How to Score A Fight

Good point. Since Calz was aggressive but not effectively so, lost the clean punching, lost the defense, won the ring generalship, you're right. I'm shocked that you picked Hopkins as the winner of that fight, but good job. Calzaghe was quite obviously effective against Hopkins hence Hopkins was looking for a way out in the late rounds. Hopkins' punches were cleaner but apart from the knockdown in the first they were not more effective. That's the problem with clean effective punching. People tend to overlook "effective" in favour of "clean"

Watching the replay of Cotto-Margarito and now seeing the judge's scorecards make me cry. Seriously, how do these people get a job and suck that hard at it?

i think we make judging too complicated imho...... to me? it's simple. who hurt who more? if you were to be one of those guys in that ring for that round who would you rather be. in watching a street fight we judge the losers by who was hurt more. or who got dropped. why should it be any different in boxing? i think we give too much credit to guys who punch a lot but if he doesn't land cleanly or hurt his opponent who cares? we also give too much credit to guys making their opponent miss a lot. to box is to hit your opponent as much as you can and to get hit as little as possible. they go together and to win a round you should try to do both.

I think people look at effective aggression the wrong way. Sure, the fighter who is MORE effective in their aggression should get the nod, but if one fighter is completely non-aggressive and the other is ineffective, the ineffective fighter should get the round(and usually does). I disagree. Even if the non agressive fighter is showing better defense and lands more clean punches he should definietly get the round. Good example is Jirov vs Toney. Toney would let Jirov be agressive as fuck, but Toney was showing brilliant defense and rolling all his punches off. Jirov would hit toney's back with punches, buy Toney would land the cleaner punches. Granted this wasn't every round, but it was most of them and Toney took it. Harold Ledderman's scorecard is a disgrace. Also just because you are pushing the fight doesn't mean you should automatically win the round. You don't win a hockey match for shooting more shots on goal, you win it by actually scoring a goal. If the Penguins have more shots on goal, but the Redwings have a goal then the Redwings win. I find nothing wrong with waiting and then firing back, even if you aren't pressuring.

Boxing is a subjective sport w/ how scoring is done, but it should be limited as much as possible. Stricter scoring guidelines that judges would have to follow would limit strange scoring and fighters would know what is rewarded and what isn't. As it stands, fans and judges differ opinions very greatly because of what they value in a fight/round. Clean, Effective Punching .... Defense .... Ring Generalship .... Effective Aggression .... No, no, no, you've got it all wrong! The way to score a fight is to pick which fighter you like best and score the fight for them, regardless of what actually happens. Its usually a good idea to give a couple of rounds to your fighter's opponent, just to keep things on the up an up. I thought everyone knew this...

Tye Fields fights are the easiest to score. The only thing to judge at the end of Tye's fights is if the doctors should euthanize or not.

Great thread Gomez. You ought to just keep bumping it with a reference to whatever was said that was dumb enough to warrant bumping this... Yesterday's example would have been: "OMFG how did they have the heart to rob Lovemore N'dou? He tried really hard." I do the same thing with my rulebook for claiming robbery thread every time some slack-jawed dumbass says, "HOPKINS GOT ROBBED!!!!1", etc.

lol. I think people look at effective aggression the wrong way. Sure, the fighter who is MORE effective in their aggression should get the nod, but if one fighter is completely non-aggressive and the other is ineffective, the ineffective fighter should get the round(and usually does). If one fighter isn't aggressive and the other fighter isn't effective while pushing his fight, then that category is essentially moot for the round. The other categories essentially are blown up to negate that category for that round. Think of it as a 10-10 for that category while the other 3 are up for grabs.

There should be a 5th standerd for Floyd fans regarding their scoring of fights, which would be called, Remove Floyds balls from mouth actually that should be a required first step for Floyds fans. lol. I think people look at effective aggression the wrong way. Sure, the fighter who is MORE effective in their aggression should get the nod, but if one fighter is completely non-aggressive and the other is ineffective, the ineffective fighter should get the round(and usually does).

There should be a 5th standerd for Floyd fans regarding their scoring of fights, which would be called, Remove Floyds balls from mouth actually that should be a required first step for Floyds fans. Personal bias should always be removed.... but that applies to hatred as well. Having a rooting interest in a fighter doesn't remove one's ability to accurately score a fight. a great example would be the hopkins/calzaghe fight, spot on. As I posted in another thread... neither fighter deserved to win. Calzaghe shouldn't be awarded points for throwing pitter-patter punches, most of which are blocked or missed and Hopkins shouldn't be awarded a win for throwing 10 punches a round.

a great example would be the hopkins/calzaghe fight, spot on.

Boxing is a subjective sport w/ how scoring is done, but it should be limited as much as possible. Stricter scoring guidelines that judges would have to follow would limit strange scoring and fighters would know what is rewarded and what isn't. As it stands, fans and judges differ opinions very greatly because of what they value in a fight/round. Clean, Effective Punching This is generally the most subjective of the scoring points. People fall in love w/ big punchers and flurries and often overlook things. Weak shots are worth something, body shots are worth something, a jab is worth something, but the bigger the shot is obviously important; but just because it hit his gloves doesn't mean it was worth a damn. Example: Taylor - Wright Wright won this fight in my eyes. Taylor's primary reason for a close score (by fans and judges) was because the punches he threw were simply much harder than Winky. Winky landed the consistent shots all round but when Taylor threw it was a harder shot, despite almost always being blocked. Remember, a few solid jabs that keep the fight going your way, at your pace, at your distance are worth more than a flurry of blocked or missed punches. Defense Head movement, shoulder rolls, a tight defense, footwork, working off the ropes, parrying shots, etc... Just because it doesn't look as pretty as punching doesn't mean it isn't worth paying attention to and scoring. I wont cite a specific example of when defense is paramount... but just look at any Toney fight to see what utilizing a good defense is like. Ring Generalship This is based almost solely upon how the pace and how the fight plays out. Imposing your will upon your opponent. Making your opponent only engage when you're ready and only fighting as much or as little as you want. It's your opponents job to make you fight and hit you, don't make it easy on him. Example: Oscar - Tito He controlled the tempo of this fight from the opening bell. He engaged Tito in the center of the ring and was seldomly, if ever, caught away from where he was willing to engage. Step into the pocket and fire some combinations or while simply boxing at a distance he was always in control. Effective Aggression The entire part of Effective Aggression is the EFFECTIVE part. The fighter has to make the punches he gets off or pace he dictates matter. It's hard to define or show what effective aggression is, and easier to show what isn't effective and then work towards avoiding that. This category is the most important in generally determining who is actually winning a fight. Example: Solimon - Wright Solimon, while throwing a wealth of punches, was ineffective with the large bulk of his punches. They were generally weak, poorly placed, and while moving in and out to throw he was getting tagged. That's the opposite of what you want to do. Wright capitalized while showing his Defense and Ring Generalship. Now, the reason I made this post is not to reform people or teach them how I score fights and feel they should be... That would be a dream and I'm not delusional enough to think this will have an impact that far. However, the ultimate goal is for people to understand how/why other people score fights and realize the bulk of people (not all) aren't just pulling things out of their ass while scoring. There should be a 5th standerd for Floyd fans regarding their scoring of fights, which would be called, Remove Floyds balls from mouth actually that should be a required first step for Floyds fans.