# Post your score GGG - Jacobs



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

Post your score and card.


----------



## MichiganWarrior (Jun 4, 2013)

How salty are you breh. Told you Golovkin was trash.


----------



## Doc (Jun 6, 2013)

Canelo whoops on both of these dudes.

2 easy.

I actually had Jacobs by a round but with that big money fight looming you swear he getting the decisions on that close of a fight!


----------



## KOTF (Jun 3, 2013)

Make it a poll

114-113 Jacobs


----------



## Mexi-Box (Jun 4, 2013)

Pole needed


----------



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

I had it 114 - 113 Gennady Golovkin

I'm trying to share my scorecard but this app is dog shit, gonna have to type it up.

1. 10-9 GGG
2. 10-9 Jacobs
3. 10-9 Jacobs
4. 10-8 GGG
5. 10-9 GGG
6. 10-9 Jacobs
7. 10-9 Jacobs
8. 10-9 GGG
9. 10-9 GGG
10. 10-9 Jacobs
11. 10-9 Jacobs
12. 10-9 GGG

If anyone knows of a good scoring app let me know, typing this up was retarded.


----------



## church11 (Jun 6, 2013)

Didn't score round by round but I felt that Jacobs edged it. In my head I had him up one round. Even more confident now that Canelo beats GGG. 

Really proud of Danny. He's a stand up guy who has overcome some tragic shit, and proved himself tonight. Glad that all those people who predicted that he was going to get slaughtered can eat a bit of crow.


----------



## TeddyL (Oct 5, 2013)

Pedrin1787 said:


> I had it 114 - 113 Gennady Golovkin
> 
> I'm trying to share my scorecard but this app is dog shit, gonna have to type it up.


Now do you see why I said it was a 50/50 fight?


----------



## CASH_718 (Jan 24, 2016)

115-112 Jacobs

8-4 with the KD


----------



## The Kraken (Apr 19, 2014)

Think I gave Gennady about 4 rounds


----------



## KOTF (Jun 3, 2013)

Poll :happy


----------



## Broxi (Jul 24, 2012)

1 - 10:10 even
2 - 10:9 Jacobs
3 - 10:9 Jacobs
4 - 10:8 Golovkin
5 - 10:9 Golovkin
6 - 10:9 Jacobs
7 - 10:9 Jacobs
8 - 10:9 Jacobs
9 - 10:9 Golovkin
10 - 10:9 Jacobs
11 - 10:9 Jacobs
12 - 10:9 Golovkin

115-113 Jacobs

But like I said in the Brit forum, the 1st, 3rd and last 4 rounds are debatable, nothing like a robbery. Cunts are retarded.


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2017)

1. 9-10 Jacobs
2. 10-9 Golovkin
3. 9-10 Jacobs
4. 10-8 Golovkin
5. 10-9 Golovkin
6. 9-10 Jacobs
7. 9-10 Jacobs
8. 9-10 Jacobs
9. 10-9 Golovkin
10. 10-9 Jacobs
11. 10-9 Jacobs
12. 10-9 Golovkin
*Total: 114-113 Daniel Jacobs*


----------



## Broxi (Jul 24, 2012)

fanboxrankings said:


> 1. 9-10 Jacobs
> 2. 10-9 Golovkin
> 3. 9-10 Jacobs
> 4. 10-8 Golovkin
> ...


Exactly and you give GGG the 3rd and it becomes a draw fight. Where all the fucking big mouths scorecards who are claiming robbery?


----------



## Mexi-Box (Jun 4, 2013)

Broxi said:


> Exactly and you give GGG the 3rd and it becomes a draw fight. Where all the fucking big mouths scorecards who are claiming robbery?


I'm not paying attention to this. It's just because GGG is such a polarizing figure.


----------



## Brauer (Jun 24, 2013)

I had it 115-112 Jacobs. Interesting to see more people here think that Jacobs won but in ESB they liked GGG.


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2017)

Broxi said:


> Exactly and you give GGG the 3rd and it becomes a draw fight. Where all the fucking big mouths scorecards who are claiming robbery?


I don't think it was a robbery I just don't like GGG fanboys and hope they get trolled.


----------



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

Broxi said:


> Exactly and you give GGG the 3rd and it becomes a draw fight. Where all the fucking big mouths scorecards who are claiming robbery?


This is why you can't call robberies if you don't score round by round.

I didn't score the Choco fight but I thought he edged it. Still can't say shit until I go back and score.


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2017)

Brauer said:


> I had it 115-112 Jacobs. Interesting to see more people here think that Jacobs won but in ESB they liked GGG.


If you value defense and body punching you scored it to Jacobs. If you value Lampleys commentary you scored it to GGG.


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2017)

Pedrin1787 said:


> This is why you can't call robberies if you don't score round by round.
> 
> I didn't score the Choco fight but I thought he edged it. Still can't say shit until I go back and score.


Scorecards after the fact are worth about as much as the shit I am taking as I reply to you.


----------



## Broxi (Jul 24, 2012)

Mexi-Box said:


> I'm not paying attention to this. It's just because GGG is such a polarizing figure.


Yeah, I've never been on the GGG train, I like him as a fighter because his aggression (and KO power) makes exciting fights but he's extremely hittable and I've been following this sport long enough to know that you don't make any definite judgement on a fighter till he's been tested.


----------



## MichiganWarrior (Jun 4, 2013)

Mayweather should come out of retirement and beat Golovkin


----------



## Broxi (Jul 24, 2012)

fanboxrankings said:


> I don't think it was a robbery I just don't like GGG fanboys and hope they get trolled.


I wasn't suggesting you were specifically, I think you scored the fight pretty accurately.


----------



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

fanboxrankings said:


> Scorecards after the fact are worth about as much as the shit I am taking as I reply to you.


Fair enough but if you don't score a close fight you can't call robbery.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Going to have to re-score but I had GGG by 1 or 2 points.


----------



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

MichiganWarrior said:


> How salty are you breh. Told you Golovkin was trash.


Not salty at all, disappointed with Gs performance for sure though.


----------



## ElKiller (Jun 14, 2014)

I don't score round by round totals, but simply keep track of the point deficit or excess as the rounds progress.

Had this fight close win for GGG on the basis of the KD. Choco lost IMO by 2 points.


----------



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

TeddyL said:


> Now do you see why I said it was a 50/50 fight?


I gotcha, I didn't think Jacobs could stick to the game plan for 12 rounds, turns out he could and the extra weight helped him absorb shots better.


----------



## The Kraken (Apr 19, 2014)

Broxi said:


> 1 - 10:10 even
> 2 - 10:9 Jacobs
> 3 - 10:9 Jacobs
> 4 - 10:8 Golovkin
> ...


Jacobs won the first and third


----------



## ISPEAKUMTROOTH (Jun 10, 2014)

Going into the 12th i posted on the Brits i had it even and GGG imo took the 12th.
I could have had GGG up by one going in but was probably close to getting swayed by the casuals screaming shite like GGG has only won one round.
Im over that now so have no issues with GGG by 2.

Say it again,but GGGs early jab worked was totally overlooked by many.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

:lol:


----------



## ISPEAKUMTROOTH (Jun 10, 2014)

The Kraken said:


> Jacobs won the first and third


No!


----------



## The Kraken (Apr 19, 2014)

ISPEAKUMTROOTH said:


> No!


I just rewatched them, he did, neither man did much but Jacobs did a little bit more in each one


----------



## ISPEAKUMTROOTH (Jun 10, 2014)

The Kraken said:


> I just rewatched them, he did, neither man did much but Jacobs did a little bit more in each one


In your eyes,not mine.
Dont be so salty because folk score rounds differently ffs.
Its boxing,and in a close round it happens.

However,im correct.:theretherebogo


----------



## The Kraken (Apr 19, 2014)

ISPEAKUMTROOTH said:


> In your eyes,not mine.
> Dont be so salty because folk score rounds differently ffs.
> Its boxing,and in a close round it happens.
> 
> However,im correct.:theretherebogo


Jacobs landed nice to the body in the first round while both men were consistent with the jab, the overhand left at the end of the third took that round for him

Not being salty brother considering I was rooting for Golovkin


----------



## TeddyL (Oct 5, 2013)

Pedrin1787 said:


> I gotcha, I didn't think Jacobs could stick to the game plan for 12 rounds, turns out he could and the extra weight helped him absorb shots better.


Yes, although I think Jacobs walked the tightrope on many occasions where he could of been taken out - but largely he stuck to the plan.

Unless GGG gets back in the gym and goes to work on his basics, stops relying on his power too much and believing in the hype that surrounds him - it's only a matter of time until he is beaten by someone who will outbox him by 4-6 rounds.

What we saw tonight , and the past few fights from him - would be an easy nights work for Canelo


----------



## Mexi-Box (Jun 4, 2013)

TeddyL said:


> Yes, although I think Jacobs walked the tightrope on many occasions where he could of been taken out - but largely he stuck to the plan.
> 
> Unless GGG gets back in the gym and goes to work on his basics, stops relying on his power too much and believing in the hype that surrounds him - it's only a matter of time until he is beaten by someone who will outbox him by 4-6 rounds.
> 
> What we saw tonight , and the past few fights from him - would be an easy nights work for Canelo


You're going in the wrong direction right there. Canelo has cement feet. It'd be a different fight and an easier one for Golovkin than Jacobs.


----------



## ElKiller (Jun 14, 2014)

Judging by some of the scores I've seen, it looks like Jacobs was being awarded rounds for simply not being knocked out.


----------



## Cableaddict (Jun 6, 2013)

Pedrin1787 said:


> This is why you can't call robberies if you don't score round by round.
> 
> I didn't score the Choco fight but I thought he edged it. Still can't say shit until I go back and score.


You can all it a robbery when 2 judges had it 115-112.

Yes, you can.


----------



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

Cableaddict said:


> You can all it a robbery when 2 judges had it 115-112.
> 
> Yes, you can.


You realize that 115-112 is a 7-5 Golovkin plus the KD, one round away from a 6-6...

Let's see your card card bro.


----------



## Strike (Jun 4, 2012)

Round 1: Jacobs 10-9
Round 2: Jacobs 10-9
Round 3: 10-10
Round 4: GGG 10-8
Round 5: GGG 10-9
Round 6: Jacobs 10-9
Round 7: Jacobs 10-9
Round 8: Jacobs 10-9
Round 9: GGG 10-9
Round 10: Jacobs 10-9
Round 11: Jacobs 10-9
Round 12: 10-10

Jacobs 116 GGG 113

I could be persuaded to give 11 as a 10-10, which would close it to 2 rounds. Then again, I could edge 3 to Jacobs.


----------



## REDC (Dec 12, 2015)

Strike said:


> Round 1: Jacobs 10-9
> Round 2: Jacobs 10-9
> Round 3: 10-10
> Round 4: GGG 10-8
> ...


Official judges very very rarely score a round 10-10 (policy) so I'd try to refrain from doing it as much as possible.


----------



## VinoVeritas (Nov 14, 2015)

GGG 7-5 with the KD making it 115-112.


----------



## Felix (Mar 13, 2013)

117-110 Jacobs.


----------



## ISPEAKUMTROOTH (Jun 10, 2014)

Felix said:


> 117-110 Jacobs.


You forgot to deduct 2 points from GGG for not knocking Jacobs out,so i will take your card with a pinch of salt.


----------



## Strike (Jun 4, 2012)

REDC said:


> Official judges very very rarely score a round 10-10 (policy) so I'd try to refrain from doing it as much as possible.


I get your point, but I score my card as I would, and then add in which way I would swing a 10-10 round in order to account for the idiocy of boxing judges who seem to think that in a round where nothing happens and both men land one jab each (hypothetically) that a winner for that round should still be picked.


----------



## mick557 (Jun 6, 2013)

115-112 Golovkin


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

GGG winning the 12th won him the fight imo. GGG's lucky he's fighting in this era against the likes of Jacob's because there's no fucking way he'd beat a Hagler, prime Bhop or a roided to fuck RJJ. Even an old ass Duran would make him look silly. I love GGG's footwork and his jab and he has great all round technique but he's also a one dimensional, stiff necked, methodical styled idiot who would've already been schooled if Pirog hadn't retired.

Good boy.


----------



## ISPEAKUMTROOTH (Jun 10, 2014)

rossco said:


> GGG winning the 12th won him the fight imo. GGG's lucky he's fighting in this era against the likes of Jacob's because there's no fucking way he'd beat a Hagler, prime Bhop or a roided to fuck RJJ. Even an old ass Duran would make him look silly. I love GGG's footwork and his jab and he has great all round technique but he's also a one dimensional, stiff necked, methodical styled idiot who would've already been schooled if Pirog hadn't retired.
> 
> Good boy.


Pretty sure prime Nicky mensa man Piper wears GGG down and probably scores a late KO.

Benn would be a fun fight.


----------



## Berliner (Jun 6, 2013)

Easy win for Golovkin as predicted.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Berliner said:


> Easy win for Golovkin as predicted.


You never fail to amaze.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

ISPEAKUMTROOTH said:


> Pretty sure prime Nicky mensa man Piper wears GGG down and probably scores a late KO.





ISPEAKUMTROOTH said:


> Benn would be a fun fight.


I'd pick the best of GGG to stop Benn late. He'd eventually wear Benn down after struggling in a back and forth war.


----------



## ISPEAKUMTROOTH (Jun 10, 2014)

rossco said:


> ​
> I'd pick the best of GGG to stop Benn late. He'd eventually wear Benn down after struggling in a back and forth war.


I concur.
Presuming you agree with my Piper analysis?


----------



## DOM5153 (May 16, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> Going to have to re-score but I had GGG by 1 or 2 points.


Thats how i had it, i didn't write it down though, i think the kd was the difference on my card. Fantastic fight though.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

ISPEAKUMTROOTH said:


> I concur.
> Presuming you agree with my Piper analysis?


Piper was bigger. He crushes wee three G.


----------



## Berliner (Jun 6, 2013)

dyna said:


> You never fail to amaze.


Because I am amazing!


----------



## DOM5153 (May 16, 2013)

I'm a little disappointed with some people coming out with shit about Golovkin being exposed etc, it was a fantastic fight between two highly skilled ring warriors with highly contrasting styles, was actually impressed with both guys. To shit on Golovkin would be to shit on Jacobs as well, he produced a performance that not many people thought he was capable of, full of skill, guts and heart, I'd go as far as to say I'd back him in a potential rematch, the game plan was beautiful. The fight itself was everything i love about boxing. Talk of a robbery everytime we have a close fight really needs to stop,i think a rematch probably happens 2-3 fights down the road.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

DOM5153 said:


> I'm a little disappointed with some people coming out with shit about Golovkin being exposed etc, it was a fantastic fight between two highly skilled ring warriors with highly contrasting styles, was actually impressed with both guys. To shit on Golovkin would be to shit on Jacobs as well, he produced a performance that not many people thought he was capable of, full of skill, guts and heart, I'd go as far as to say I'd back him in a potential rematch, the game plan was beautiful. The fight itself was everything i love about boxing. Talk of a robbery everytime we have a close fight really needs to stop,i think a rematch probably happens 2-3 fights down the road.


I definitely think Jacobs should get all the credit for applying his natural abilities to a great gameplan, but I think we have to acknowledge Jacobs has revealed a ceiling to Golovkin's skills that not everyone was aware of beforehand. Because Jacobs himself is very good, but not special. A lot of us thought Golovkin was special. It may be a somewhat arbitrary distinction but make no mistake, Golovkin's aura of invincibility has been shattered.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

Strike said:


> Round 1: Jacobs 10-9
> Round 2: Jacobs 10-9
> Round 3: 10-10
> Round 4: GGG 10-8
> ...


I ended up with the same score, just a couple of rounds scored differently. I'll post a round by round once ive watched it again.

To think I was ridiculed on here for suggesting Jacobs had a chance to win :lol:

Apparently I knew deep down Jacobs had no chance and there was no way Jacobs could survive a fight with GGG after getting dropped by Sergio Mora.

@Pedrin1787 I expected you to have tagged me in something by now, how did you enjoy the fight?


----------



## REDC (Dec 12, 2015)

Strike said:


> I get your point, but I score my card as I would, and then add in which way I would swing a 10-10 round in order to account for the idiocy of boxing judges who seem to think that in a round where nothing happens and both men land one jab each (hypothetically) that a winner for that round should still be picked.


Fair enough and I agree.
I blame the organizations though because the judges do what they're being told (such as scoring a round even is not allowed or should be prevented as much as possible).


----------



## DOM5153 (May 16, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> I definitely think Jacobs should get all the credit for applying his natural abilities to a great gameplan, but I think we have to acknowledge Jacobs has revealed a ceiling to Golovkin's skills that not everyone was aware of beforehand. Because Jacobs himself is very good, but not special. A lot of us thought Golovkin was special. It may be a somewhat arbitrary distinction but make no mistake, Golovkin's aura of invincibility has been shattered.


Definitely see what you are getting at, i thought Jacobs was going to try and fight fire with fire and was completely wrong. I suspect Golovkin is ever so slightly past his peak, i think this level of exposure maybe came 3-4 years too late for him to truly capitalize. I doubt he was truly special on the skill level of Pacquiao, Lomachenko, Mayweather and Rigo but i think he's good enough that he will go down as a middleweight great. At this point I'd like the Canelo fight next and then I'd like to see him rip the belt off BJS before a rematch for all the belts with Jacobs. In an ideal world of course.


----------



## mofo2 (Nov 12, 2014)

:bbbI had Jacobs by a round, but it was another fight that could have swung either way with Jacobs landing cleaner shots more regularly throughout the 12 rounds; GGG let himself down with a low wok rate in my opinion but the result cant seriously be argued with so any mention of a robbery should be ridiculed by every fucker on here with extreme malice :horse


----------



## thehook13 (May 16, 2013)

Anyone scoring for jacobs cannot score period. Get a HD version of the fight look at clean scoring punches landed


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

thehook13 said:


> Anyone scoring for jacobs cannot score period. Get a HD version of the fight look at clean scoring punches landed


Golovkin is still a fraud.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

It was close but clear for me, I could score the fight 5 times over and my score would change slightly, but they'd all be for Jacobs. He outboxed GGG and was more active throughout. Golovkin looked old in the legs and got exposed on the inside.

Eagerly anticipating the Canelo fight now, it's going to be tough for some on here given how little chance they give him. 

Although the same people give Jacobs no chance and thought GGG was on another planet, that's why opposition in context is always important. This was the first 'A' level fighter who he has fought and I thought he got beat, it's different when you've got a world class guy who can can adapt, have the camp of his life and box to a strict gameplan. Similar to how Bradley ditched his brawling style and should he could become a top pure boxer too. Jacobs has that in his locker because he's elite, you're not going to get that from a Martin Murray or David Leimux.

Golovkin is clearly one of the two best middleweights in the world, but he's certainly nothing special and will likely become easier to beat from this point on.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

thehook13 said:


> *Anyone scoring for jacobs cannot score period. *Get a HD version of the fight look at clean scoring punches landed


Absolute rubbish, there's more to the scoring criteria than landed punches. You've got to consider defence, ring generalship and volume, and who was controlling these areas for the longest periods of the fight, and that was Jacobs.

Danny looked like he was landing cleaner shots more consistently anyway so your point is moot regardless.

If you follow the scoring criteria, this was Jacobs all night long, no doubt about it.


----------



## VinoVeritas (Nov 14, 2015)

dyna said:


> Golovkin is still a fraud.


Because he gave away height and weight and still clearly won?


----------



## VinoVeritas (Nov 14, 2015)

TFG said:


> Absolute rubbish, there's more to the scoring criteria than landed punches. You've got to consider defence, ring generalship and volume, and who was controlling these areas for the longest periods of the fight, and that was Jacobs.
> 
> Danny looked like he was landing cleaner shots more consistently anyway so your point is moot regardless.


Ring generalship goes to GGG. And he threw more and landed more.

How was Jacobs controlling the fight? Spending most of the fight moving backwards and landing punches on arms and shoulders doesn't win fights.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

CuckoCuckitas said:


> Because he gave away height and weight and still clearly won?


Height and weight :lol:

Stop being a little bitch, your guy just come off fighting a welterweight.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

CuckoCuckitas said:


> Ring generalship goes to GGG. And he threw more and landed more.
> 
> How was Jacobs controlling the fight? Spending most of the fight moving backwards and landing punches on arms and shoulders doesn't win fights.


Well boxing is scored round by round, and Jacobs ticked more boxes in more rounds.

GGG's best weapon, his jab, began to get blocked and parried in the later rounds. From the middle point onwards it was pretty clear that Jacobs was out boxing Golovkin. He was also getting outworked consistently on the inside.

GGG got exposed tonight, that's something you're just going to have to live with. He's still a top Middleweight, but he's nothing special at all I'm afraid.


----------



## VinoVeritas (Nov 14, 2015)

TFG said:


> Height and weight :lol:
> 
> Stop being a little bitch, your guy just come off fighting a welterweight.


Tell us again how Jacobs was the ring general in there.


----------



## VinoVeritas (Nov 14, 2015)

TFG said:


> Well boxing is scored round by round, and Jacobs ticked more boxes in more rounds.
> 
> GGG's best weapon, his jab, began to get blocked and parried in the later rounds. From the middle point onwards it was pretty clear that Jacobs was out boxing Golovkin. He was also getting outworked consistently on the inside.
> 
> GGG got exposed tonight, that's something you're just going to have to live with. He's still a top Middleweight, but he's nothing special at all I'm afraid.


No, Jacobs didn't tick more boxes each round.

Watch the fight again.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

CuckoCuckitas said:


> Tell us again how Jacobs was the ring general in there.


I didn't say he was the ring general, I said ring generalship is part of the criteria.

When you group them together, Jacobs controlled more of them for longer, which is why he won on my card.

Your bitterness is clouding your judgment and ability to read it seems.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

CuckoCuckitas said:


> No, Jacobs didn't tick more boxes each round.
> 
> Watch the fight again.


Just have.

Had the same score against for Jacobs, as did many people.

Either way, didn't you think GGG would destroy Jacobs, what went wrong?


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

TFG said:


> Absolute rubbish, there's more to the scoring criteria than landed punches. You've got to consider defence, ring generalship and volume, and who was controlling these areas for the longest periods of the fight, and that was Jacobs.
> 
> Danny looked like he was landing cleaner shots more consistently anyway so your point is moot regardless.
> 
> If you follow the scoring criteria, this was Jacobs all night long, no doubt about it.


Classic Hook.

He's right, everyone else is wrong.


----------



## VinoVeritas (Nov 14, 2015)

TFG said:


> I didn't say he was the ring general, I said ring generalship is part of the criteria.
> 
> When you group them together, Jacobs controlled more of them for longer, which is why he won on my card.
> 
> Your bitterness is clouding your judgment and ability to read it seems.


You said this:



> You've got to consider defence, ring generalship and volume, and who was controlling these areas for the longest periods of the fight, and that was Jacobs.


How is this not saying Jacobs was the ring general?


----------



## VinoVeritas (Nov 14, 2015)

TFG said:


> Just have.
> 
> Had the same score against for Jacobs, as did many people.
> 
> Either way, didn't you think GGG would destroy Jacobs, what went wrong?


YDKSAB then.


----------



## Faerun (Jun 4, 2013)

6-6 or 7-5 in favour of Golovkin (wins in both scenarios due to KD of course) seems reasonable. Gennady's style doesn't do so well at his age I feel, although Jacobs would have been a tough match at any point in his career I think.


----------



## thehook13 (May 16, 2013)

TFG said:


> Absolute rubbish, there's more to the scoring criteria than landed punches. You've got to consider defence, ring generalship and volume, and who was controlling these areas for the longest periods of the fight, and that was Jacobs.
> 
> Danny looked like he was landing cleaner shots more consistently anyway so your point is moot regardless.
> 
> If you follow the scoring criteria, this was Jacobs all night long, no doubt about it.


Judges dont look for all that in reality. Not to that effect anyway...Can guarantee you Clean SCORING punches are the biggest most defining criteria for scoring a fight.


----------



## thehook13 (May 16, 2013)

dyna said:


> Golovkin is still a fraud.


Unbeaten fraud. Now Sign the contract 'nelo


----------



## BigBone (Jun 13, 2012)

Massive overreaction as always. GGG won close but clear. If anything, Chocolatito was ever so strangely robbed. Golovkin was more accurate, landed more, landed the more hurtful shots (power jab included) and any doubt was erased via the KD. Yes, I can accept a Jacobs scorecard, but robbery, exposed, fraud? I see Sunday morning hasn't changed in boxing :lol:

But hey, if Canelo keeps bitchin' GIMME THE REMATCH, why the hell not!


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

thehook13 said:


> Judges dont look for all that in reality. Not to that effect anyway...Can guarantee you Clean SCORING punches are the biggest most defining criteria for scoring a fight.


Yes they do you clown, it's their job.

Whether clean punching is the biggest defining factor or not is irrelevant, if you're not considering the other criteria then you're not scoring properly. Jacobs was landing shots more frequently, GGG wasn't as active and began getting outboxed after the halfway point.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

CuckoCuckitas said:


> You said this:
> 
> How is this not saying Jacobs was the ring general?


Because if Jacobs is showing better defense, and throwing with more volume, he is still ticking more boxes than GGG without having to be the ring general.

It's not hard, there's a group of four criteria, over the course of the fight Jacobs was winning in more areas. That doesn't mean he was the ring general for all of the fight, or even all of a round, he could lose that area of the scoring every round and still win as long as he's winning in the other areas.

You cuck.


----------



## Wiirdo (May 31, 2012)

Jacobs 114-113.


----------



## knowimuch (May 9, 2014)

If Wlad loses to joshua I am back from #strongslavteam to #teamslickandblack


----------



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

Strike said:


> Round 1: Jacobs 10-9
> Round 2: Jacobs 10-9
> Round 3: 10-10
> Round 4: GGG 10-8
> ...


Didn't you call my score "ridiculous" in the RBR thread yet you scored two 10-10s?

:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedrin1787 said:


> Didn't you call my score "ridiculous" in the RBR thread yet you scored two 10-10s?
> 
> :lol::lol::lol:


Give Haye a break


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

@Pedrin1787

You gone quiet my brother, I expected you to have reached out and apologized by now.


----------



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

TFG said:


> @Pedrin1787
> 
> You gone quiet my brother, I expected you to have reached out and apologized by now.


Quiet? I went to bed, I didn't have anything to drink last night because I went hard as fuck on Friday.

Anyway, I'll let you have your little "I told you so" mate. Jacobs stayed on track the whole fight (not something I excepted him to do) and was able to absorb blows fairly well.


----------



## sosolid4u09 (Jan 28, 2013)

I think because everyone expected ggg to be a lot more dominant than he was, he is being judged harshly. Objectively based on the fight that we saw yesterday, I feel GGG won a close fight. Could have gone either way. Sure as fuck wasnt a robbery


----------



## Trash Bags (May 17, 2013)

123j
4g10-8
5g
6j
7j
8g
9g
10j
11j
12j
J115
G112


----------



## Trash Bags (May 17, 2013)

Jacobs very clearly won the fight. I didnt think it was particularly close. Horrible decision. Jacobs was robbed.


----------



## uraharakisuke (May 16, 2013)

114-113 GGG.


----------



## Brickfists (Oct 17, 2012)

115-112 Jacobs.

I initially had it 116-112 but that was an error in my part


----------



## Muff (Jun 6, 2013)

Thought Golovkin won by probably a point because of the KD. He did give away too many rounds and his lack of a body attack made me go fucking insane. Could've made Jacobs lose his legs a bit if he dug how he usually does. Jacobs may have landed more power punches but so many of his punches are slappy arm punches that really have no affect; they score points but I don't think in a lot of those flurries, he landed as much as the numbers have indicated. Was pretty telling though that Golovkin didn't seem fazed at all by Jacobs power.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

DOM5153 said:


> Definitely see what you are getting at, i thought Jacobs was going to try and fight fire with fire and was completely wrong. I suspect Golovkin is ever so slightly past his peak, i think this level of exposure maybe came 3-4 years too late for him to truly capitalize. I doubt he was truly special on the skill level of Pacquiao, Lomachenko, Mayweather and Rigo but i think he's good enough that he will go down as a middleweight great. At this point I'd like the Canelo fight next and then I'd like to see him rip the belt off BJS before a rematch for all the belts with Jacobs. In an ideal world of course.


Yeah agreed on all points. Hope he makes the best of what he has left with those top fights.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Muff said:


> Thought Golovkin won by probably a point because of the KD. He did give away too many rounds and his lack of a body attack made me go fucking insane. Could've made Jacobs lose his legs a bit if he dug how he usually does. Jacobs may have landed more power punches but so many of his punches are slappy arm punches that really have no affect; they score points but I don't think in a lot of those flurries, he landed as much as the numbers have indicated. Was pretty telling though that Golovkin didn't seem fazed at all by Jacobs power.


Golovkin was head-hunting like crazy for sure.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

The body work was the difference for me, you can't say Jacobs is hitting gloves and shoe shining when he's mixing it up to the body and the head with every attack and knocking Golovkin back across the ring. He schooled GGG on the inside as well, I was impressed at how crafty he was, especially in round 10 when he just leaned on him and tee'd off SRL style.

I scored it:

Round 1 - Golovkin
Round 2 - Jacobs
Round 3 - Jacobs
Round 4 - Golovkin
Round 5 - Golovkin
Round 6 - Jacobs
Round 7 - Jacobs
Round 8 - GGG
Round 9 - Jacobs
Round 10 - Jacobs
Round 11 - Jacobs
Round 12 - Jacobs.

115-112 Jacobs with the point deducted for the knockdown.


----------



## DynamicMoves (Apr 13, 2014)

I scored it a draw, with the first round being even. 
I was also drunk, don't know what I'd score it sober.


----------



## VinoVeritas (Nov 14, 2015)

TFG said:


> Because if Jacobs is showing better defense, and throwing with more volume, he is still ticking more boxes than GGG without having to be the ring general.
> 
> It's not hard, there's a group of four criteria, over the course of the fight Jacobs was winning in more areas. That doesn't mean he was the ring general for all of the fight, or even all of a round, he could lose that area of the scoring every round and still win as long as he's winning in the other areas.
> 
> You cuck.


Bullshit.

GGG threw more and landed a better %.

You've watched that fight twice and still don't know what you've seen. YDKSAB.

Retard.


----------



## VinoVeritas (Nov 14, 2015)

TFG said:


> The body work was the difference for me, you can't say Jacobs is hitting gloves and shoe shining when he's mixing it up to the body and the head with every attack and knocking Golovkin back across the ring. He schooled GGG on the inside as well, I was impressed at how crafty he was, especially in round 10 when he just leaned on him and tee'd off SRL style.
> 
> I scored it:
> 
> ...


:rofl


----------



## Windmiller (Jun 6, 2013)

Muff said:


> Thought Golovkin won by probably a point because of the KD. He did give away too many rounds and his lack of a body attack made me go fucking insane. Could've made Jacobs lose his legs a bit if he dug how he usually does. Jacobs may have landed more power punches but so many of his punches are slappy arm punches that really have no affect; they score points but I don't think in a lot of those flurries, he landed as much as the numbers have indicated. Was pretty telling though that Golovkin didn't seem fazed at all by Jacobs power.


Golovkin definitely wasn't feeling the head shots but I thought Jacobs clearly bothered him with the couple of hard body shots that he was able to land throughout the fight. Golovkin consistently backed away out of range after a body shot.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

CuckoCuckitas said:


> Bullshit.
> 
> GGG threw more and landed a better %.
> 
> ...


Relying on compubox<<<<

Post a scorecard


----------



## VinoVeritas (Nov 14, 2015)

Bogotazo said:


> Relying on compubox<<<<
> 
> Post a scorecard


Don't need compubox to know what I saw.

Will watch it again when I've got time and post a card.


----------



## KERRIGAN (Jul 25, 2012)

I pretty much agreed with Harold Lederman's card, but I might have given GGG the 2nd round.


----------



## Strike (Jun 4, 2012)

Pedrin1787 said:


> Didn't you call my score "ridiculous" in the RBR thread yet you scored two 10-10s?
> 
> :lol::lol::lol:


Yes. I don't think a 10-10 is remotely ridiculous, and I think it is utterly cretinous for people to see a drawn round as odd. It was common throughout the history of the sport, and if nothing of note happens then it is the correct decision.

Your score card was ludicrous on my initial viewing. I am sure that if I rewatch the fight, that it will seem less so, but there is no chance I will have GGG as the winner. However, I know that tight rounds can change fights hugely, and some of the rounds were tight.

The fact that you find the notion of two rounds being so lacking in merit to warrant a clear winner to be laughable, just shows that you buy into the nonsense of TV coverage. I score fights based on objectivity, not what TV networks demand. Maybe if I was being paid $300,000 per year to score fights and always picking a winner was part of the contract, then I'd change that.


----------



## KOTF (Jun 3, 2013)




----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

KOTF said:


>


What's that? Have 3% of people scored the fourth round to Jacobs?


----------



## KOTF (Jun 3, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> What's that? Have 3% of people scored the fourth round to Jacobs?


:lol: Yes


----------



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

Strike said:


> Yes. I don't think a 10-10 is remotely ridiculous, and I think it is utterly cretinous for people to see a drawn round as odd. It was common throughout the history of the sport, and if nothing of note happens then it is the correct decision.
> 
> Your score card was ludicrous on my initial viewing. I am sure that if I rewatch the fight, that it will seem less so, but there is no chance I will have GGG as the winner. However, I know that tight rounds can change fights hugely, and some of the rounds were tight.
> 
> The fact that you find the notion of two rounds being so lacking in merit to warrant a clear winner to be laughable, just shows that you buy into the nonsense of TV coverage. I score fights based on objectivity, not what TV networks demand. Maybe if I was being paid $300,000 per year to score fights and always picking a winner was part of the contract, then I'd change that.


Wait you called my card ridiculous, not the other way around.

I scored it a 6-6 split with Golovkin getting the win with the KD point, the fight was damn close how is that "ridiculous"?

Yeah buddy go ahead and keep on crying robbery with your 10-10 riddled score cards.


----------



## Brauer (Jun 24, 2013)

fanboxrankings said:


> If you value defense and body punching you scored it to Jacobs. If you value Lampleys commentary you scored it to GGG.


I was listening to the British commentary which favored Jacobs, but from what I saw Jacobs led more often and landed the cleaner punches during most of the second half of the fight.

By the way, in regards to scoring, I have a big problem with how scorecards are virtually binary unless someone is knocked down or has a point taken away. Its why I have no problem with giving a bunch of 10-10 rounds even though I don't personally do it often. I usually just split the no action toss-up rounds when possible and reduce their impact in swaying the fight.


----------



## thehook13 (May 16, 2013)

TFG said:


> Yes they do you clown, it's their job.
> 
> Whether clean punching is the biggest defining factor or not is irrelevant, if you're not considering the other criteria then you're not scoring properly. Jacobs was landing shots more frequently, GGG wasn't as active and began getting outboxed after the halfway point.


I'm just trying to help . take it or leave it. Clean punches vs More landed punches is the biggest problem for judges to decide the round.






*Veteran boxing judge Steve Weisfeld offers tips on how to score a fight*

"A lot of times fans hear that judges focus on four categories: clean punches, effective aggressiveness, defense and ring generalship," Weisfeld said. "But based upon my own experience, my conversations with other judges and seminars conducted by top judges, judges really focus on one category, and that's clean punches."


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2017)

Brauer said:


> I was listening to the British commentary which favored Jacobs, but from what I saw Jacobs led more often and landed the cleaner punches during most of the second half of the fight.
> 
> By the way, in regards to scoring, I have a big problem with how scorecards are virtually binary unless someone is knocked down or has a point taken away. Its why I have no problem with giving a bunch of 10-10 rounds even though I don't personally do it often. I usually just split the no action toss-up rounds when possible and reduce their impact in swaying the fight.


While I don't disagree with you and believe the rules of scoring a boxing match are flawed....the rules are the rules. You have to use the 4 criteria and are pushed to not score even rounds.


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2017)

thehook13 said:


> I'm just trying to help . take it or leave it. Clean punches vs More landed punches is the biggest problem for judges to decide the round.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The rules need to be amended then.


----------



## thehook13 (May 16, 2013)

fanboxrankings said:


> The rules need to be amended then.


Nah i don't think so, the other criteria is used as well and is important at times in deciding the round


----------



## thehook13 (May 16, 2013)

mofo2 said:


> :bbbI had Jacobs by a round, but it was another fight that could have swung either way with Jacobs landing cleaner shots more regularly throughout the 12 rounds; GGG let himself down with a low wok rate in my opinion but the result cant seriously be argued with so *any mention of a robbery should be ridiculed by every fucker on here with extreme malice* :horse


The word Robbery is yelled out so often in boxing that it has almost lost it's meaning,

People cry about corruption all the time and are willing to drag the sports integrity through the mud because the decision doesn't go their way. 90% of the time they don't know the sport well enough to be making such bold claims.

1.Learn what the judges are actually looking for - it's fair enough to score the fight how YOU see it but the judges are looking at a fight in a fairly narrow spectrum. Much more narrow than what the spectator see's in the crowd.

or

2. Accept that boxing is a subjective sport at the end of the day and someone can see a different fight to yours. This one is a hard pill to swallow for too many boxing fans


----------



## KOTF (Jun 3, 2013)

So from what I gather from the graph you can David Haye score five of the 12 rounds


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2017)

thehook13 said:


> Nah i don't think so, the other criteria is used as well and is important at times in deciding the round


It's also used as a way to rob fighters. I could speak to 100 fans, media, judges, fighters and they would all explain ring generalship differently.

It should just be about clean punching and defense as a decider.


----------



## Kid Cubano (Jun 5, 2013)

Pedrin1787 said:


> I had it 114 - 113 Gennady Golovkin
> 
> I'm trying to share my scorecard but this app is dog shit, gonna have to type it up.
> 
> ...


Pretty much my score, but round 1 I gave it to Jacob


----------



## Strike (Jun 4, 2012)

Pedrin1787 said:


> Wait you called my card ridiculous, not the other way around.
> 
> I scored it a 6-6 split with Golovkin getting the win with the KD point, the fight was damn close how is that "ridiculous"?
> 
> Yeah buddy go ahead and keep on crying robbery with your 10-10 riddled score cards.


:lol:

I wanted Golovkin to win. I predicted him to win by KO inside 5. So I'm not crying. 10-10 scores should be used, and in 2 rounds it is hardly "riddled". I overreacted when I first saw your card, as I couldn't see how GGG won 6 rounds. I still can't, but I'll have to watch it back.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Strike said:


> :lol:
> 
> I wanted Golovkin to win. I predicted him to win by KO inside 5. So I'm not crying. 10-10 scores should be used, and in 2 rounds it is hardly "riddled". I overreacted when I first saw your card, as I couldn't see how GGG won 6 rounds. I still can't, but I'll have to watch it back.


10 10 rounds have been used numerous times in the past, and they still should be. Yet when a 10-10 round impacts a close fight (to some people) they freak out today (casuai fans I reckon) because it doesn't suit an agenda.

Same reason some people are saying that Jacobs "slapping" punches shouldn't count for as much. Who is to judge how a fighter feels about getting hit unless he is visibly wobbled?

This whole "clean effective punching" really needs to go and be replaced with "scoring blows".


----------



## Strike (Jun 4, 2012)

turbotime said:


> 10 10 rounds have been used numerous times in the past, and they still should be. Yet when a 10-10 round impacts a close fight (to some people) they freak out today (casuai fans I reckon) because it doesn't suit an agenda.
> 
> Same reason some people are saying that Jacobs "slapping" punches shouldn't count for as much. Who is to judge how a fighter feels about getting hit unless he is visibly wobbled?
> 
> This whole "clean effective punching" really needs to go and be replaced with "scoring blows".


Spot on.

Jacobs landed more scoring shots in most of the rounds. If they were so pitter patter, then why didn't GGG push forward like he did in rounds 4 and 5? A 10-10 should absolutely be used in rounds with nothing to split them...it is quite an American attitude to sport to feel there must be a winner. Sometimes it's a tie in a game. Sometimes a round has so little action or both men do so much that is equal that it makes a lottery out of scoring to just go "Erm...let's say 10-9 to that guy" because you need to choose a round winner.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Strike said:


> Spot on.
> 
> Jacobs landed more scoring shots in most of the rounds. If they were so pitter patter, then why didn't GGG push forward like he did in rounds 4 and 5? A 10-10 should absolutely be used in rounds with nothing to split them...it is quite an American attitude to sport to feel there must be a winner. Sometimes it's a tie in a game. Sometimes a round has so little action or both men do so much that is equal that it makes a lottery out of scoring to just go "Erm...let's say 10-9 to that guy" because you need to choose a round winner.


scoring it tomorrow, so Ill have to get back to your point on Jacobs landing more in more rounds.

It's easy to look at compubox and come to a conclusion, but this isn't scored on a compubox end of fight basis. Who won more rounds in a 12 round fight should determine the winner. It felt a close fight but it was mainly because of the Golo 2 point round and he constantly seemed like a dog chasing a car.


----------



## Uncle Rico (May 24, 2013)

Can't remember my exact scorecard. But I had Jacobs winning by a couple of rounds


----------



## Felix (Mar 13, 2013)

Strike said:


> Spot on.
> 
> Jacobs landed more scoring shots in most of the rounds. If they were so pitter patter, then why didn't GGG push forward like he did in rounds 4 and 5? A 10-10 should absolutely be used in rounds with nothing to split them...it is quite an American attitude to sport to feel there must be a winner. Sometimes it's a tie in a game. Sometimes a round has so little action or both men do so much that is equal that it makes a lottery out of scoring to just go "Erm...let's say 10-9 to that guy" because you need to choose a round winner.


That arbitrary 10-9 approach can result in some wildly different scorecards in terms of who won individual rounds, but cards that overall aren't scored unfairly. I'd prefer more 10-10 rounds but then you'll inevitably one day have someone score a fight 120-120 and the whole argument will start over from the other end of the spectrum. Because of the timescales involved there's too much pressure in boxing to have a winner each fight.


----------



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

Strike said:


> :lol:
> 
> I wanted Golovkin to win. I predicted him to win by KO inside 5. So I'm not crying. 10-10 scores should be used, and in 2 rounds it is hardly "riddled". I overreacted when I first saw your card, as I couldn't see how GGG won 6 rounds. *I still can't, but I'll have to watch it back.*


Please don't, you'll come back with 1 round for Golovkin and 4 10-10s.


----------



## Strike (Jun 4, 2012)

Pedrin1787 said:


> Please don't, you'll come back with 1 round for Golovkin and 4 10-10s.


Stop being a dick. I apologise if you were offended by my initial comment, and I hold my hands up and say it was hasty. Basically, I felt so much that GGG had lost the bulk of the rounds and was a huge disappointment, that it seemed crazy to see someone giving him so many rounds. However, looking back at the card...it's not really that many rounds, and lots of them were fairly close.

Personally, I do not see that he won half of the rounds. He looked clueless bar his footwork for much of the fight. If you think scoring rounds 10-10 is wrong, then you're completely wrong on that issue. Sometimes not enough happens to warrant a winner for a round.


----------



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

Strike said:


> *Stop being a dick. I apologise if you were offended by my initial comment, and I hold my hands up and say it was hasty.* Basically, I felt so much that GGG had lost the bulk of the rounds and was a huge disappointment, that it seemed crazy to see someone giving him so many rounds. However, looking back at the card...it's not really that many rounds, and lots of them were fairly close.
> 
> Personally, I do not see that he won half of the rounds. He looked clueless bar his footwork for much of the fight. If you think scoring rounds 10-10 is wrong, then you're completely wrong on that issue. Sometimes not enough happens to warrant a winner for a round.


Thank you sir.

One of the judges had a 10-10 if I remember correctly, so no big deal on that, just wanted to give you shit back for your RBR comment.

:respek


----------



## nvs (May 16, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> Golovkin was head-hunting like crazy for sure.


I did not understand that part at all when i watched the fight. Ok you cant hit the guy on the head, just bang hooks and uppercuts when he is on the ropes and trying to dodge punches. Left hook, right uppercut, you will hit something surely other than missing 20th shot towards the head.
GGG punches hard enough that when Jacobs was dodging the headshots right uppercut to body would have done wonders.
GGG's jab was on point though i have to say.


----------



## Felix (Mar 13, 2013)

Pedrin1787 said:


> Thank you sir.
> 
> One of the judges had a 10-10 if I remember correctly, so no big deal on that, just wanted to give you shit back for your RBR comment.
> 
> :respek


Nope.










No 10-10.


----------



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

Felix said:


> Nope.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Whoops, I must've seen that 10-10 total and assumed that was a 10-10 score.


----------



## Felix (Mar 13, 2013)

Pedrin1787 said:


> Whoops, I must've seen that 10-10 total and assumed that was a 10-10 score.


I posted this in another thread; the round-by-round scoring breaks down between the individual judges like this:










Scores at the bottom are in same order as the columns, the KD isn't accounted for.


----------



## mofo2 (Nov 12, 2014)

thehook13 said:


> The word Robbery is yelled out so often in boxing that it has almost lost it's meaning,
> 
> People cry about corruption all the time and are willing to drag the sports integrity through the mud because the decision doesn't go their way. 90% of the time they don't know the sport well enough to be making such bold claims.
> 
> ...


 I Agree entirely - it seems differing opinions over close fought fights inevitably turn to insults on boxing forums.

Personally I was rooting for GGG but in my opinion he was edged out, but having said that so many rounds were close I can see why he took a comfortable UD; unfortunately some people choose to ridicule and will never be open to a contrasting opinion!


----------



## GlassJaw (Jun 8, 2013)

7-5 Jacobs


----------



## Crean (May 19, 2013)

115-114 Jacobs

Couple of tied rds

GGG - Jacobs
10 - 9
10 - 10
9 - 10
10 - 8
10 - 9
9 - 10
10 - 10
9 - 10
10 - 9
9 -10
9 -10
9 -10

114 - 115


----------



## Muff (Jun 6, 2013)

Golovkin better step up his game because how he's looked the past couple fights is bullshit.He can say he's not doing this or that, but how he's been looking, he's past his prime. I said it earlier but the fact that he did hardly any body work against Jacobs is a bad sign. He might be falling in love with his power and not realizing that his natural power is what makes him the fighter he is/was. He had Jacobs in positions many times throughout the fight to land his patented body shots and he never threw them for whatever reason. As he showed, he wasn't bothered by Jacobs power so I have no idea why he was so reluctant to throw his usual shots. And it wasn't because Jacobs was showing different looks or making GGG confused by movement; he just wasn't throwing his normal shots.I don't want to take away from Jacobs because he did a great job. I just can't understand why GGG turned into someone who wasn't GGG.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

Felix said:


> I posted this in another thread; the round-by-round scoring breaks down between the individual judges like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I did something similar to this and compared it with Compubox. The judges agreed on 8 rounds in total; 5 rounds for Golovkin (1, 4, 5, 8 and 9) and 3 rounds for Jacobs (6, 10 and 11). Opinions differed on rounds 2, 3, 7 and 12. This is a swing margin that could see 9/3 to Golovkin through to 7/5 to Jacobs if all judges had agreed on all rounds.

The compubox stats for who landed more overall, per round, favour GGG over Jacobs (9 rounds to 2 with one round even). Compubox scored the same 5 rounds for Golovkin that the judges agreed on and scored one of the two rounds that the judges agreed on (round 10) for Jacobs. The other round, round 6, had compubox attributing 14 punches to each fighter. Every judge gave that round to Danny because GGG landed 11 jabs to Jacobs' 3 and Jacobs landed 11 power shots to GGG's 3. That suggests the judges certainly weren't undervaluing Danny's power shots.

Overall the judges scores and compubox stats seem consistent.


----------



## Felix (Mar 13, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> I did something similar to this and compared it with Compubox. The judges agreed on 8 rounds in total; 5 rounds for Golovkin (1, 4, 5, 8 and 9) and 3 rounds for Jacobs (6, 10 and 11). Opinions differed on rounds 2, 3, 7 and 12. This is a swing margin that could see 9/3 to Golovkin through to 7/5 to Jacobs if all judges had agreed on all rounds.
> 
> The compubox stats for who landed more overall, per round, favour GGG over Jacobs (9 rounds to 2 with one round even). Compubox scored the same 5 rounds for Golovkin that the judges agreed on and scored one of the two rounds that the judges agreed on (round 10) for Jacobs. The other round, round 6, had compubox attributing 14 punches to each fighter. Every judge gave that round to Danny because GGG landed 11 jabs to Jacobs' 3 and Jacobs landed 11 power shots to GGG's 3. That suggests the judges certainly weren't undervaluing Danny's power shots.
> 
> Overall the judges scores and compubox stats seem consistent.


Are you trying to say that analysis of objective facts cross-referenced with the individual scorecards supports the conclusion of a Golovkin win? Sounds like you're in on the robbery... :lol:

I could understand the cries of robbery a little more if there'd been a card that was clearly anomalous but the fact they follow a fairly similar breakdown suggests to me less a robbery and more a close fight.


----------



## Felix (Mar 13, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> I did something similar to this and compared it with Compubox. The judges agreed on 8 rounds in total; 5 rounds for Golovkin (1, 4, 5, 8 and 9) and 3 rounds for Jacobs (6, 10 and 11). Opinions differed on rounds 2, 3, 7 and 12. This is a swing margin that could see 9/3 to Golovkin through to 7/5 to Jacobs if all judges had agreed on all rounds.
> 
> The compubox stats for who landed more overall, per round, favour GGG over Jacobs (9 rounds to 2 with one round even). Compubox scored the same 5 rounds for Golovkin that the judges agreed on and scored one of the two rounds that the judges agreed on (round 10) for Jacobs. The other round, round 6, had compubox attributing 14 punches to each fighter. Every judge gave that round to Danny because GGG landed 11 jabs to Jacobs' 3 and Jacobs landed 11 power shots to GGG's 3. That suggests the judges certainly weren't undervaluing Danny's power shots.
> 
> Overall the judges scores and compubox stats seem consistent.


I added +/- punch stats. I know it's far from scientific but it's interesting to look at the data after the fact and I'm bored today so...










Landed figures are + or - for Golovkin. Interesting that the two rounds with a +1 margin went one apiece but the one with the second highest margin went to the person who (according to Compubox, _*I know*_) apparently landed fewest.

Anyway; more data. Yay. I'll try and rewatch bits from the fight if I have time and opportunity later.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

Felix said:


> Are you trying to say that analysis of objective facts cross-referenced with the individual scorecards supports the conclusion of a Golovkin win? Sounds like you're in on the robbery... :lol:
> 
> *I could understand the cries of robbery a little more if there'd been a card that was clearly anomalous but the fact they follow a fairly similar breakdown suggests to me less a robbery and more a close fight.*


That's what makes me laugh about the cries about it being a robbery. It's pretty shit corruption if the judges are scoring it 6/6 and 7/5.If I'd paid off the judges then I'd want my money back after that poor effort. I thought the Gonzalez fight and Kovalev/Ward were more controversial decisions than this one and I don't think either of those were robberies.


----------



## Felix (Mar 13, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> That's what makes me laugh about the cries about it being a robbery. It's pretty shit corruption if the judges are scoring it 6/6 and 7/5.If I'd paid off the judges then I'd want my money back after that poor effort. I thought the Gonzalez fight and Kovalev/Ward were more controversial decisions than this one and I don't think either of those were robberies.


CJ Ross needs to take these foolish judges aside and give them a lesson in how to score a robbery fight. I was looking at the punch stats for Gonzalez' fight too; those figures DO support a robbery claim, much more noticeably, but some of the same people saying that punch stats don't prove Golovkin won will be citing them as proof Gonzalez_* did.*_ :conf :lol:



Spoiler













Punches landed are +/- for Gonzalez



I know it's a little deeper than that but you know what I mean.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

I've broken down the Compubox stats *_blah-blah-obligatory-compubox-isn't-the-be-all-end-all-just-two-guys-pressing-buttons-spiel_*.

Instead of presenting accuracy percentage or amount of each punch type landed I've opted to present the percentage difference between the amount both fighters landed compared to _each other_.

So, for example, if both guys landed 5 jabs; then that's 50% each rather than whatever percentage 5 is of the amount they threw. This eliminates accuracy and activity as factors but emphasises who actually landed more.

Where a cell is red the fighter landed less than the opponent (<50%). Where the cell is yellow the fighter landed _marginally_ more than their opponent (>50% - <75%). Where the cell is green the fighter landed _significantly _more than their opponent (>75%).

Admittedly, the 75% threshold for 'significance' is arbitrary but it's worth mentioning that lowering it to something like 60%-65%, for example, would only work in Golovkin's favour anyway.

@Felix


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

Who landed more (according to compubox):


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Alright here we go. Watching closely.

Round 1- Both men jabbed well but I felt Jacobs got in a few more, particularly to the body. *Jacobs*

Round 2-Jacob's straight left is the cleanest shot in the first half of the round and outjabs Golovkin. Golovkin's glancing right hand is the only power punch up top of the round and Jacobs counters it with a left hook. Golovkin goes to the body but Jacobs answers with a combination and preserves his lead. *Jacobs*

Round 3-Body shot and 1-2 for Golovkin. Jacobs lands a jab and another 1-2 for Golovkin. Glancing body shots for Jacobs and a stiff jab from Golovkin. Another body shot for Golovkin. Baby shots for Jacobs in the clinch. They trade jabs and Golovkin's looks a bit better. Small body shots for Jacobs. Golovkin goes downstairs but Jacobs lands that left hook up top. Golovkin seems to have landed the harder punches in the round. Close one though. *Golovkin*

Round 4-10-8 round for *Golovkin*

Round 5-Big right hand for Golovkin and follows up. That stiff jab stays pumping. Hard body shot and shots up top in the clinch. Jacobs lands some good shots to come back but it's not enough. *Golovkin*

Round 6-Combination from Jacobs lands on Golovkins' gloves, but he lands a jab to the body after. He moves well then lands a couple of shots up top. Nice left hand. Golovkin lands 2 glancing shots. Big right by Jacobs. A jab by Golovkin and Jacobs lands some body shots. Jabs from Jacobs and a little right. Right by Golovkin. Jab by Jacobs and some missed shots. *Jacobs*

Round 7-Glancing jabs from Jacobs. He's moving well. Right by Golovkin who blocks a counter left hook. Nice body shot from Jacobs and misses the follow up shots. Hard rights from Golovkin that seem to shake Jacobs. Jab by Jacobs. Nice combination by Jacobs. Golovkin hits Jacobs against the ropes and Jacobs shoeshines in response. Body shot by Golovkin. Nice 1-2 from Jacobs. Jab from Golovkin. 1-2's from Jacobs and a body shot. Jacobs lands a little more towards the end that edges it for me. *Jacobs*

Round 8-Nice rights from Golovkin. A jabs catches Jacobs coming in. Body shot from Jacobs and a few jabs. Shoeshine from Jacobs. Right from Golovkin. Nice combination from Jacobs. Jab to the body for Golovkin. Jab from Jacobs. Hard body shot from Goloovkin. Hard right hand from Golovkin. Powerful jabs. Jab and uppercut forom Golovkin, left hook from Jacobs. Golovkin edged it on opening and closing the round on harder punches, outweighing Jacobs' bursts. *Golovkin*

Round 9-Nice combination from Jacobs. Glancing shots from Golovkin, little jab for Jacobs. Jabs for Golovkin. Right for Jacobs. Glancing left hook from Jacobs. Nice body shots for Jacobs. He matadors Golovkin a little bit. Big uppercut from Golovkin, Jacobs answers with two. Left hook from Jacobs. Another big uppercut from Golovkin. Big jab from Golovkin and a glancing right. Another jab. Glancing shots from Jacobs at the end. Golovkin just edges it on the harder punches towards the last round. *Golovkin*

Round 10-Jabs from Golovkin and Jacobs ansewrs with a combination to the body. Follows up on top cleanly. Body shot from Golovkin. Jab. Jabs from Jacobs. Shoeshine. Right hand for Jacobs and good movement. Jacobs blocks a right from Golovkin. Jacobs landing straight shots. Definitely a Jacobs round. Jab by Golovkin, great left hooks from Jacobs. *Jacobs*

Round 11-Jabs from Golovkin drive Jacobs back. Rights from Golovkin. Left for Golovkin. Body shot from Golovkin. Uppercut from Golovkin. Nice body shots from Jacobs. little 1-2 for Golovkin, glancing left hook for Jacobs. Combination for Jacobs. Uppercut for Jacobs. Little left hook at the end. Left hook for Golovkin but Jacobs comes back with the stronger shots. I think at the end there Jacobs just stole it. *Jacobs.*

Round 12-Jab from Golovkin. Left hook and uppercut from Golovkin. Jacobs lands a body-head combination. Uppercut from Golovkin and a jab. More jabs and uppercuts. Right hand for Jacobs. Left hook from Golovkin, right hand. Right hand for Jacobs, Golovkin returns one. Uppercut by Jacobs. Inaccurate shoeshine. Right by Golovkin. Right for Jacobs. They trade inaccurately. *Golovkin

114-113 Golovkin*. They split the rounds evenly. For the first time I think I have the same exact card as Lederman. No robbery, around 3 razor close rounds.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> I've broken down the Compubox stats *_blah-blah-obligatory-compubox-isn't-the-be-all-end-all-just-two-guys-pressing-buttons-spiel_*.
> 
> Instead of presenting accuracy percentage or amount of each punch type landed I've opted to present the percentage difference between the amount both fighters landed compared to _each other_.
> 
> ...


The jab discrepancy is a good example of how the type of jab can make a difference statistically. Jacobs stretched his lead hand out a lot to control and feint Golovkin or cover his lateral movement.

Also @Zopilote I'll score the Chocolatito fight properly for you at some point.


----------



## Muff (Jun 6, 2013)

My friend was listening to thaboxingvoice podcast and he was surprised how racial it got. He said there were multiple callers all bringing up race shit. I told him before how divisive Golovkin has become but he was skeptical until he heard the podcast today. It's ridiculous.


----------



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

Muff said:


> My friend was listening to thaboxingvoice podcast and he was surprised how racial it got. He said there were multiple callers all bringing up race shit. I told him before how divisive Golovkin has become but he was skeptical until he heard the podcast today. It's ridiculous.


I hate the retard host of that show, I gave it a try last night but as I listened I just got pissed off and turned it off.

Might listen to the rest of it to listen to the race drama.


----------



## Smirk (Dec 14, 2013)

We had a blast at the Garden. Sat 17 rows up in the lower bowl. Watching G-Jacobs live I thought Gennady won 115-112, viewing the replay I scored it 114-113 for G. Heck of a close fight, credit to Jacobs and his team for the performance. If Danny had a better jab he could have taken this.

Haven't had a chance to watch a relay of Roman-Sor but my reaction live was that Choc deserved the nod. Massive respect to Rungvisai either way. Crowd was great the whole night except when they booed Sor during his postfight.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Muff said:


> My friend was listening to thaboxingvoice podcast and he was surprised how racial it got. He said there were multiple callers all bringing up race shit. I told him before how divisive Golovkin has become but he was skeptical until he heard the podcast today. It's ridiculous.


It's a big problem. Racism is already a prevalent thing but on top of that you have immature fans who actually enjoy the tribal partisan aspects of boxing. Fans have been trying to recreate the petty divisiveness of Mayweather-Pacquiao through Ward-Kovalev/GGG on the internet everywhere the past few years. It's sad and dumb.


----------



## Muff (Jun 6, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> It's a big problem. Racism is already a prevalent thing but on top of that you have immature fans who actually enjoy the tribal partisan aspects of boxing. Fans have been trying to recreate the petty divisiveness of Mayweather-Pacquiao through Ward-Kovalev/GGG on the internet everywhere the past few years. It's sad and dumb.


Yeah it really kills the sport and any sort of civil debate. I try not to read comments on YouTube or Instagram when it comes to boxing videos because the shit is over the top. I've never been one to have racial pride so that kind of stuff never made to much sense to me.


----------



## bald_head_slick (May 23, 2013)

Doc said:


> Canelo whoops on both of these dudes.
> 
> 2 easy.
> 
> I actually had Jacobs by a round but with that big money fight looming you swear he getting the decisions on that close of a fight!


You talking about the same Canelo that was getting pushed backwards to the point of being unable to keep his hands up by Austin Trout? :think1:conf

I get why HBO/GBP affiliated analysts, Boxers, and fans are saying Alvarez smashes or even matches well with GGG. I am completely baffled how ANY objective Boxing fan sees Alvarez surviving 12 rounds of that level of pressure and danger. Alvarez' only shot would be meeting fire with fire, which is a recipe to see Alvarez in a heap on the ground. GGG is to offensively persistent and defensively responsible to lose to Alvarez. I would give Alvarez a better shot versus Jacobs all day.


----------



## bald_head_slick (May 23, 2013)

Muff said:


> Yeah it really kills the sport and any sort of civil debate. I try not to read comments on YouTube or Instagram when it comes to boxing videos because the shit is over the top. I've never been one to have racial pride so that kind of stuff never made to much sense to me.


The problem is the fact that the alleged "professionals" so regularly, obviously, and comprehensively partake in and promote race bias. Particularly against US Black/Urban fighters, e.g., FMJ, Adrian Broner, Danny Garcia, etc... If one wants to understand YouTube hate, one need to look no further than an HBO post fight or ESPN column.

What other sport and its media takes its most successful talent and makes a point to smear/criticize him regularly and demean him? FMJ was literally the highest paid athlete on the planet at one point and Boxing media couldn't bring itself to pat the man (and by proxy themselves) on the back.

What other sport seems to invest so much time and energy casting their fellow countrymen in a negative light versus unflinching positive support of foreigners? I enjoy the international flair of Boxing. I just don't understand why major Boxing media spends so much time trashing its athletes rather than embracing them and playing up their differences.

Interestingly, this has led to a renaissance of sorts for Boxing with PBC and Showtime. By abandoning the old tribal promotional model, PBC and Boxing have been THRIVING.


----------



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

bald_head_slick said:


> The problem is the fact that the alleged "professionals" so regularly, obviously, and comprehensively partake in and promote race bias. Particularly against US Black/Urban fighters, e.g., FMJ, Adrian Broner, Danny Garcia, etc... If one wants to understand YouTube hate, one need to look no further than an HBO post fight or ESPN column.
> 
> What other sport and its media takes its most successful talent and makes a point to smear/criticize him regularly and demean him? FMJ was literally the highest paid athlete on the planet at one point and Boxing media couldn't bring itself to pat the man (and by proxy themselves) on the back.
> 
> ...


What?

I think the first problem here is that people go to YouTube comments looking for insightful discussion. The anonymity of the internet encourages people to post some horrible shit, HBO\ESPN has nothing to do with it.

I mean you got videos where people are doing innocent good natured things and you'll see comments like "Why weren't you aborted?" just because they forgot to zoom in to something or the sound isn't clear.

Second, I don't see this bias against black\urban fighters. All the fighters you named use this "villian" image to promote themselves. Floyd was good at it, Broner tried to copy Floyd and just comes off as corny and annoying but is still effective, and Danny has his dumb dad ranting ridiculous shit, again fairly effective.

You're gonna get some negative feedback but sometimes it's worth it to get your name out there. Broner is nothing special yet he still attracts viewers because he's always running his big mouth. Had he been a quiet good natured guy his popularity would've died out by now, no matter how much Lampley and Fat Dan praised him.


----------



## bald_head_slick (May 23, 2013)

Pedrin1787 said:


> What?
> 
> I think the first problem here is that people go to YouTube comments looking for insightful discussion. The anonymity of the internet encourages people to post some horrible shit, HBO\ESPN has nothing to do with it.


That is a projection. I don't. I do think it does give a window into the type of fan cultivated by Boxing media. HBO and ESPN have everything to do with it.



> I mean you got videos where people are doing innocent good natured things and you'll see comments like "Why weren't you aborted?" just because they forgot to zoom in to something or the sound isn't clear.


I get that. Trolling is real.



> Second, I don't see this bias against black\urban fighters. All the fighters you named use this "villian" image to promote themselves. Floyd was good at it, Broner tried to copy Floyd and just comes off as corny and annoying but is still effective, and Danny has his dumb dad ranting ridiculous shit, again fairly effective.


If you don't see it... I don't know what to say. It has been a cornerstone of US Boxing since time immemorial. Everyone pretends that Ali was this loved by all champion in the US. No. He was the "truculent boy" hated by most. HBO has been forwarding its disgustingly biased post fight crew since the 80's. Only FMJ and his bringing Haymon into the fold was enough to break HBO's back and take Boxing in a new more professional direction.

You bring up FMJ. A better question is, "Why was FMJ good at and where was his fan (hate) base when he was a KO machine at lighter weights?" FMJ spent the first half of his career as a soft spoken KO machine. HBO nor the press cared until he became "too Black", i.e., got out of his place, and told the world what was going to happen to Gatti. FMJ created the "Money" persona and ran with it.

Villain? Broner is a genuine hood wildman, but PBC is covering him much more neutrally and benefiting. Danny was always panned due to his urban flavor. And presented as "scared" of liked guys like Matthysse until he destroyed them. PBC has exposed the racist rot that has been festering in HBO and holding Boxing back for years.

I guess my point here is that the "villain" aspect is actually in itself quite racist. Most of the people painted as "villains" all to often seem to have the same backgrounds and/or origins. Biased coverage only adds to the racist hateful sentiment. If FMJ and Broner are "villains" because of flamboyance, why is Conor McGregor a "star"? If GGG, Kovalev, and Alvarez are Boxing royalty despite their complete lack of English skills, why is Guillermo Rigondeaux impossible to sell despite speaking the language of one of Boxing's strongest constituencies?



> You're gonna get some negative feedback but sometimes it's worth it to get your name out there. Broner is nothing special yet he still attracts viewers because he's always running his big mouth. Had he been a quiet good natured guy his popularity would've died out by now, no matter how much Lampley and Fat Dan praised him.


I totally agree and in a way I think you are kind of making my point. Once PBC came to power and HBO and the ESPN team (think FNFs with Brian Kenney) became diminished, the goal became to sell the product/fighter and NOT take moral positions. Even a mediocre fighter like Broner can pack them in.

Consider the combative alienating attitude of this analyst and the heights FMJ reached. It makes no financial sense. UNLESS your superiors see some sort of positive angle to belittling and enraging (versus challenging) superstars.


----------



## The Kraken (Apr 19, 2014)

This is a microcosm of what I saw in the fight, GGG being aggressive and sometimes even landing flush good shots, but falling in and walking onto harder counters, with Jacob getting more confident as GGG was peppered and had his ears boxed off, then when he gets confident, he gets hit with an even harder shot


----------



## bald_head_slick (May 23, 2013)

The Kraken said:


> This is a microcosm of what I saw in the fight, GGG being aggressive and sometimes even landing flush good shots, but falling in and walking onto harder counters, with Jacob getting more confident as GGG was peppered and had his ears boxed off, then when he gets confident, he gets hit with an even harder shot


I agree. I think we also witnessed the fact that GGG was completely unwilling to step on the gas to make something happen when faced with a live skilled opponent.

While doing a great job during that fight, Danny is no Pure Boxing genius. His preference seems to be to set guys up and bang. He was able to keep GGG at bay and unwilling/incapable to extend for a victory with a Plan B. IMHO, this has to have guys like Charlo, Andrade, and Lara that use this type of style as their Plan A licking their chops.


----------



## The Kraken (Apr 19, 2014)

bald_head_slick said:


> I agree. I think we also witnessed the fact that GGG was completely unwilling to step on the gas to make something happen when faced with a live skilled opponent.
> 
> While doing a great job during that fight, Danny is no Pure Boxing genius. His preference seems to be to set guys up and bang. He was able to keep GGG at bay and unwilling/incapable to extend for a victory with a Plan B. IMHO, this has to have guys like Charlo, Andrade, and Lara that use this type of style as their Plan A licking their chops.


At the beginning of the fight Jacobs ducked in and tried to grab Golovkin, Gennady immediately pushed him off and Jacobs looked at the ref as if to say "He isn't allowed to push me off with the forearms" and after that instant I can't remember another time in the fight Golovkin resisted a clinch as well as that single instance


----------



## bald_head_slick (May 23, 2013)

The Kraken said:


> At the beginning of the fight Jacobs ducked in and tried to grab Golovkin, Gennady immediately pushed him off and Jacobs looked at the ref as if to say "He isn't allowed to push me off with the forearms" and after that instant I can't remember another time in the fight Golovkin resisted a clinch as well as that single instance


The fight surprised the hell out of me. I won't/can't call it a robbery, but I was shocked at GGG's willingness to coast given his reputation and what this fight meant. It seemed to even be DJ was able to fight his style later in the fight catching GGG with some pretty good shots.

Anyone else get a vibe that GGG really doesn't like body work?


----------



## The Kraken (Apr 19, 2014)

bald_head_slick said:


> IIMHO, this has to have guys like Charlo, Andrade, and Lara that use this type of style as their Plan A licking their chops.


Although there is a factor you're forgetting here, Danny Jacobs hits a hell of a lot harder than all three of those fighters, and rivals at least two of them for boxing skills IMO


----------



## The Kraken (Apr 19, 2014)

bald_head_slick said:


> The fight surprised the hell out of me. I won't/can't call it a robbery, but I was shocked at GGG's willingness to coast given his reputation and what this fight meant. It seemed to even be DJ was able to fight his style later in the fight catching GGG with some pretty good shots.
> 
> Anyone else get a vibe that GGG really doesn't like body work?


It's been a rampant rumour for a few years now but nobody has been truly able to take advantage


----------



## bald_head_slick (May 23, 2013)

The Kraken said:


> Although there is a factor you're forgetting here, Danny Jacobs hits a hell of a lot harder than all three of those fighters, and rivals at least two of them for boxing skills IMO


That is very true. The footwork may be on par or better, but GGG shows exemplary punch resistance and may very well be willing to take far more chances... with devastating effect.


----------



## bald_head_slick (May 23, 2013)

The Kraken said:


> It's been a rampant rumour for a few years now but nobody has been truly able to take advantage


I felt I saw a few times that GGG's guard went ridiculously low and he was bent forward way too far.

That power coupled with his persistence deads any hope of a sustained body attack against GGG.


----------



## Muff (Jun 6, 2013)

Nobody...likes it to the body. Might as well say he doesn't like getting punched in the nuts either.


----------



## The Kraken (Apr 19, 2014)

bald_head_slick said:


> I felt I saw a few times that GGG's guard went ridiculously low and he was bent forward way too far.
> 
> That power coupled with his persistence deads any hope of a sustained body attack against GGG.


Signs of a man too used to knocking people out, he can hit like a demon, but Jacobs leg work was not suiting him at all


----------



## Tuff Gong (May 22, 2013)

Anyone got a link to the full fight?


----------



## The Kraken (Apr 19, 2014)

Tuff Gong said:


> Anyone got a link to the full fight?


You havn't seen it?????


----------



## Tuff Gong (May 22, 2013)

The Kraken said:


> You havn't seen it?????


No, I wasn't able to catch it live & haven't seen a replay of it yet, hence I haven't commented on it.

Do you have a link to the full fight?


----------



## Tuff Gong (May 22, 2013)

Okay, found a link & am watching it now.

I'll add each round as I watch it.

Round 1 - 10-9 to GGG - GGG pushed the action while DJ was content to wait & attempt to counterpunch. GGG landed more jabs than DJ during the round while DJ threw a couple of flurries that didn't connect. GGG on effective aggression, ring generalship & punches landed.

Round 2 - 10-9 to GGG - again, GGG pushed the action while DJ was happy to wait & counterpunch. DJ showed more aggression but GGG controlled the ring like he did in rd 1 & landed more punches. GGG on effective aggression, ring generalship & punches landed.

Round 3 - 10-9 to GGG. DJ starting to let his hands go more in this round but once again GGG controlled the ring & landed more punches. DJ landed a nice jab around the middle of the round that snapped GGG's head back & a left hook to the head after breaking from GGG that got the crowd excited but apart form that GGG again by effective aggression, ring generalship & punches landed.

Round 4 - 10-8 to GGG due to the KD but this was also GGGs most dominant round because he went after DJ after the KD & DJ went into survival mode/shelled up for most of the rest of the round until round the 2 minute mark when he resumed what he did in the first 3 rounds - waiting & counterpunching. Despite this GGG still landed more punches & controlled the ring.

So far my score is 40 (GGG) - 35 (DJ)

Round 5 - 10-9 to GGG. DJ's best round so far, he showed more aggression & landed more punches than in the previous 4 rounds but GGG still controlled the action & landed more punches. DJ starting to open up with his combos but a lot of his punches are either missing or landing on GGG's arms or gloves while GGG is more selective & accurate with his shots.

50 (GGG) - 44 (DJ)

Round 6 - 10-9 to DJ - DJ showing much more effective aggression in this round & using his jab nicely to stick & move. Nive overhand right around the halfway mark followed by a couple of bodyshots that got GGG's attention. GGG still walking DJ down but DJ standing his ground & throwing (& landing more) this round. GGG still landing effective punches but outworked by DJ this round.

59 (GGG) - 54 (DJ)

Round 7 - 10-10 (although I can see how some would score it to DJ). DJ starts off the better fighter, GGG starting to look uncomfortable, I thin he's gassed, in fact I noticed he started breathing more through his mouth in round 4 but this round it's starting to take its toll on him, hence he misses a left & right hand early in the round & looks clumsy at times. That said, thIS round is a back & forth battle with each fighter having success in spurts - first DJ scores with a flurry then GGG strikes back. This is the first round I've seen DJ actually walking GGG down & GGG retreating. Like I said I can see why many would score this round to DJ but I saw enough from both fighters to score it even.

69 (GGG) - 64 (DJ)

Round 8 - 10-9 to DJ - okay, this round could have been another even round because again I saw both fighters doing enough not to have been dominated by the other but am happy to give it to DJ purely because GGG looks gassed & DJ looks like he is in more control than he has been for most of the fight. Unlike rounds 1-3 & 5, rounds 7 & 8 are far closer & harder to score because although DJ is looking better he still isn't doing enough to truly dominate GGG. Nice uppercut at the 30 second mark from DJ & then there was a nice combo around the 1:40 mark that got the crowd going but not one of the punches he threw landed on anything other than GGGs gloves. GGG still plodding along being selective & scoring with the punches he is throwing.

78 (GGG) - 74 (DJ)

Round 9 - 10-9 to DJ. Similar to round 8 with DJ looking the more effective fighter & pushing the action but GGG always pressing as usual. DJ throws some nice combos & lands more punches than in previous rounds but GGG throws 2 nice sneaky little uppercuts in the last minute of the round & starts coming on strong towards the end. Not enough to win or even up the round IMO.

87 (GGG) - 84 (DJ)

Round 10 - 10-9 to GGG. DJ throwing more punches but landing less that GGG who is throwing less but landing more IYKWIM. GGG looking fresher in this round, he was either resting in rounds 6-9 or has now got his second wind. DJ now looking a bit gassed despite throwing more punches. GGG back to walking DJ down & DJ retreating & throwing counterpunches. GGG landing more effective punches.

97 (GGG) - 93 (DJ).

Round 11 - 10-9 to GGG - i could have scored this another even round but I felt GGG did the more effective work in there. GGG back to being the aggressor & DJ counterpunching. DJ looking tired & leaning on GGG at every opportunity. Late come back by DJ but not enough to win the round.

107 (GGG) - 102 (DJ)

Round 12 - 10-9 to GGG. Both guys out on their feet but GGG still pressing the action. DJ throwing combos in spurts & leaning on GGG for a breather whenever he can. GGG still being more selective with his shots & landing with more accuracy despite throwing more missed punches that in any other round.

117 (GGG) - 111 (DJ.

What I saw was a fighter (GGG) who hasn't fought 12 rounds against as strong an opponent as DJ.

GGG definitely looked gassed in the middle rounds but DJ was unable to capitalise on this despite winning 3 of those rounds.

GGG was the more methodical, consistent & effective fighter who pressed the action while DJ fought in spurts & counterpunched. GGG overall landed the more effective punches & won the contest of effective aggression, ring generalship & defence IMO.

I have the benefit of having read all of the post-fight controversy & round by round so I was expecting DJ to be much more effective than he actually was.

I honestly think (as others have said) that people were scoring rounds to DJ simply because he wasn't KDd (apart from round 4) or KOd & GGG is a KO artist.

At the end of the day, GGG went 12 rounds against his biggest, strongest opponent & despite being tired from round 6-9 he still managed to win. That's the hallmark of a true champion IMO.

Also, if they rematch I expect GGG to stop DJ. All GGG needs is to work on his stamina & he will be more confident in throwing bombs in the earlier rounds. I suspect he was aware of the fact that he hadn't been 12 rounds for a long time & paced himsefl in rounds 1-5 therefore wasn't throwing any punches with KO intentions. Rather he was happy to box & score points to win.


----------



## Muff (Jun 6, 2013)

Tuff Gong said:


> Okay, found a link & am watching it now.
> 
> I'll add each round as I watch it.
> 
> ...


I've seen a lot of people give Jacobs the first 3 rounds or at least 2 so even just seeing you give GGG the first 2 is already quite a different scorecard.


----------



## Tuff Gong (May 22, 2013)

Muff said:


> I've seen a lot of people give Jacobs the first 3 rounds or at least 2 so even just seeing you give GGG the first 2 is already quite a different scorecard.


I've just given GGG the 3rd as well.

After having read the round by round live & all the comments afterwards I'm starting to get the feeling that people scored rounds for DJ simply because he wasn't KD'd or KO'd by GGG when in fact GGG was doing the better, more effective work in there.


----------



## Muff (Jun 6, 2013)

Tuff Gong said:


> I've just given GGG the 3rd as well.
> 
> After having read the round by round live & all the comments afterwards I'm starting to get the feeling that people scored rounds for DJ simply because he wasn't KD'd or KO'd by GGG when in fact GGG was doing the better, more effective work in there.


That's the feeling I got when watching. He did better than I expected but I remember as I was watching, I was commentating how quite a bit of his shots didn't seem to actually land or were caught on the gloves. Don't get me wrong, he landed shots, but not as much as it seemed he did. As I said earlier though, GGG's lack of a body attack was the most frustrating thing about the fight.


----------



## MichiganWarrior (Jun 4, 2013)

Tuff Gong said:


> Okay, found a link & am watching it now.
> 
> I'll add each round as I watch it.
> 
> ...


:lol::rofl just as brain dead when it comes to the fight game i see.


----------



## Tuff Gong (May 22, 2013)

MichiganWarrior said:


> :lol::rofl just as brain dead when it comes to the fight game i see.


Excellent argument Talcum X.

You really showed me where I went wrong.

I take it back, my final score is 120 (DJ) - 108 (GGG).

Go fuck yourself you obnoxiously stupid cunt.


----------



## DOM5153 (May 16, 2013)

MichiganWarrior said:


> :lol::rofl just as brain dead when it comes to the fight game i see.


He's shown more analysis in that one post than you have your entire time on this board, that's the truly funny thing here :lol:


----------



## Mexi-Box (Jun 4, 2013)

Tuff Gong said:


> Okay, found a link & am watching it now.
> 
> I'll add each round as I watch it.
> 
> ...


I thought Jacobs edged it, but it is worth looking into (if I felt like it). Rewatch and rescore. Might end up like the Judah/Matthysse fight where I scored it for Matthysse after the second viewing.


----------



## MichiganWarrior (Jun 4, 2013)

Tuff Gong said:


> Excellent argument Talcum X.
> 
> You really showed me where I went wrong.
> 
> ...


:lol: You're a clown. Scoring 5 of the first 7 rounds for the guy who displayed less head movement than your mom on her johns. Stick to what youre best at being a low class ugly old man. Sweet science ain't for your ilk. You don't have the intelligence to it.


----------



## MichiganWarrior (Jun 4, 2013)

DOM5153 said:


> He's shown more analysis in that one post than you have your entire time on this board, that's the truly funny thing here :lol:


I told you years ago that Golovkin was average and has no head movement. That's her be exposed and Gatti'd if he stepped in the ring with Ward. Tell me boy, how salty are you? :think1


----------



## DOM5153 (May 16, 2013)

MichiganWarrior said:


> I told you years ago that Golovkin was average and has no head movement. That's her be exposed and Gatti'd if he stepped in the ring with Ward. Tell me boy, how salty are you? :think1


Not very, I've always thought Ward was too much for Golovkin, never said otherwise.:lol:


----------



## Tuff Gong (May 22, 2013)

MichiganWarrior said:


> :lol: You're a clown. Scoring 5 of the first 7 rounds for the guy who displayed less head movement than your mom on her johns. Stick to what youre best at being a low class ugly old man. Sweet science ain't for your ilk. You don't have the intelligence to it.


Break down rounds 1-5 for me Talcum, describe what Jacobs did to win each of those 5 rounds.


----------



## Tuff Gong (May 22, 2013)

MichiganWarrior said:


> I told you years ago that Golovkin was average and has no head movement. That's her be exposed and Gatti'd if he stepped in the ring with Ward. Tell me boy, how salty are you? :think1


GGG didn't have to move his head for the first 5 rounds because Jacobs barely landed shit :lol:

I get it now though, you're a fan of fighters who move their heads like snakes being charmed by flautists - or shoyld that be "flawtists"? :lol:

No head movement = loss of round :rofl

What a fucking dick you are


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Have to say 9 rounds to Golovkin seems extremely off base to me. There are around 3 close swing rounds in there, if you're giving them all to one fighter you're probably over-rewarding an aspect of their game.


----------



## Tuff Gong (May 22, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> Have to say 9 rounds to Golovkin seems extremely off base to me. There are around 3 close swing rounds in there, if you're giving them all to one fighter you're probably over-rewarding an aspect of their game.


What 3 rounds are you referring to?


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Tuff Gong said:


> What 3 rounds are you referring to?


3, 11, 12, and also 8. I think the first is a close but clear Jacobs round too.


----------



## Tuff Gong (May 22, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> 3, 11, 12, and also 8. I think the first is a close but clear Jacobs round too.


Okay when I get the time I'll watch each of those rounds & score them in detail on the criteria of punches landed, effective aggression & ring generalship. The converse of punches landed is essentially defence so whoever lands more punches has the better defence IMO.

I'll get back to you.

PS - I gave round 8 to Jacobs?


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Tuff Gong said:


> Okay when I get the time I'll watch each of those rounds & score them in detail on the criteria of punches landed, effective aggression & ring generalship. The converse of punches landed is essentially defence so whoever lands more punches has the better defence IMO.
> 
> I'll get back to you.
> 
> PS - I gave round 8 to Jacobs?


Yeah I wasn't trying to poke holes in your card specifically, just citing the ones I thought were very close. It's hard to balance the criteria.


----------



## MichiganWarrior (Jun 4, 2013)

> No head movement = loss of round :rofl
> 
> What a fucking dick you are


Not only are you ugly, and shit at scoring boxing, but you lack reading comprehension as well.

Dont worry trailer park im in a process pf tearing your card apart. Bogo was being polite, 9-3 shows youre a moron.


----------



## desertlizard (Dec 29, 2015)

1. 10-9 GGG
2. 10-9 GGG
3. 10-9 Jacobs
4. 10-8 GGG
5. 10-9 GGG
6. 10-9 Jacobs
7. 10-9 Jacobs
8. 10-9 Jacobs
9. 10-9 GGG
10. 10-9 Jacobs
11. 10-9 Jacobs
12. 10-9 Jacobs

114 113 won for Jacobs last round could ve gone either way


----------



## Tuff Gong (May 22, 2013)

MichiganWarrior said:


> Not only are you ugly, and shit at scoring boxing, but you lack reading comprehension as well.
> 
> Dont worry trailer park im in a process pf tearing your card apart. Bogo was being polite, 9-3 shows youre a moron.


You're an idiot.

Still waiting for you to explain what Jacobs did to win any of rounds 1-5. Until then you might as well STFU because your logic is floored :lol:


----------



## Muff (Jun 6, 2013)

Just watched it again kind of quickly and I'll say what I did the first time around, it's surprising how many of Jacobs shots actually don't land clean or don't actually land at all. I know compubox isn't the end all be all of shots landed/thrown but it's still surprising that, according to compubox, of all that Jacobs seemed to land more than GGG, he still only out landed Golovkin 18 power shots, which I'm sure consisted of more body shots. Gennady's jab can't be overlooked in this fight, as it either contributed highly or outright won him the fight.


----------



## Tuff Gong (May 22, 2013)

MichiganWarrior said:


> Not only are you ugly, and shit at scoring boxing, but you lack reading comprehension as well.
> 
> Dont worry trailer park im in a process pf tearing your card apart. Bogo was being polite, 9-3 shows youre a moron.


What up ******? You forget to score the fight & tear my card apart or you trying to let this slide so you don't get shown up for the biased dickhead you are? :lol:


----------



## MichiganWarrior (Jun 4, 2013)

Tuff Gong said:


> What up ******? You forget to score the fight & tear my card apart or you trying to let this slide so you don't get shown up for the biased dickhead you are? :lol:


Dont worry ugly. Its coming. Not for your behalf mind you as nobody respects your middle aged homely trailer trash opinion anyway. I think any rational mind would find a 9-3 score card for Golovkin the product of rampant inbreeding and defective genetics


----------



## Tuff Gong (May 22, 2013)

MichiganWarrior said:


> Dont worry ugly. Its coming. Not for your behalf mind you as nobody respects your middle aged homely trailer trash opinion anyway. I think any rational mind would find a 9-3 score card for Golovkin the product of rampant inbreeding and defective genetics


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

If you want to fight PM each other all you want, nobody else wants to read that in boxing threads.


----------



## Tuff Gong (May 22, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> If you want to fight PM each other all you want, nobody else wants to read that in boxing threads.


Perhaps you should have posted that back when that dickhead posted this?



MichiganWarrior said:


> :lol::rofl just as brain dead when it comes to the fight game i see.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Tuff Gong said:


> Perhaps you should have posted that back when that dickhead posted this?


I'm not going to baby every post but the argument had died weeks ago until you decided to quote and write "what's up ******?" looking for an argument. If you want to continue do so over PM's, simple.


----------



## Tuff Gong (May 22, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> I'm not going to baby every post but the argument had died weeks ago until you decided to quote and write "what's up ******?" looking for an argument. If you want to continue do so over PM's, simple.


I can see why many other posters have accused you of bias.

You say you won't baby every post but apparently quite coincidentally you miss every one of MWs inflammatory, racist & argumentative posts.

Stop being such a dick & nip it in the bud next time instead of so obviously displaying favouritism.

You won't gain any respect by allowing MW to get away with his crap then trying to exert authority on those he starts hia crap up with.

FWIW I'm interested in his scorecard because he's so adamant Jacobs won. He still hasn't posted it & you've just given him an excuse not to.


----------



## MamaSaidKnockYouOut (Jun 4, 2013)

Tuff Gong said:


> Okay, found a link & am watching it now.
> 
> I'll add each round as I watch it.
> 
> ...


For the love of God please stop watching boxing let alone attempting to score fights. You don't understand what you're looking at.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Tuff Gong said:


> I can see why many other posters have accused you of bias.
> 
> You say you won't baby every post but apparently quite coincidentally you miss every one of MWs inflammatory, racist & argumentative posts.
> 
> ...


Dude, I came in here, the arguing was still going on, I'm telling anyone involved to stop. That's it. I didn't point fingers at anyone and am not interested in going back and forth about who you think started it. The end.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

Tuff Gong said:


> I can see why many other posters have accused you of bias.
> 
> You say you won't baby every post but apparently quite coincidentally you miss every one of MWs inflammatory, racist & argumentative posts.
> 
> ...


I've seen other posters accuse Bogotazo of bias too but I think that's unfair. I'm pretty sure MW has been banned before and Bogotazo shut down Mama's shitty thread calling Golovkin a fraud. He's one of the better mods here IMO. Most of the mods seem to just ask for sources and delete spam occasionly (and even some of that gets through). Bogo is a mod that actually gets involved when a mod should (most of the time).


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Reminder that Norton won round 15.


----------

