Having said that, GGG looked extremely tight and tense and not like Triple-G usually looks... He loosened up a bit following the knockdown thinking "OK, this is going to be like all the other challengers and I'm going to get him out eventually" so he relaxed and started connecting with a series of really nice jabs and follow up shots... However, the next round he went right back into the super tight and tense mode and never shook it... Jacobs is a dangerous puncher and threw punches from all angles. He's an excellent boxer and was obviously bigger, taller, and stronger than GGG.
I scored the fight 115-112 GGG... It was closer than the Kovalev-Ward fight that Sergei won at least 116-111. Kovalev's jab would give GGG problems, but I think Golovkin would eventually get close and prevail with his inside game like he did with Jacobs. Were GGG allowed to weigh above 170 I think this fight would have been totally different.. Golovkin looked slightly drained and Jacobs looked fresh as a daisy all night. But I don't think it was a case of being 35. GGG should be good for a few more years.
GGG has an effective jab that breaks opponents down. Jabs can knock you out, but they rarely do. It's not too unusual for a jab to score a knockdown. Holmes knocked Ocasio down with a jab. Leonard knocked Benitez down with a jab. Cotto knocked Clottey down with a jab. Those were all strong, clean knockdowns.. The jab is a real weapon and it can mess you up and punish you as much as a power punch..Blodhemn wrote:A jab, in my mind, is only worth something, points wise, if it's used as a means to break down an opponent and is such thrown with some authority. If it's used as a "stay away from me" tactic or to obfuscate an oncoming power shot, then the jab itself shouldn't be scoring points save for what comes after it.BAD INTENTIONS wrote:When other fighters jab their way to victory, this board screams about power shots.
When GGG jabs his way to victory.
Some people say why count punches at all??? Fact is, 1 smashing KO shot can cause more damage than 300 power punches that landed to little or no effect. So why not dispense with counting punches and just attempt to construe the damage each boxer did to his opponent during that round. This is the Max Kellerman “who would I rather have been in that round?” system. That would make judging even more subjective than it is with the 10-point must criteria of: 1. clean effective punches, 2. effective aggressiveness, 3. defense, and 4. ring generalship approach that judges are supposed to follow.
Right now, if both boxers landed the same number of punches to the same effect... were equally aggressive... and effectively defended incoming punches at the exact same ratio... you ask “who controlled the ring space, the pace, the distance, and imposed their style of boxing on the other combatant more during that round?” ... That’s pretty open to interpretation too. Close fights will always be hard to score.
