BoxRec

lazboy wrote: ↑10 May 2020, 02:16

gilgamesh wrote: ↑10 May 2020, 02:00

I consider it impartial, because I'm considering the work they put in before stepping into the ring, and literally only in rounds when there's absolutely nothing else to separate them.

If Ruiz won the round by even 1 more good blow, then he won the round, and he did win several against Parker. I just didn't think he did enough to win the fight.

It's really only because of the scoring system being the way it is that we basically don't actually just score some rounds even. The official judges almost never score an even round so I don't either, but that's what some rounds really are.

It is not impartial. Rather than considering the rounds by themselves or the fight by itself, you are influenced by outside presumptions. Presumptions you don't have a full understanding of. You don't know how many hours of training Ruiz has put in. All you know is that he has eaten more calories than he has burnt. But you also don't know whether he feels better at the weight (mentally or physically) than he would at a lighter weight. It's too complicated and also unnecessary. You should be scoring the rounds as you see them.

Now I haven't seen the Ruiz Parker fight in some time, at the time I had Ruiz winning but it was a close fight.

What you are saying about scoring close rounds in terms of who is 'not the fattest' is completely unreasonable.

Maybe because of the flawed system of judging you brought up, where Judges generally don't score even rounds, is your reason but, as I said, I find it unreasonable.

You certainty don't have to follow me or listen to me, but because of this issue (scoring issue which we presently have), when I'm scoring round by round on this site, I score a lot of rounds even. I think that's fair. It's up to the fighter to separate the rounds not the judges. The fighters are not doing a good enough job to win a round if its not relatively clear.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑10 May 2020, 03:59

lazboy wrote: ↑10 May 2020, 02:16

It is not impartial. Rather than considering the rounds by themselves or the fight by itself, you are influenced by outside presumptions. Presumptions you don't have a full understanding of. You don't know how many hours of training Ruiz has put in. All you know is that he has eaten more calories than he has burnt. But you also don't know whether he feels better at the weight (mentally or physically) than he would at a lighter weight. It's too complicated and also unnecessary. You should be scoring the rounds as you see them.

Now I haven't seen the Ruiz Parker fight in some time, at the time I had Ruiz winning but it was a close fight.

What you are saying about scoring close rounds in terms of who is 'not the fattest' is completely unreasonable.

Maybe because of the flawed system of judging you brought up, where Judges generally don't score even rounds, is your reason but, as I said, I find it unreasonable.

You certainty don't have to follow me or listen to me, but because of this issue (scoring issue which we presently have), when I'm scoring round by round on this site, I score a lot of rounds even. I think that's fair. It's up to the fighter to separate the rounds not the judges. The fighters are not doing a good enough job to win a round if its not relatively clear.

There's almost always something that separates them. Even in an even round somebody works harder, and does more to try to take it.

lazboy wrote: ↑10 May 2020, 07:43

gilgamesh wrote: ↑10 May 2020, 03:59

There's almost always something that separates them. Even in an even round somebody works harder, and does more to try to take it.

Complete s#%t. There are plenty of close rounds in boxing. I even disagree about your idea that the round should go to who works harder. Generally, I award the round to who does the most damage. Isn’t that what pro boxing is about? It’s a combat sport. Rounds and rules were put in later, for safety. But it’s really a fight. Getting a KO is the ultimate success in the sport.

Jeff_lacy_ko wrote: ↑10 May 2020, 09:27 Ruiz has skills but hes a one hit wonder. The parker fight was there for the taking as was the joshua rematch but he was content to go through the motions

That said tabiti is a zero hit wonder

gilgamesh wrote: ↑10 May 2020, 09:22

lazboy wrote: ↑10 May 2020, 07:43

Complete s#%t. There are plenty of close rounds in boxing. I even disagree about your idea that the round should go to who works harder. Generally, I award the round to who does the most damage. Isn’t that what pro boxing is about? It’s a combat sport. Rounds and rules were put in later, for safety. But it’s really a fight. Getting a KO is the ultimate success in the sport.

I see somebody can't wrap their head around the concept of "When all else is even"

gilgamesh wrote: ↑10 May 2020, 09:22

lazboy wrote: ↑10 May 2020, 07:43

Complete s#%t. There are plenty of close rounds in boxing. I even disagree about your idea that the round should go to who works harder. Generally, I award the round to who does the most damage. Isn’t that what pro boxing is about? It’s a combat sport. Rounds and rules were put in later, for safety. But it’s really a fight. Getting a KO is the ultimate success in the sport.

I see somebody can't wrap their head around the concept of "When all else is even"

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑10 May 2020, 18:32

gilgamesh wrote: ↑10 May 2020, 09:22

I see somebody can't wrap their head around the concept of "When all else is even"

When all in the ring is even, write down dat 10-10 bruh, don't turn into a man body judge

gilgamesh wrote: ↑10 May 2020, 19:54

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑10 May 2020, 18:32

When all in the ring is even, write down dat 10-10 bruh, don't turn into a man body judge

To me it's a symbol that you've worked harder at your craft, and you deserve the win more because your conditioning shows it.

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑10 May 2020, 20:32

gilgamesh wrote: ↑10 May 2020, 19:54

To me it's a symbol that you've worked harder at your craft, and you deserve the win more because your conditioning shows it.

Hmm and yet Joe added more poundage for that fight than Andy did

To me it seems pretty irrelvant anyway, the fight should be judged entirely on the action in the ring

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑10 May 2020, 20:57 Sure, but if there is then judging whose bod looks better is a ghey way to go

gilgamesh wrote: ↑10 May 2020, 20:51

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑10 May 2020, 20:32

Hmm and yet Joe added more poundage for that fight than Andy did

To me it seems pretty irrelvant anyway, the fight should be judged entirely on the action in the ring

Almost always there's something in the ring to determine a winner in the round. Truly even rounds aren't all that common.

lazboy wrote: ↑10 May 2020, 21:47

gilgamesh wrote: ↑10 May 2020, 20:51

Almost always there's something in the ring to determine a winner in the round. Truly even rounds aren't all that common.

That's complete arrogant crap from you. You have the special eye and special mind to see who the true winner of the round is. Laughable.

There's plenty of controversial fights and rounds. In particular, volume v quality and power is often difficult to determine. But according to you it's easy. It's who works harder or who looks better. LOL!

gilgamesh wrote: ↑10 May 2020, 22:57

lazboy wrote: ↑10 May 2020, 21:47

That's complete arrogant crap from you. You have the special eye and special mind to see who the true winner of the round is. Laughable.

There's plenty of controversial fights and rounds. In particular, volume v quality and power is often difficult to determine. But according to you it's easy. It's who works harder or who looks better. LOL!

Nah I always put an asterix next to a round that could go either way as an acknowledgment that it could indeed go either way.

I don't act as if my score on a round such as that is the only card that could possibly be right.

lazboy wrote: ↑10 May 2020, 23:18

gilgamesh wrote: ↑10 May 2020, 22:57

Nah I always put an asterix next to a round that could go either way as an acknowledgment that it could indeed go either way.

I don't act as if my score on a round such as that is the only card that could possibly be right.

So what are you saying?

First it was that you don't score even rounds and when they are even, you award the round to the better physically looking fighter.
Then you said, even rounds are not common as you can almost always determine a winner.
Now you are saying that you put an asterix over even rounds.

So are we back to, you dont score even rounds but award the better physically looking fighter the round - based on that? But with an asterix. And do you also still believe there are not many even rounds in boxing?

Personally, I would take Margo's advice and just call it even, getting rid of this asterix nonsense. A 10-10 round is allowed, albeit uncommon in judging. Putting an asterix however is not allowed.