What's the most important criteria for scoring a fight to you?

[paulsinghnl]

if you're a 'pure' counter puncher or boxer against a strong fighter like tyson or cotto, you will need to move around or let the pace be written by the opponent for a big part, in which u keep reacting to your opponent's choices. so then if u talk of ring generalship and such, u can't just blatantly say that if you're a pure counter puncher following ur opponents' lead.

i think an example might be toney-jirov off the top of my head, not sure though, u can correct me if i'm wrong.

[#1Assassin]

all the criterias are equally important.

most ppl dont know first thing about scoring a fight though.. cant tell effective aggression from plain aggression, dont understand the meaning of ring generalship and dont give enough credit for defence. alot of ppl cant even tell a landed punch from a missed one.

they basicly just watch whos throwing more punches which is BS. if a fighter makes their oponent miss that counts for something.

i mean most ppl dont even know thats a criteria. watch my page and see baracuda trying to tell me defence doesnt score points, he calls himself a boxing fan but doesnt know jack **** about the sport.

and the same thing goes for alot of ppl.

[Uturn]

The more aggressive fighter pushing forward througout the fight, outworking their oponent, landing the bigger cleaner shots...

[MurderDeathKill]

I'd say it's effective aggression. A guy can still win honestly without necessarily scoring the cleanest blows. It's about who's blows are more effective.

[Rabbit ♠]

To me it's ring generalship

[Chups]

Punch landed..........

[The_Demon]

effective aggression