The **BOXING** thread (Vol 4)
Discussion
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.
Very true.I think he should retire, as he is done at the highest levels.
The Taylor of 5 years ago would not be taking as nearly as many shots.
Catterall is a problem for anyone though as he is just so unorthodox. That jab is unrelentingly accurate and if you get past that then his left thunders in to take its place, get past that and he will shoulder barge you back to where you started - not pretty, but pretty effective.
Josh had the right tactics but just couldn’t execute the plan well enough.
Tickle said:
Great fight, Catterall absolutely deserved that.
Taylors reaction at the card results, he seemed confident that he'd won!
I thought the opposite on Taylor's reaction, as soon as he heard two 117-111 cards he starts shaking his head and looking pissed off, that suggests he knows he lost the fight, but wasn't expecting it to be wide to me Taylors reaction at the card results, he seemed confident that he'd won!
Pugaris said:
Tickle said:
Great fight, Catterall absolutely deserved that.
Taylors reaction at the card results, he seemed confident that he'd won!
I thought the opposite on Taylor's reaction, as soon as he heard two 117-111 cards he starts shaking his head and looking pissed off, that suggests he knows he lost the fight, but wasn't expecting it to be wide to me Taylors reaction at the card results, he seemed confident that he'd won!
k off' when he did it. (*words to that effect)Frozen at the F...
robsco said:
Some are boxers AND pundits. Have a look for yourself, it’s clear the majority had scored it much closer than the scorecards.
See the later reply.They're watching it and commentating on it. That's not scoring. When they hear the score card they give their impression of the extent to which the cards matched their perceptions. We do the same. I didn't think the margin was as wide, just as didn't think Fury should have been judged a winner by one judge but I still had Caterall and Usyk as the winners.
Unreal said:
See the later reply.
They're watching it and commentating on it. That's not scoring. When they hear the score card they give their impression of the extent to which the cards matched their perceptions. We do the same. I didn't think the margin was as wide, just as didn't think Fury should have been judged a winner by one judge but I still had Caterall and Usyk as the winners.
Yet you’ve actually just typed, verbatim, that you had Catterall as the winner but didn’t think the margin was as wide. Which is exactly what my original post said. I never claimed to be an official scorer; indeed there are three people in the world who officially scored last night’s fight, which renders every other person’s opinion as irrelevant based on yours and Pugaris’ argument. They're watching it and commentating on it. That's not scoring. When they hear the score card they give their impression of the extent to which the cards matched their perceptions. We do the same. I didn't think the margin was as wide, just as didn't think Fury should have been judged a winner by one judge but I still had Caterall and Usyk as the winners.
Edited by robsco on Sunday 26th May 17:47
robsco said:
Yet you’ve actually just typed, verbatim, that you had Catterall as the winner but didn’t think the margin was as wide. Which is exactly what my original post said. I never claimed to be an official scorer; indeed there are three people in the world who officially scored last night’s fight, which renders every other person’s opinion as irrelevant based on yours and Pugaris’ argument.
But the point is those pundits are not actually keeping a running score (at least most of them) and then saying the cards look wider than they would have had it. Edited by robsco on Sunday 26th May 17:47
That's not a valid criticism of a scorecard. You're taking your perception of the fight overall, i.e., it felt close, then criticising a wide scorecard because of it. The judge's perception of the fight mat have even matched yours, but that doesn't mean a wider card is wrong when you ACTUALLY score the fight round by round.
If you scored every single round, and you can compare to a judges scorecard and you see that they gave rounds to a fighter where you don't feel that's a valid interpretation, then that's one thing and fair enough, but that isn't what people are doing here. They are looking at a fight with lots of close rounds and then demanding the scorecards produce very close scores, which is wrong and not how scoring works. You can have a fight where every round is close, but 120-108 to one fighter is the only fair scorecard because he definitely just edged every round. You can also have another close fight where they are all genuine swing rounds, in which case literally any card from 120-108 to fighter A and 120-108 to fighter B is fair.
Unless you can actually point to the rounds that can only be given to Taylor, and you have identified more than 4 of them, then you can't criticize a 117-111 scorecard with any confidence or authority.
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.
Nope, still 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.
ks. Pretty sure almost everybody has an awareness of how swing rounds work.To say there is nothing wrong with the scorecards is absolute nonsense. Have you even taken a look at them? Mark Bates gave Catterall every single one of the last 4 rounds hahaha.
Not to mention two judges scoring all of the first 6 to Catterall as well
Edited by Honourable Dead Snark on Sunday 26th May 19:16
Pugaris said:
But the point is those pundits are not actually keeping a running score (at least most of them) and then saying the cards look wider than they would have had it.
That's not a valid criticism of a scorecard. You're taking your perception of the fight overall, i.e., it felt close, then criticising a wide scorecard because of it. The judge's perception of the fight mat have even matched yours, but that doesn't mean a wider card is wrong when you ACTUALLY score the fight round by round.
If you scored every single round, and you can compare to a judges scorecard and you see that they gave rounds to a fighter where you don't feel that's a valid interpretation, then that's one thing and fair enough, but that isn't what people are doing here. They are looking at a fight with lots of close rounds and then demanding the scorecards produce very close scores, which is wrong and not how scoring works. You can have a fight where every round is close, but 120-108 to one fighter is the only fair scorecard because he definitely just edged every round. You can also have another close fight where they are all genuine swing rounds, in which case literally any card from 120-108 to fighter A and 120-108 to fighter B is fair.
Unless you can actually point to the rounds that can only be given to Taylor, and you have identified more than 4 of them, then you can't criticize a 117-111 scorecard with any confidence or authority.
Yep you can't commentate a match and score it at the same time the concentration required for both is totally different. I really miss having Castello on the bbc podcast he used to commentate for five live but then his method was to watch the fight back without any sound. He used to get some different results to the ones he was feet away from ringside. That's not a valid criticism of a scorecard. You're taking your perception of the fight overall, i.e., it felt close, then criticising a wide scorecard because of it. The judge's perception of the fight mat have even matched yours, but that doesn't mean a wider card is wrong when you ACTUALLY score the fight round by round.
If you scored every single round, and you can compare to a judges scorecard and you see that they gave rounds to a fighter where you don't feel that's a valid interpretation, then that's one thing and fair enough, but that isn't what people are doing here. They are looking at a fight with lots of close rounds and then demanding the scorecards produce very close scores, which is wrong and not how scoring works. You can have a fight where every round is close, but 120-108 to one fighter is the only fair scorecard because he definitely just edged every round. You can also have another close fight where they are all genuine swing rounds, in which case literally any card from 120-108 to fighter A and 120-108 to fighter B is fair.
Unless you can actually point to the rounds that can only be given to Taylor, and you have identified more than 4 of them, then you can't criticize a 117-111 scorecard with any confidence or authority.
One suggestion I think would be an improvement on judging would be open scoring. That's where we get to see the scorecards at the end of each round, or every 3 rounds.
If Josh Taylor knew he was well down on the scorecards going into the 10th round for example, he could have adjusted his tactics accordingly to try and go for the win.
I know there are arguments against open scoring, including whether it might encourage the fighter who was ahead to be overly cautious, but we get that already in some fights. And you would never watch a game of football when we only found out the score at the end of the game.
I also think it would better align the perception of the judges, the perception of the public, and the perception of commentators, in terms of how a fight was unfolding, and so avoid some of the judging controversies which can undermine the sport.
If Josh Taylor knew he was well down on the scorecards going into the 10th round for example, he could have adjusted his tactics accordingly to try and go for the win.
I know there are arguments against open scoring, including whether it might encourage the fighter who was ahead to be overly cautious, but we get that already in some fights. And you would never watch a game of football when we only found out the score at the end of the game.
I also think it would better align the perception of the judges, the perception of the public, and the perception of commentators, in terms of how a fight was unfolding, and so avoid some of the judging controversies which can undermine the sport.
EddieSteadyGo said:
One suggestion I think would be an improvement on judging would be open scoring. That's where we get to see the scorecards at the end of each round, or every 3 rounds.
If Josh Taylor knew he was well down on the scorecards going into the 10th round for example, he could have adjusted his tactics accordingly to try and go for the win.
I know there are arguments against open scoring, including whether it might encourage the fighter who was ahead to be overly cautious, but we get that already in some fights. And you would never watch a game of football when we only found out the score at the end of the game.
I also think it would better align the perception of the judges, the perception of the public, and the perception of commentators, in terms of how a fight was unfolding, and so avoid some of the judging controversies which can undermine the sport.
I don't know, if Catterall knew for sure he'd already banked 7 rounds, he can not just be cautious, he can run for 3 rounds. It's really hard to cut the ring off against someone who has zero intent to engage whatsoever. We do see fighters run, but they at least do so while trying to land enough punches to win the round.If Josh Taylor knew he was well down on the scorecards going into the 10th round for example, he could have adjusted his tactics accordingly to try and go for the win.
I know there are arguments against open scoring, including whether it might encourage the fighter who was ahead to be overly cautious, but we get that already in some fights. And you would never watch a game of football when we only found out the score at the end of the game.
I also think it would better align the perception of the judges, the perception of the public, and the perception of commentators, in terms of how a fight was unfolding, and so avoid some of the judging controversies which can undermine the sport.
The final 3 rounds of this fight were great, anyway. I don't know that open scoring would have made any difference. They were toe to toe and Taylor was going for the KO, and got badly hurt for his troubles. The fight was great entertainment value, it didn't need improving as a spectacle.
Also, there was a fight in 86 that had open scoring, between Marlon Starling and Johnny Bumphus for the USBA 147 title.
Here's the trainer of the winning fighter recalling it:
"For the first three or four rounds, Johnny was really out-boxing him. But then I saw Marlon hit him on the chin a couple of times and I saw Johnny do a little dance. I said, 'Oh no. I’m in trouble here.’ Then I heard the scoring. As luck would have it, Johnny gets a little cut just above the right eye. So I went over and I opened the cut up a little more with my nail. The doctor comes over and I scream how he can’t fight with the cut. The doctor says, ‘Then I’ll have to stop the fight.’ I said, 'Then stop the fight!' Marlon is jumping up and down thinking he had won.
But when it went to the scorecards, Johnny won a split decision."
Also, if open scoring doesn't actually change anything with poor or corrupt judging, which it probably wouldn't, can you imagine how bad things could get? Remember Pacquiao Vs Bradley? Now imagine all the rabid Pacquiao fans in the arena seeing round after round being awarded unfairly to Bradley. We wouldn't have seen a 12th round!
Pugaris said:
I don't know, if Catterall knew for sure he'd already banked 7 rounds, he can not just be cautious, he can run for 3 rounds. It's really hard to cut the ring off against someone who has zero intent to engage whatsoever. We do see fighters run, but they at least do so while trying to land enough punches to win the round.
The final 3 rounds of this fight were great, anyway. I don't know that open scoring would have made any difference. They were toe to toe and Taylor was going for the KO, and got badly hurt for his troubles. The fight was great entertainment value, it didn't need improving as a spectacle.
Also, there was a fight in 86 that had open scoring, between Marlon Starling and Johnny Bumphus for the USBA 147 title.
Here's the trainer of the winning fighter recalling it:
"For the first three or four rounds, Johnny was really out-boxing him. But then I saw Marlon hit him on the chin a couple of times and I saw Johnny do a little dance. I said, 'Oh no. I’m in trouble here.’ Then I heard the scoring. As luck would have it, Johnny gets a little cut just above the right eye. So I went over and I opened the cut up a little more with my nail. The doctor comes over and I scream how he can’t fight with the cut. The doctor says, ‘Then I’ll have to stop the fight.’ I said, 'Then stop the fight!' Marlon is jumping up and down thinking he had won.
But when it went to the scorecards, Johnny won a split decision."
Also, if open scoring doesn't actually change anything with poor or corrupt judging, which it probably wouldn't, can you imagine how bad things could get? Remember Pacquiao Vs Bradley? Now imagine all the rabid Pacquiao fans in the arena seeing round after round being awarded unfairly to Bradley. We wouldn't have seen a 12th round!
I know what you mean - it certainly isn't a panacea and I agree it could be exploited via bad gamesmandship and wouldn't resolve corruption.The final 3 rounds of this fight were great, anyway. I don't know that open scoring would have made any difference. They were toe to toe and Taylor was going for the KO, and got badly hurt for his troubles. The fight was great entertainment value, it didn't need improving as a spectacle.
Also, there was a fight in 86 that had open scoring, between Marlon Starling and Johnny Bumphus for the USBA 147 title.
Here's the trainer of the winning fighter recalling it:
"For the first three or four rounds, Johnny was really out-boxing him. But then I saw Marlon hit him on the chin a couple of times and I saw Johnny do a little dance. I said, 'Oh no. I’m in trouble here.’ Then I heard the scoring. As luck would have it, Johnny gets a little cut just above the right eye. So I went over and I opened the cut up a little more with my nail. The doctor comes over and I scream how he can’t fight with the cut. The doctor says, ‘Then I’ll have to stop the fight.’ I said, 'Then stop the fight!' Marlon is jumping up and down thinking he had won.
But when it went to the scorecards, Johnny won a split decision."
Also, if open scoring doesn't actually change anything with poor or corrupt judging, which it probably wouldn't, can you imagine how bad things could get? Remember Pacquiao Vs Bradley? Now imagine all the rabid Pacquiao fans in the arena seeing round after round being awarded unfairly to Bradley. We wouldn't have seen a 12th round!
However, I think sometimes perceived "bad judging" is actually "bad understanding" of the rules, because as fans it's easy to watch a fight and judge it is a whole, rather than as 12 discrete rounds each scored individually. More transparency of the scoring throughout the fight helps to address this point.
I suppose open scoring does go against the tradition of the sport, but I'd still like to see a fresh experiment, just to see how it would play out now.
EddieSteadyGo said:
I know what you mean - it certainly isn't a panacea and I agree it could be exploited via bad gamesmandship and wouldn't resolve corruption.
However, I think sometimes perceived "bad judging" is actually "bad understanding" of the rules, because as fans it's easy to watch a fight and judge it is a whole, rather than as 12 discrete rounds each scored individually. More transparency of the scoring throughout the fight helps to address this point.
I suppose open scoring does go against the tradition of the sport, but I'd still like to see a fresh experiment, just to see how it would play out now.
A few things that also might be helpful that don't require any changes to how the fight is scored or officiated, but will help fans understand a little better:However, I think sometimes perceived "bad judging" is actually "bad understanding" of the rules, because as fans it's easy to watch a fight and judge it is a whole, rather than as 12 discrete rounds each scored individually. More transparency of the scoring throughout the fight helps to address this point.
I suppose open scoring does go against the tradition of the sport, but I'd still like to see a fresh experiment, just to see how it would play out now.
1. Judges and refs that aren't so closed-off from the public. I don't think every judge should have to explain their decision, but perhaps there can be an assigned person from the commission for the whole card who can speak to judge's scorecards, referee decisions etc afterwards. Also some sort of transparent ranking of judges by competency, a bit like they do with football refs, and actual consequences for consistently bad scorecards
2. Kind of following on from the above, better punditry, with people who actually really understand how scoring works and can talk to it during the fight. I don't want to see Chris Mannix or Tony Bellew's scorecard - maybe give us a retired judge on the panel who can provide some insight and do the live scorecard?
3. Get rid of f
king Compubox. They are absolutely useless and I HATE how they get trotted out during the fight and in the post-fight analysis. Even if it was accurate, which it fking isn't, it's 2 blokes pressing buttons based on what they think they saw, it's dangerous to reduce scoring rounds down to who landed the most punches. We NEVER see pundits show the actual 4 criteria and discuss how each fighter demonstrated them in rounds, just "he outlanded him 11 to 9 according to Compubox, so he won that round" it's lazy4. Get Jabbr AI numbers more involved. They do a MUCH better job of showing how rounds went than Compubox. I've put images below for the Fury vs Usyk fight from each so you can compare. Explanation of Jabbr and their tech here: https://jabbr.ai/deepstrike
They also livestreamed stats for the whole card, which you can see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcF2NvkhtJ8&ab...
Pugaris said:
3. Get rid of fking Compubox. They are absolutely useless and I HATE how they get trotted out during the fight and in the post-fight analysis. Even if it was accurate, which it fking isn't, it's 2 blokes pressing buttons based on what they think they saw, it's dangerous to reduce scoring rounds down to who landed the most punches. We NEVER see pundits show the actual 4 criteria and discuss how each fighter demonstrated them in rounds, just "he outlanded him 11 to 9 according to Compubox, so he won that round" it's lazy
What are the 4 criteria, I wasn't aware of this (which says something as I've been watching boxing for many years now!)king Compubox. They are absolutely useless and I HATE how they get trotted out during the fight and in the post-fight analysis. Even if it was accurate, which it fking isn't, it's 2 blokes pressing buttons based on what they think they saw, it's dangerous to reduce scoring rounds down to who landed the most punches. We NEVER see pundits show the actual 4 criteria and discuss how each fighter demonstrated them in rounds, just "he outlanded him 11 to 9 according to Compubox, so he won that round" it's lazyThisInJapanese said:
What are the 4 criteria, I wasn't aware of this (which says something as I've been watching boxing for many years now!)
1. Clean punching 2. Effective aggression
3. Defence
4. Ring generalship
You can see a full description of each of those on page 4 here: https://www.abcboxing.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/...
That whole doc is well worth a read
Pugaris said:
1. Clean punching
2. Effective aggression
3. Defence
4. Ring generalship
You can see a full description of each of those on page 4 here: https://www.abcboxing.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/...
That whole doc is well worth a read
Thanks!2. Effective aggression
3. Defence
4. Ring generalship
You can see a full description of each of those on page 4 here: https://www.abcboxing.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/...
That whole doc is well worth a read
The thing with the judging when fights are clearly bought or let's say that the judges understand the importance of a particular fighter winning having scorecards taken by round or whatever won't change the corruption. Those of us that love the sport for being the sport will always run into the fact that it's also a business and a dirty one at times.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff