More important: "Controlling distance" or Landing more punches?

Which do you think is the better criteria to use when judging whether a fighter wins a round?

- How they controlled distance?

- Who landed more punches?

 

Okay motherfucker we get it..!!!! :flip:


move on.....

::

 

So I'm guessing you agree that landing punches is the better criteria?

 

anywwaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy......

do anybody know the name of the beat used in this rj video....in the first minute..or so...
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IYiWdgPzvQ8&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IYiWdgPzvQ8&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

 

Controlling Distance is ONE ASPECT of "Ring Generalship", which is a PERTINENT Aspect of SCORING a Fight...

REED NEVER Said that "Controlling Distance" was MORE IMPORTANT than Landing Punches...

But Thanks for Getting your PANTIES N a Wad & Starting Another Thread...Make Sure U have your Bosses Coffee Ready, for that A.M. Monday Conference Call...


REED

 

I never accused anyone of having either viewpoint. I just wanted to put both viewpoints out there for people to mull over and consider.

Do you think controlling the distance is more important than landing punches?

 

Based ON???


REED:dunno:

 

You have one fighter who is dancing beautifully and controlling distance. You have another fighter who is landing more punches on the dancing fighter.

Which is more important?

 

That's a dishonest poll.::

 

Guys, let's just drop the bitching at each other and stick to debating boxing. If you wanna smacktalk, go to TAAA, or if you want a dead thread that gets 5 replies, take it to smacktalk.

 

What if both are landing punches? What if the one who's landing less punches is landing the hardest ones and is controlling distance?

What about that scenario Bama?

 

Well it depends, because "harder" is a subjective term, so I won't use that in my criteria. I'm only going to compare the two criteria above. Either you appreciate "ring generalship" or "landed punches". I just want to know which one people believe is the "better" guage of who is winning a fight.

I have no ulterior motive here.

 

Personally I think that controlling distance is more important. If I can control the distance, then the other guy will never land any shots. ::

 

:::laughing:

 

No, the Premise of this RiDICKulous Thread???...

What's that BASED ON???...


REED:dunno:

 

GUYS, let it burn out, ok. Personally I think the thread is kind of funny. ::

 

Why is it ridiculous? I just want to know what boxing fans think about the two criteria and which one is more important in judging whether a fighter has won a round or not.

As you can see, 4 people have voted already. opcorn:

 

It is KIND of silly, Bammer. We know that landing punches is MORE important, but we also know that controlling distance is an important factor. Control the distance between you and your opponent, and you reduce the likelihood of getting hit. :dunno:

 

That's true. So I guess if the fighter who is dancing gets hit more, we can safely assume that "his control of distance" is probably lacking. You're right, I'd give the round to the guy landing more punches.

 

Isn't the only way to see who is controlling distance is by who is landing and who is not?:dunno: :doh:

 

COME ON, CONTROLLING DISTANCE!!!! PULL THROUGH, BABY! DADDY NEEDS NEW SHOES!!! ::

 

Good question. It depends on whether you are trying to keep distance between you and your opponent, decreasing that distance only when you want to land punches...I think. :dunno:

 

I voted Controlling distance out of spite.

 

the point here is that controlling distance is a subjective ideal. In the Manny Pacquiao fight, he was content and thrived from the same distance as Marquez. Pac does a great job diving in and out but landing his best stuff from the outside just like Marquez.

However, you have people saying Marqyez gets credit for "controlling the distance" in rounds where he was outlanded. So its a misconception that Pac is an infighter, coupled with a bias about whose landing the "harder" punches, etc.

 

JMM outboxed and outlanded Pacquiao in most of the fight. So much even Roach feared the pinoy was gonna quit. :doh:

Pacquiao got the W so be happy with that. The fact that you wanna prove something with this thread shows your not confident with manny's performance. :dunno:

 

No, he started this thread because he was arguing with REED and decided he wanted to make a thread to ridicule REED's contention that controlling distance is a scoring criteria...I think. :dunno:

Plus Bammer likes to debate.

 

Exactly right. :bears:

 

They go hand in hand. Controlling distance will guarantee that you land more punches.

What?

 

:: Basically...

This Thread was Started Because REED had "The NERVE" to Score Round 1 for Marquez...Even though MOST have Labeled it a "Close" Round...

THEY Say Pac OUTLANDED Marquez, REED Says if he Did, it was BARELY w/Marquez Landing the More TELLING Blows (or BLOW as they Case may B)...

REED Also Factored N the FACT that the Round was Waged @ a Distance that Marquez Preferred & Gave JM Credit Under the "Ring Generalship" Aspect of Scoring Rounds...

REED Never Knew a SINGLE ROUND was Thread Worthy, but Apparently it Is...


REED::

 

right, this poll makes no sense. If the one landing more punches lands the cleaner, more effective (effective as in derailing your opponent's attack/defense) punches, then the score is his, if the one controlling the distance, doesn't gets hits as much and lands the cleaner, more effective punches, then he gets the score. :dunno: