BoxRec

Boxers saying they had a legitimate reason for losing a certain fight, which is never the fact they weren't good enough.

TheLeprechaun wrote: ↑01 Jan 2020, 13:24 Fighters will always say their hardest fight is a fight that they actually ended up winning. Nevermind the fight where they got outclassed and starched.

They'll say the hardest hitter is also someone they ended up beating. Nevermind the time they got put to sleep by a punch.

Yep, good one

Negative, on-your-bike tactics is too often misconstrued as a masterclass

Ricky wrote: ↑02 Jan 2020, 00:07 Negative, on-your-bike tactics is too often misconstrued as a masterclass

Your not a fan of fighting on the back foot ay mate, I dont mind the ying and the yang myself, I remember watching Guerrero vs Kamegai, it was a toe to toe war for 12 rounds and I got bored because it was repetitive, In saying that I do love a tear up

handsofstone wrote: ↑02 Jan 2020, 00:16

Ricky wrote: ↑02 Jan 2020, 00:07 Negative, on-your-bike tactics is too often misconstrued as a masterclass

Your not a fan of fighting on the back foot ay mate, I dont mind the ying and the yang myself, I remember watching Guerrero vs Kamegai, it was a toe to toe war for 12 rounds and I got bored because it was repetitive, In saying that I do love a tear up

I don't mind if it's. a means to an end. The saying goes "make them miss and make them pay"... not "make them miss then run away". There's loads of truly great examples of fighters dancing around opponents, staying out of trouble, tiring them out, then breaking them down, I could start with Ali-Liston 1 & finish with something like Garcia-Cheeseman or Usyk-Gassiev.

But i hate to see predominantly negative tactics slung into the same bracket as elusive countering ones. A boy in my work is into boxing, and in recent times he's declared performances like BJS vs Lemiuex and Fury vs Wilder as "masterclasses", regardless of the fact they were virtually non-existant offensively.

I think a recent example of running away, would be Joshua v Ruiz Jr. in the 12th. Which to be fair he had the fight won and didn't need to engage.

But fighting on the back foot is a different beast.

All just opinions, but I don't understand how people couldn't enjoy the defensive display of Fury standing Infront of Wilder (the biggest one shot puncher in boxing) and slipping and rolling punch after punch.

Ricky wrote: ↑02 Jan 2020, 00:32

handsofstone wrote: ↑02 Jan 2020, 00:16

Your not a fan of fighting on the back foot ay mate, I dont mind the ying and the yang myself, I remember watching Guerrero vs Kamegai, it was a toe to toe war for 12 rounds and I got bored because it was repetitive, In saying that I do love a tear up

I don't mind if it's. a means to an end. The saying goes "make them miss and make them pay"... not "make them miss then run away". There's loads of truly great examples of fighters dancing around opponents, staying out of trouble, tiring them out, then breaking them down, I could start with Ali-Liston 1 & finish with something like Garcia-Cheeseman or Usyk-Gassiev.

But i hate to see predominantly negative tactics slung into the same bracket as elusive countering ones. A boy in my work is into boxing, and in recent times he's declared performances like BJS vs Lemiuex and Fury vs Wilder as "masterclasses", regardless of the fact they were virtually non-existant offensively.

Agreed. You get a feel for the biases certain posters have when two fighters use the same strategy but they laud one fighter for doing so and lambast the other for doing so. There are different kinds of backfoot fighters I know but there are cases where two fighters have pulled a Hughie Fury in their fights and on here the performance is getting hailed as a masterclass by one fighter and quite the opposite when the other fighter did it. I could bring up quite a few examples from posters on here.

There are a lot of fans who are rather fans of shitting on boxers than the sport itself. So many comments saying Wilder has no power or Fury has mediocre skills at best. Also I understand respecting og fighters but saying stuff like Ali would run through these bums today is just unrealistic nostalgia. Generally a lot of negative people who search for an enthusiastic post lets say about a good fight and they proceed to tell you why it sucked and you stupid.

Internet boxing experts! I’ve seen people who tweet about how much they hate Eddie Hearn several times a day for years. Whatever your opinion, that’s not one bit healthy. I absolutely hate it when people use the term “casual” like watching a bit more boxing than someone makes you superior to them.

I also notice regularly that lots of people think the following things affect the scoring of a round:

Wether one boxer is the champion. The belt is considered vacant during the contest and there is no rule stating a champion should be given any special treatment.

Marking up of the face. You can look worse off at the end of the fight and still have won clearly.

I’ve even read once that (under British rules) missing lots of punches should not be counted against a fighter when scoring. They don’t want a disincentive to throwing punches in there. That’s debatable really isn’t it.

Losing some rounds then coming back into it but still not winning the round. Each round should be scored on its own. It’s more like winning 12 little fights.

Compubox is a load of arse and no one should pay any attention to it.

That was cathartic!

Agree on that, except I don't think missing should count AGAINST someone. It should simply not count at all, no credit either way. Throwing and missing to me is no worse from a scoring perspective than not throwing at all. Often times being busy, even if inaccurate, is a way to put opponents into a defensive shell and hence to limit what they throw at you--so it kinda works to the same end as blocking, parrying, etc and is a defense in its own way.

Defo I find that there is a bias to score more in favour of the latter part's of the round, I guess because we remember it more.

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑03 Jan 2020, 20:43 Agree on that, except I don't think missing should count AGAINST someone. It should simply not count at all, no credit either way. Throwing and missing to me is no worse from a scoring perspective than not throwing at all. Often times being busy, even if inaccurate, is a way to put opponents into a defensive shell and hence to limit what they throw at you--so it kinda works to the same end as blocking, parrying, etc and is a defense in its own way.

Defo I find that there is a bias to score more in favour of the latter part's of the round, I guess because we remember it more.

You’ve said it better than me. You can’t have people not throwing cos they’re scared to lose a round.

And I think it’s called primacy/recency effect. Mayweather always threw a flurry in towards the end to snatch a close round.

rd350lc wrote: ↑31 Dec 2019, 18:36 Regularly see fighters clearly losing a fight over the distance, then strongly insisting they thought they won when they know they haven't .

Very rare you see honesty and it's great to see when it happens .

to be honest though when a fighter has taken a lot of shots, i dont think they generally know if they have won or not, a lot dont know what round there in, aj was asking what was going on in the corner half his fight with ruiz 1st fight

Ricky wrote: ↑02 Jan 2020, 00:32

handsofstone wrote: ↑02 Jan 2020, 00:16

Your not a fan of fighting on the back foot ay mate, I dont mind the ying and the yang myself, I remember watching Guerrero vs Kamegai, it was a toe to toe war for 12 rounds and I got bored because it was repetitive, In saying that I do love a tear up

I don't mind if it's. a means to an end. The saying goes "make them miss and make them pay"... not "make them miss then run away". There's loads of truly great examples of fighters dancing around opponents, staying out of trouble, tiring them out, then breaking them down, I could start with Ali-Liston 1 & finish with something like Garcia-Cheeseman or Usyk-Gassiev.

But i hate to see predominantly negative tactics slung into the same bracket as elusive countering ones. A boy in my work is into boxing, and in recent times he's declared performances like BJS vs Lemiuex and Fury vs Wilder as "masterclasses", regardless of the fact they were virtually non-existant offensively.

i know what your saying but fighters like Ray Leonard never get that brush, i like boxers who can box personaly , bjs and fury are my favourite boxers, but i love saul, and all round fighters like josh taylor i love cheeseman but i also like fitzgerald ,boxing is a skill you can see a tear up any were .trying not to be qelshay sorry about for the spelling

brilo33 wrote: ↑25 Jan 2020, 16:42

rd350lc wrote: ↑31 Dec 2019, 18:36 Regularly see fighters clearly losing a fight over the distance, then strongly insisting they thought they won when they know they haven't .

Very rare you see honesty and it's great to see when it happens .

to be honest though when a fighter has taken a lot of shots, i dont think they generally know if they have won or not, a lot dont know what round there in, aj was asking what was going on in the corner half his fight with ruiz 1st fight

I also think that unless you’ve taken an absolute hiding every round that you can’t really tell for sure that you’ve lost, you don’t remember every shot and can feel in control even when your losing, remember that the boxers don’t have the same visual viewpoint as someone watching the fight

TheLeprechaun wrote: ↑01 Jan 2020, 13:24 Fighters will always say their hardest fight is a fight that they actually ended up winning. Nevermind the fight where they got outclassed and starched.

They'll say the hardest hitter is also someone they ended up beating. Nevermind the time they got put to sleep by a punch.

TheLeprechaun wrote: ↑02 Jan 2020, 03:12

Ricky wrote: ↑02 Jan 2020, 00:32

I don't mind if it's. a means to an end. The saying goes "make them miss and make them pay"... not "make them miss then run away". There's loads of truly great examples of fighters dancing around opponents, staying out of trouble, tiring them out, then breaking them down, I could start with Ali-Liston 1 & finish with something like Garcia-Cheeseman or Usyk-Gassiev.

But i hate to see predominantly negative tactics slung into the same bracket as elusive countering ones. A boy in my work is into boxing, and in recent times he's declared performances like BJS vs Lemiuex and Fury vs Wilder as "masterclasses", regardless of the fact they were virtually non-existant offensively.

Agreed. You get a feel for the biases certain posters have when two fighters use the same strategy but they laud one fighter for doing so and lambast the other for doing so. There are different kinds of backfoot fighters I know but there are cases where two fighters have pulled a Hughie Fury in their fights and on here the performance is getting hailed as a masterclass by one fighter and quite the opposite when the other fighter did it. I could bring up quite a few examples from posters on here.

but then it comes down to money, you wont earn as much , look at lennox he took a lot of stick. and i think the british papers brain washed the public in to thinking he wasnt all that and a bore, when he was a world class boxer

brilo33 wrote: ↑25 Jan 2020, 16:42

rd350lc wrote: ↑31 Dec 2019, 18:36 Regularly see fighters clearly losing a fight over the distance, then strongly insisting they thought they won when they know they haven't .

Very rare you see honesty and it's great to see when it happens .

to be honest though when a fighter has taken a lot of shots, i dont think they generally know if they have won or not, a lot dont know what round there in, aj was asking what was going on in the corner half his fight with ruiz 1st fight

Thinking more distance fights mate , seen it work the other way too , where a fighter gets the nod when they clearly haven't won and admit they got away with it ,but that is rare as rocking horse $hite ,take your point though it might harder from a fighters own perspective .

Guys who had decent amateur and pro careers with solid records who are considered bums.

Think guys like Duane Bobick and Marvis Frazier. If you youtube them, it's almost impossible to find a fight that they are not laid out. But both of them had some good wins as amateurs and pros. However, they are remembered mostly for their 1 round "KO BY...

I often wonder to myself where the terminology a gentleman's sport comes from to be honest. Alot of two faced people who will use people and lie and manipulate. Possibly wont go down well but hey, I witnessed quite alot of stuff and although I would never publically release it out of respect for my brother I hope one day he gets in a place where he writes a book about certain things that have went on for him and on how certain people abused his trust and manipulated him. Things such as money being manipulated by managers etc. All the boxers are gentleman but out with that sport is full of wolves in sheepskin.

That Adam Smith has the eyes of a molester and the hands of a strangler

kbackup408 wrote: ↑31 Dec 2019, 19:23 Probably has been mentioned before but I think the community generally is starting to ignore/mute the commentary during bouts - grossly biased and often disrespectful to the fan watching

Would be nice if you could pick an audio option on Big fights. Full sound with comantary, or Sound no commantary. because i hate full mute, not hearing punches and stuff . This would be relatively easy to do on streaming platforms like DZAN and ESPN+.

gregregegg wrote: ↑27 Jan 2020, 06:07

kbackup408 wrote: ↑31 Dec 2019, 19:23 Probably has been mentioned before but I think the community generally is starting to ignore/mute the commentary during bouts - grossly biased and often disrespectful to the fan watching

Would be nice if you could pick an audio option on Big fights. Full sound with comantary, or Sound no commantary. because i hate full mute, not hearing punches and stuff . This would be relatively easy to do on streaming platforms like DZAN and ESPN+.

That would be good. Amazon Prime had bought the rights to some EPL football games for before xmas and for Boxing Day and their coverage gave you that option. First time i've saw that. I don't mind the commentary on the football so much but i'd deffo use it for boxing more often than not especially if it's a Sky broadcast!

gregregegg wrote: ↑27 Jan 2020, 06:07

kbackup408 wrote: ↑31 Dec 2019, 19:23 Probably has been mentioned before but I think the community generally is starting to ignore/mute the commentary during bouts - grossly biased and often disrespectful to the fan watching

Would be nice if you could pick an audio option on Big fights. Full sound with comantary, or Sound no commantary. because i hate full mute, not hearing punches and stuff . This would be relatively easy to do on streaming platforms like DZAN and ESPN+.

that would be bliss mate, I just imagined that and it would be epic to just have mics in the ring so you can just hear the punches and crowd.

Deserter wrote: ↑01 Jan 2020, 15:10 Forum posters making definitive comments about what the outcome of a fight is going to be based on perception of fighters' appearances at weigh-ins, perceived nerves in pre-fight press conference etc.
Rarely proves accurate and yet is repeated ad infinitum.

I LOVE all that boll0cks personally !
“he can’t look him in the eye without sunglasses - he’s gonna fall apart in the seventh !”
“He’s wearing weights in that hat to psyche him out !?”

It’s a cherry-on-top for me.

All boxing fans are master psychologists and mind readers aren't they