Boxing

.

Oscar De La Hoya made it look easy both times he defeated Julio Cesar Chavez Sr. However, he never faced a PRIME Chavez! Do you think the outcome would have been different if he had to go up against a young hungry version of Chavez, or would ODLH's long jab, superior hand speed, and outside game always have been too much for any version of Chavez?!

I AM NOT ASKING about giving the winner of a round 10, and the loser a 9, or if the person knocks the other guy down how that guy gets an 8 etc...

I've been in boxing my whole life. I know all that....

My question is... What criteria are YOU using when you score rounds, and what gets priority for you...

We all know that you score rounds based on clean effective punches, effective aggression, ring generalship, etc... But... I'm asking without using those words... more specifically what are you looking for, and what takes priority...

For example... for me... when I score a round...

1. DAMAGE: For me damage takes priority. If one guy is damaging the other guy more than he's being damaged, then I think he won the round, even if the other guy out-landed him. Its a fight after all... to me damage is most important.

2. Number of Punches Landed: After damage, in cases where you cannot tell who is winning in that category, or there is no damage for either guy, I go with who landed more punches. Especially power punches, more so than the jab, unless its a damaging jab, going back to my original point. Landed punches has to be number 2, I could care less who threw more.

3. The Aggressor: In cases where there is no significant difference in damage, or in landed punches... I have to favor the guy chasing the guy that's running, because he's the guy that's trying to fight... the other guy is just running.

Without saying "ring generalship" (describe it) How do YOU score fights?

Despite many crying bloody murder over the outcome, I actually think GGG narrowly won. I scored it 114-113 for GGG, and I watched it twice, while rooting for Jacobs! Without the knockdown it would have been a draw. I knew this was going to be a close/tough fight! What I didn't know was that GGG couldn't knock him out!

Even with the loss, what Daniel Jacobs did convince everybody of was... THAT HE COULD BEAT GGG, and that is AMAZING!

Jacobs stock is going to soar high from his game effort, and near victory against the most feared fighter in the sport, and I HIGHLY DOUBT fans and critics will overlook Jacobs again!!!

I really think GGG is going to get Canelo later this year, and I don't think Canelo will do anywhere near as good as Jacobs, and I think Canelo will get knocked out. BUT... the meantime, while GGG is chasing and waiting for the Canelo fight, Jacobs should go after Billy Joe Saunders, and take his belt... forcing GGG to rematch if he wants all the middleweight belts like he claims, and IF Jacobs can beat him the second time, it would make him the unified... undisputed middleweight champion!!!

I really think that should be Jacobs strategy! And, then we all get an incredible rematch! What do you think???

.

For me, a lot of things about Pacquiao and Mayweather is reminiscent of Roberto Duran and Sugar Ray Leonard. Likening Pacquiao to Duran, and Mayweather to Leonard, there are a lot of similarities.

Most interesting among them, is that when Duran and Leonard fought, Leonard easily defeated Duran TWICE, and when they fought the first time, even though Duran won, it was only because Leonard was goated in to fighting a style that didn't suite him, and as soon as he stopped, he came on strong in the latter part of that fight, and it was relatively close. But, fighting against one another, Leonard proved he would win.

However, almost everybody ranks Duran above Leonard in ALL_TIME GREATNESS rankings. Presumably the thinking being that Duran was naturally the smaller guy, and had come up from lighter weight classes than Leonard.

Well, the exact same thing is true for Pacquiao and Mayweather, yet... it seems EVERYONE ranks Mayweather much higher than Pacquiao, despite the fact that like Duran Pacquiao is much naturally smaller, and came up from lower weight classes. Furthermore, in his one defeat with Mayweather (vs, Duran's TWO defeats from Leonard), Pacquiao (being injured) actually won the exchanges against Mayweather, and forced Mayweather (who is the bigger guy) to clinch, to fight backing up, and do some running. Mayweather was able to win by taking the rounds by clinching to mitigate the damage from Pacquiao's flurries, and jab while running.

I can't stop loving boxing. No matter how cruel the sport the sport has been to fans and fighters alike. Politics in the game are probably the worst of any professional sport, and so many people running it at various levels are criminals.

However, be that as it may... Even though, having ONLY ONE World Champion per weight class would probably be the most important change you could make in boxing instead of this non-sense with the WBC, IBF, WBO. WBA, along with the even more ridiculous designations of the WBA "SUPER" Champion, WBA "REGULAR Champion, WBA "Interim" Champion, not to mention the unofficial RING and Lineal Champion.... I mean WFT?! You potentially could wind up with EIGHT different champions per weight class?!?!?!? No wonder fans have no idea who is champion at any point in time? Who could keep track? Besides with eight pieces to a World Title... it has virtually NO value!

And... there are 17 weight classes!?!?!?!

Which brings me to my next point.

Doesn't anyone feel as though... there are just TOO MANY weight classes!!! I know I DO!

I think it is important to the sport to have a sufficient number of weight classes so that fighters of different natural sizes can fairly compete with other fighters who are more-or-less the same size, but NOT SO MANY that it becomes ridiculous!

So... IF YOU controlled everything in boxing, what weight class structure would you devise? How many classes, and what would be the weight ranges per class?

.... I KNOW that basically everybody is picking GGG to win.... because he's GGG, and is essentially some kind of monster!

But, lets NOT overlook Daniel Jacobs! Jacobs is a REALLY good fighter! He ONLY has ONE loss, and since then he has STOPPED EVERYBODY, including a FIRST ROUND knockout over Peter Quillin!

Jacobs can do it all, and packs a pretty good punch! And, GGG didn't look so good in the Brook fight, and if he eats those kind of shots from Jacob, it might be a BAD night for the Kazakh killer!

I know that its tempting to think that if Dmitry Pirog can KO Jacobs, then GGG can and will too, but... I think Jacobs has improved since then, and will proceed with caution knowing GGG's punch packs a nuclear force blast!

So... how do you like Jacobs chances (out of 100).....

And, what round do you predict GGG will knock him out in???

-

I just got my latest subscription RING magazine, where they rated the top heavyweights.....

... Predictably... They gave Ali the number ONE spot.

Why does EVERYBODY...ALWAYS rate Ali as number one? I just don't understand it! YES, he was GREAT! Yes, he was a LEGEND! Absolutely!!! But... GOAT?!?!?! I've even seen POUND FOR POUND rankings rate him number ONE... OVER SUGAR RAY ROBINSON?!?!?! I have no idea how that could make any kind of sense to anyone?!?!?

Its like some kind of insane mind control that makes everyone reflexively choose him over every other fighter.

How can they rank Muhammad Ali over Joe Louis?!?!? How?!?!?! Joe Louis had a championship reign lasted 140 consecutive months!!! That is nearly 12 YEARS! Louis was victorious in 25 title defenses!!! I mean 69 fights... 63 wins, ONLY 3 losses, with 52 KNOCKOUTS! In title fights, he knocked out 23 opponents in 27 title fights, including five world champions! He fought and beat some of the best fighters that ever lived!!!

HOW can ANYONE rate Ali over Joe Louis???

I honestly think Muhammad Ali is overrated. People I think were a little too amazed over his Foreman KO, something Ron Lyle nearly did months later! Ali had a stylistic advantage in that fight, he lost to Frazier, and then had two following fights that could have gone either way, I thought he lost ALL the fights he had against Norton! Not to mention Spinks, Holmes, and Berbick.

I would like to hear your thoughts...

We ALL know the three main styles in boxing...

1. The Pure Boxer/Out-Fighter

2. The Swarmer/Pressure Fighter

3. The Puncher/Slugger

What about hybrid styles?

I think that a LOT of top level guys are really more of a combination.

Everybody basically knows and excepts the "boxer-puncher," as a hybrid, and guys like Manny Pacquiao, Archie Moore, Sugar Ray Robinson, and Lennox Lewis are given this designation, but what about other hybrids...

Like....

The Pressure-Puncher... Guys like Mike Tyson, Marvin Hagler, Canelo Alvarez, and Gennady Golovkin would fit this nicely, as their style is half-way between a swarmer and a slugger.

I think there are also Pressure-Boxers... Guys like Timothy Bradley, Juan Manuel Marquez, and Miguel Cotto would be great examples of this half-way combination of Pressure fighting and boxing.

I do not think being a counter-puncher qualifies as a style, because it can be utilized as a tool by any style, or hybrid. That's no doubt a phenomenal skill, and a major component within a person's own personal style, but not a style in, and of itself. For example, Mayweather is a Pure Boxer, but was always a phenomenal counter-puncher, Many Pacquiao is a boxer-puncher, and is also a counter-puncher, Sonny Liston is a puncher/slugger and a counter-puncher, etc...

What are your thoughts????

-

I think 6-7 years ago, we would all chalk this one up for Pacquiaio. However, the 2017 version of the Filipino boxer-puncher, is quite the same dynamo he once was. However, as Jessie Vargas found out, with that said... dude can still put you on the ground, and beat up most elite world-class fighters.

Enter Thurman, also a boxer-puncher, probably packing a bigger punch that the PAC-MAN, but probably not as fast (not even in 2017). Thurman's coming off a lack-luster decision victory over Danny Garcia, but has shown that he has the goods. I wasn't impressed with his win over Guerrero, I thought he lost against Porter (even though the judges scored it for Thurman), and I think he did legitimacy beat Danny Garcia, but it wasn't exactly impressive.

With that said, it could easily be argued that Thurman is the best welterweight right now (depending on your view of Kell Brook, Errol Spence, and Pacquiao) (maybe Porter too). He is undefeated, and has REAL power, speed, and skill.

The Pacquiao vs. Khan fight is dead, and has fallen apart... Pacquiao may or may not still fight Khan next. Assuming, he does NOT (as most feel Pacquiao would win), he may opt to fight Keith Thurman!

How does a 2017 version of Pacquiao fair against Thurman?! Who wins and how??? And, if you think Thurman beats Pacquiao due to Pacquiao's current state, how do you think a PRIME Pacquiao does against Thurman???

I know Rocky was technically a heavyweight, but remember, back then, heavyweight was way smaller back then. They say Rocky weighed about 185lbs. Which was around the weight Rocky fought at, Kovalev fights at 175, and I think they could easily fight at a catch-weight.

What do you think about that fight???

One through ten, with 1 being the MOST POWERFUL, and 10 being the LEAST POWERFUL... please rate these ten boxers.

Note: Please rate these boxers purely on the power of their punch, and NOTHING else. Like, if they were in a laboratory, and scientists were measuring the absolute force, like the pounds-per-square-inch force of their punches.

The Fighters:

Ernie Shavers

Sony Liston

Mike Tyson

George Foreman

Wvladomir Klitschko

Joe Louis

Lennox Lewis

Max Baer

David Tua

Jack Dempsey

-Thank you

James Tony's career is effectively over. If you were to grade him and his attributes, how would you grade him, using the school style A,B,C, D, F model, with pluses, minuses, and plain letter grades.

Overall Offense:

Overall Defense:

Agility:

Durability (Chin):

Endurance:

Hand Speed:

Punching Power:

Ring I.Q.:

Ring Generalship:

Overall Career:

Thank you!

,

I could be wrong, but it was my understanding that MMA stands for Mixed Martial Arts, and that in and of itself, it is NOT a Martial Art, but rather... is a competition platform for fighters who practice a variety of martial arts.

In general, it is said, that there is what they call "The Four Pillars of MMA," which is 1. Western Boxing, 2. Western Wrestling, 3. Muay Thai, and 4. Brazilian Jujitsu.

Also, many say that Judo and Karate are like additional/smaller pillars due to the fact that many throws and sweeps from Judo are commonly used in MMA, and that Brazilian Jujitsu is basically all Judo anyways, furthermore, techniques like the Karate front kick (especially to the face like Silva vs. Belfort, Machida vs. Couture, and Travis Brown vs. Overeem), spinning back kick, side kick, spinning heel kicks, etc... come from karate, and many MMA fighters have extensive Karate experience, and use it as their base like Lyoto Machida, Georges St. Pierre, Uriah Hall, Stephan Thompson, Michelle Waterson, Bas Rutten etc....

So... "IF" MMA was a Martial Art... I suppose it would be varying combinations of Boxing, Wrestling, Muay Thai, Brazilian Jujitsu, Judo, and Karate. However, when I do to MMA gyms, I see individual and separate classes for the above martial arts, I don't see classes for MMA, at some places they have classes that are sparring based that allow and call for the utilization of combination of arts, but don't specifically teach an MMA class.

Your opinions???

I watched a great documentary on youtube yesterday. Called Wing Chun the science of self-defense. It is quite long (over an hour), but I thought it was pretty interesting. The narrator/creator of the video made some interesting points. It was pretty educational. I learned that Wing Chun uses not only punching and kicking, but knees, elbows, sweeps, trips, open hand strikes, grappling, and submissions, that it employs simultaneous attack and defense, and extensive weapon defense.

It looked very interesting, and even boasted that it was effective against MULTIPLE ATTACKERS, which I find very... VERY hard to believe, but never the less, that was one of their claims. As somebody who has trained heavily in western boxing, karate, and Brazilian Jujitsu, however, in my own experience... I was once jumped in high school, and I was able to take out three (incapacitate) of the four guys that attacked me, and got the fourth guy to back off, exclusively using boxing, so I know it is possible.

I'm posting the link here, for those of you that want to watch the video, but overall... I want to know your opinions about Wing Chun as a martial art, for self-defense, and no non-sense fighting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_POoeId...

I watched a great documentary on youtube yesterday. Called Wing Chun the science of self-defense. It is quite long (over an hour), but I thought it was pretty interesting. The narrator/creator of the video made some interesting points. It was pretty educational. I learned that Wing Chun uses not only punching and kicking, but knees, elbows, sweeps, trips, open hand strikes, grappling, and submissions, that it employs simultaneous attack and defense, and extensive weapon defense.

It looked very interesting, and even boasted that it was effective against MULTIPLE ATTACKERS, which I find very... VERY hard to believe, but never the less, that was one of their claims. As somebody who has trained heavily in western boxing, karate, and Brazilian Jujitsu, however, in my own experience... I was once jumped in high school, and I was able to take out three (incapacitate) of the four guys that attacked me, and got the fourth guy to back off, exclusively using boxing, so I know it is possible.

I'm posting the link here, for those of you that want to watch the video, but overall... I want to know your opinions about Wing Chun as a martial art, for self-defense, and no non-sense fighting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_POoeIds50

I get that in the past the could not write down techniques, for fear of someone discovering that groups of people were training to fight. I also get that it is a way to refine techniques, but you can work on techniques individually, and refine them without Kata. I can understand that it is like a living textbook of techniques, but why not just have a textbook of techniques, without the pre-orchestrated step-by-step memorized Kata?!

What other purpose does it serve???

MMA has some strong Karate practitioners like Lyoto Machida, Stephen Thompson, and Uriah Hall. However, given the popularity of Karate worldwide, you would expect more representation. I mean especially when you consider that Karate has far more variety in kicks, footwork, and creates more angles than you see in Muay Thai. Cross-training is a MUST no matter what your base art is, but for whatever reason... you don't see many karate-ka in MMA, and I don't really understand why!

Then, you have a few "former" Karate-Ka like Chuck Liddel and George St. Pierre who don't seem to use ANY karate in the ring. They seem to abandon it all-together, relying on arts they learned later on. While Machida, Thompson, and Uriah Hall use Karate with major efficacy. I just think its strange, because I would think people would rely on arts they learned earlier on, especially when you see how effective others have been with it.

What do you think???

I was told that the WKF (World Karate Federation) ONLY recognizes FOUR styles of Karate, including Shotokan, Shito Ryu, Wado Ryu, and Goju Ryu.

When I was really young, I did a Karate Style called Nisei Goju Ryu. the word "Nisei" meaning "new." Now, the original Goju Ryu was taught by Chojun Miyagi. When Goju Ryu went to Japan, it went with Miyagi's student Gōgen Yamaguchi, who called it Japanese Goju Ryu. Yamaguchi's student named Peter Urban (an American) took the style back home with him, calling the style American Goju Ryu. Urban trained a student called Frank Ruiz, frank Ruiz later began calling the style Nisei Goju Ryu.

I studied Nisei Goju Ryu for about 5 years, getting to purple belt, a good friend of mine that I trained with kept doing it, and after about 10 years got his black belt.

My question is... would/does the WKF recognize my style as Nisei Goju Ryu, does it simply group it as Goju Ryu, or does it NOT recognize the lineage/descended style at all? Could I, or my friend compete in a WKF event? Or would we be disallowed because our descended style, rank, and belts would not be recognized?!

The Kata's are the same, and there have not been any fundamental changes made to it. So Would it count or not???

In Okinawa, early form of karate were called "Te," or "hand." The three major Okinawan areas practicing "te," was Naha, Shuri, and Tomari, so regional differences emerged resulting in Naha-Te, Shuri-Te, and Tomari-Te. Naha-Te became Goju Ryu, Shuri-Te became Shorin Ryu, and Tomari-Te became Wado Ryu. Shito Ryu was kind of a hybrid, and Shotokan was also a hybrid version of Shito Ryu and Shorin Ryu that became popular in Japan.

Nowadays, it seems like there are thousands of different karate styles! Are they all based on the ones I mentioned above? Why so many? How come there has never been a push to consolidate them, like they did in Taekwondo and Judo?

In Karate, generally... they throw punches from a supinated position under the armpit (chamber), that rotates straight out to a pronated punch. While I understand that this torque, and extended travel distance may likely increase the power of the punch, it has a massive defensive liability.

In boxing, we are taught to keep our hands up to protect our face, and guys that get lazy with it, are routinely knocked out. However, karate guys are actually trained to keep the hand chambered (that in boxing would protect their face), supiniated and under their armpit. Doesn't that create a defensive liability, as that side of their head is open to being punched/kicked/elbowed? Or is it that when karate guys spar/fight they don't actually do that?

Also, I see Karate guys practicing blocks like the High Block, middle block, low block, and fan block, and I could definitely see that if someone were attacking you in a very committed, power attacking way, that those block would work. However, if they were fighting somebody who was throwing quick crisp jabs, crosses, and tight lead hooks. Especially, in rapid combinations. I don't think they would work. Does Karate have other types of blocks, or defensive strategies for those type of attacks?