOed in 1 round, Okolie's blasting him out in 1 and there's still levels above Okolie Honourable Dead Snark said:
Those scorecards were b
ks to be fair
ks to be fairrobsco said:
Best fight I’ve seen in a while. I had Catterall by a whisker, the scorecards were crazy. Less crazy than the first fight though, which was just appalling.
Nah, there's absolutely nothing wrong with those scorecards. See these types of comments every time there's a fight with a few close rounds and quite wide scorecards, and it's bks - it's not how judging works.There are 3 types of rounds (ignoring knockdowns and extremely dominant rounds with no KD) broadly:
Wide, clear rounds - There's only one winner of the round, and their opponent would have had to have done a lot more to win it
Close, clear rounds - There's only one winner of the round, but if their opponent had done a small amount more, it'd be a swing or their round
Swing rounds - The round is so close that it really depends on how an individual judge weights the 4 scoring criteria - clean punches landed, effective aggression, ring generalship and defence
In this fight, there's probably 2 or 3 wide, clear rounds for Jack, and maybe 1 or 2 for Josh. That leaves us probably 7 or 8 rounds that are in the other 2 categories.
For argument's sake, let's say they're all swing rounds - I really don't think any of them were close but clear for Taylor, I'd argue some were for Catteral but let's assume not.
It feels like a lot of people see all those swing rounds, and get pissed off if they don't get distributed relatively evenly. Like a judge should be tallying them as they go or something and making sure they distribute them fairly.
That's not how it works. Every close round in this fight looked very, very similar as neither fighter really changed up their tactics. That means whoever the judge prefers for the 1st swing round, is likely the man they'll prefer in most of the rest as well. If you preferred volume and front foot aggression, then Taylor would be your man in those rounds. If you favour solid defence, effective counter punching and weight the biggest punch/es landed quite heavily, Jack's your man. Clearly, all 3 judges were in the latter camp.
The Fury vs Usyk cards were much, much worse than this fight. That's an example of a fight with almost no swing rounds. Half the fight is wide and clear to one or another of the fighters, and almost all the rest are close but clear to Usyk. The only swing round in that fight for me was the 4th. 3 of the judges gave Fury at least a couple of rounds he absolutely did not win.
Haven't seen the round-by-round pics of the cards for this, but I'd be surprised if anyone gave a clear Josh round to Jack.
Pugaris said:
Nah, there's absolutely nothing wrong with those scorecards. See these types of comments every time there's a fight with a few close rounds and quite wide scorecards, and it's bks - it's not how judging works.
There are 3 types of rounds (ignoring knockdowns and extremely dominant rounds with no KD) broadly:
Wide, clear rounds - There's only one winner of the round, and their opponent would have had to have done a lot more to win it
Close, clear rounds - There's only one winner of the round, but if their opponent had done a small amount more, it'd be a swing or their round
Swing rounds - The round is so close that it really depends on how an individual judge weights the 4 scoring criteria - clean punches landed, effective aggression, ring generalship and defence
In this fight, there's probably 2 or 3 wide, clear rounds for Jack, and maybe 1 or 2 for Josh. That leaves us probably 7 or 8 rounds that are in the other 2 categories.
For argument's sake, let's say they're all swing rounds - I really don't think any of them were close but clear for Taylor, I'd argue some were for Catteral but let's assume not.
It feels like a lot of people see all those swing rounds, and get pissed off if they don't get distributed relatively evenly. Like a judge should be tallying them as they go or something and making sure they distribute them fairly.
That's not how it works. Every close round in this fight looked very, very similar as neither fighter really changed up their tactics. That means whoever the judge prefers for the 1st swing round, is likely the man they'll prefer in most of the rest as well. If you preferred volume and front foot aggression, then Taylor would be your man in those rounds. If you favour solid defence, effective counter punching and weight the biggest punch/es landed quite heavily, Jack's your man. Clearly, all 3 judges were in the latter camp.
The Fury vs Usyk cards were much, much worse than this fight. That's an example of a fight with almost no swing rounds. Half the fight is wide and clear to one or another of the fighters, and almost all the rest are close but clear to Usyk. The only swing round in that fight for me was the 4th. 3 of the judges gave Fury at least a couple of rounds he absolutely did not win.
Haven't seen the round-by-round pics of the cards for this, but I'd be surprised if anyone gave a clear Josh round to Jack.
Thanks for the explanation, but it appears it’s not just two nerds on a PistonHeads forum who think that. All of the pundits and experts did too; are they also all wrong? ks - it's not how judging works.There are 3 types of rounds (ignoring knockdowns and extremely dominant rounds with no KD) broadly:
Wide, clear rounds - There's only one winner of the round, and their opponent would have had to have done a lot more to win it
Close, clear rounds - There's only one winner of the round, but if their opponent had done a small amount more, it'd be a swing or their round
Swing rounds - The round is so close that it really depends on how an individual judge weights the 4 scoring criteria - clean punches landed, effective aggression, ring generalship and defence
In this fight, there's probably 2 or 3 wide, clear rounds for Jack, and maybe 1 or 2 for Josh. That leaves us probably 7 or 8 rounds that are in the other 2 categories.
For argument's sake, let's say they're all swing rounds - I really don't think any of them were close but clear for Taylor, I'd argue some were for Catteral but let's assume not.
It feels like a lot of people see all those swing rounds, and get pissed off if they don't get distributed relatively evenly. Like a judge should be tallying them as they go or something and making sure they distribute them fairly.
That's not how it works. Every close round in this fight looked very, very similar as neither fighter really changed up their tactics. That means whoever the judge prefers for the 1st swing round, is likely the man they'll prefer in most of the rest as well. If you preferred volume and front foot aggression, then Taylor would be your man in those rounds. If you favour solid defence, effective counter punching and weight the biggest punch/es landed quite heavily, Jack's your man. Clearly, all 3 judges were in the latter camp.
The Fury vs Usyk cards were much, much worse than this fight. That's an example of a fight with almost no swing rounds. Half the fight is wide and clear to one or another of the fighters, and almost all the rest are close but clear to Usyk. The only swing round in that fight for me was the 4th. 3 of the judges gave Fury at least a couple of rounds he absolutely did not win.
Haven't seen the round-by-round pics of the cards for this, but I'd be surprised if anyone gave a clear Josh round to Jack.
Tickle said:
Great fight, Catterall absolutely deserved that.
Taylors reaction at the card results, he seemed confident that he'd won!
I hope he kept the receipt this time. Well deserved for Catterall there was no doubt on that decision. Taylor is a horrible human being and I hope Catterall goes on to get some big opportunities off the back of it. Taylors reaction at the card results, he seemed confident that he'd won!
fridaypassion said:
I hope he kept the receipt this time. Well deserved for Catterall there was no doubt on that decision. Taylor is a horrible human being and I hope Catterall goes on to get some big opportunities off the back of it.
Sportsmanship seemed to be lacking at the final bell, they both put a lot in, Taylor could have acknowledged the decision especially since the first fights result was so bent.Anyway, some big money fights at LWW for Catterall, hope he gets a few good paydays. Deserved.
Personally I'm not that interested in watching another rematch. I felt Taylor looked a shadow of the fighter he once was. No doubt he is still an aggressive warrior, but his reflexes don't look as good, which affects both his shot selection and his defensive skills. He seems more content with now being a pressure fighter, but against a cagey opponent like Catterall that isn't enough to find good openings.
I think he should retire, as he is done at the highest levels.
I think he should retire, as he is done at the highest levels.
robsco said:
Pugaris said:
Nah, there's absolutely nothing wrong with those scorecards. See these types of comments every time there's a fight with a few close rounds and quite wide scorecards, and it's bks - it's not how judging works.
There are 3 types of rounds (ignoring knockdowns and extremely dominant rounds with no KD) broadly:
Wide, clear rounds - There's only one winner of the round, and their opponent would have had to have done a lot more to win it
Close, clear rounds - There's only one winner of the round, but if their opponent had done a small amount more, it'd be a swing or their round
Swing rounds - The round is so close that it really depends on how an individual judge weights the 4 scoring criteria - clean punches landed, effective aggression, ring generalship and defence
In this fight, there's probably 2 or 3 wide, clear rounds for Jack, and maybe 1 or 2 for Josh. That leaves us probably 7 or 8 rounds that are in the other 2 categories.
For argument's sake, let's say they're all swing rounds - I really don't think any of them were close but clear for Taylor, I'd argue some were for Catteral but let's assume not.
It feels like a lot of people see all those swing rounds, and get pissed off if they don't get distributed relatively evenly. Like a judge should be tallying them as they go or something and making sure they distribute them fairly.
That's not how it works. Every close round in this fight looked very, very similar as neither fighter really changed up their tactics. That means whoever the judge prefers for the 1st swing round, is likely the man they'll prefer in most of the rest as well. If you preferred volume and front foot aggression, then Taylor would be your man in those rounds. If you favour solid defence, effective counter punching and weight the biggest punch/es landed quite heavily, Jack's your man. Clearly, all 3 judges were in the latter camp.
The Fury vs Usyk cards were much, much worse than this fight. That's an example of a fight with almost no swing rounds. Half the fight is wide and clear to one or another of the fighters, and almost all the rest are close but clear to Usyk. The only swing round in that fight for me was the 4th. 3 of the judges gave Fury at least a couple of rounds he absolutely did not win.
Haven't seen the round-by-round pics of the cards for this, but I'd be surprised if anyone gave a clear Josh round to Jack.
Thanks for the explanation, but it appears it’s not just two nerds on a PistonHeads forum who think that. All of the pundits and experts did too; are they also all wrong? ks - it's not how judging works.There are 3 types of rounds (ignoring knockdowns and extremely dominant rounds with no KD) broadly:
Wide, clear rounds - There's only one winner of the round, and their opponent would have had to have done a lot more to win it
Close, clear rounds - There's only one winner of the round, but if their opponent had done a small amount more, it'd be a swing or their round
Swing rounds - The round is so close that it really depends on how an individual judge weights the 4 scoring criteria - clean punches landed, effective aggression, ring generalship and defence
In this fight, there's probably 2 or 3 wide, clear rounds for Jack, and maybe 1 or 2 for Josh. That leaves us probably 7 or 8 rounds that are in the other 2 categories.
For argument's sake, let's say they're all swing rounds - I really don't think any of them were close but clear for Taylor, I'd argue some were for Catteral but let's assume not.
It feels like a lot of people see all those swing rounds, and get pissed off if they don't get distributed relatively evenly. Like a judge should be tallying them as they go or something and making sure they distribute them fairly.
That's not how it works. Every close round in this fight looked very, very similar as neither fighter really changed up their tactics. That means whoever the judge prefers for the 1st swing round, is likely the man they'll prefer in most of the rest as well. If you preferred volume and front foot aggression, then Taylor would be your man in those rounds. If you favour solid defence, effective counter punching and weight the biggest punch/es landed quite heavily, Jack's your man. Clearly, all 3 judges were in the latter camp.
The Fury vs Usyk cards were much, much worse than this fight. That's an example of a fight with almost no swing rounds. Half the fight is wide and clear to one or another of the fighters, and almost all the rest are close but clear to Usyk. The only swing round in that fight for me was the 4th. 3 of the judges gave Fury at least a couple of rounds he absolutely did not win.
Haven't seen the round-by-round pics of the cards for this, but I'd be surprised if anyone gave a clear Josh round to Jack.
Boxers or pundits? Big difference.
EddieSteadyGo said:
Personally I'm not that interested in watching another rematch. I felt Taylor looked a shadow of the fighter he once was. No doubt he is still an aggressive warrior, but his reflexes don't look as good, which affects both his shot selection and his defensive skills. He seems more content with now being a pressure fighter, but against a cagey opponent like Catterall that isn't enough to find good openings.
I think he should retire, as he is done at the highest levels.
Completely agree.I think he should retire, as he is done at the highest levels.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff