Mistakes people make in "scoring" fights

Harold's terrible. His own colleague, Larry Merchant has dressed that fool down on a live broadcast and made him change his opine on a fight. So he sucks, and he's weak minded and will cave in to authority. I don't want to hear shit him or Jim Lampley has to say during a fight. Max Kellerman is the only one there worth a damn at the moment.

His personal bias was the worst for Barrera-Marquez...awful.

I think Harold is one of the worst judges in the game to be honest. Look how he scored Mayweather-Hatton for example. It's gotten to where I'll score a round and tell everyone in the room to watch because Harold is going to score it the other way and say the guy was coming forward. Never fails I think that was more personal bias rather than bad scoring his bias was blinding him. Otherwise most of the time he scores pretty well.

I use the quotes in 'scoring' because what most people do is merely fabricate a number to lend an appearance of justification for their sporting allegiance. Here is a list of common errors, which I'll elaborate with illustrations later. 1. Scoring with respect to style expectation: it's irrelevant to say "so and so is a counterpuncher" to justify inactivity, or "fighter A fought fight fighter B's fight;" you have to score what actually takes place, without reference to what you expected. 2. Watching one fighter only: sometimes an ineffective fighter or round is said to be "setting up" something for later; this makes it clear the poster is only watching one guy, not the whole fight. 3. Scoring missed punches negatively: Ill quote one of my nemeses, Fuego (who scores well, though he's still a dick): "If you make someone miss without throwing back, it doesn't count for anything." Fuego is right about this, which is one reason he usually gets it right. 4. Giving style points: this error is indicated by the frequent phrase "fighter b showed better skills." A fight is not a skills demonstration; you can score ice skating or gymnastics that way, but not boxing. 5. Counting partially-landed punches as a misses 6. Emphasizing punch percentage: sometimes you throw a punch or two to land a different one. It doesn't matter if the first two miss. Total punches landed or partially landed is more important than percentage landed Not necessarily true. Marques of Queenberry rules explicitly state that 1/4th of judging a round is based on defense.

I was at the casino last month watching Cotto-Marg, and someone yelled from the other side of the crowd, "who won that round?" I said "Cotto." The whole crowd laughed at me just before Harold's score came up for Cotto. The moral? Harold and I > the masses It's usually not a good sign if you're agreeing with Harold. Plus Harold contradicted even himself in that fight by giving Cotto rounds. If Harold was consistent, Cotto shouldn't have won a single round in that fight. Rare good call by Harold

Fighting like a warrior is the only judging indicator mexicans have ;)

I think Harold is one of the worst judges in the game to be honest. Look how he scored Mayweather-Hatton for example. It's gotten to where I'll score a round and tell everyone in the room to watch because Harold is going to score it the other way and say the guy was coming forward. Never fails I was at the casino last month watching Cotto-Marg, and someone yelled from the other side of the crowd, "who won that round?" I said "Cotto." The whole crowd laughed at me just before Harold's score came up for Cotto. The moral? Harold and I > the masses

I think Harold is one of the worst judges in the game to be honest. Look how he scored Mayweather-Hatton for example. It's gotten to where I'll score a round and tell everyone in the room to watch because Harold is going to score it the other way and say the guy was coming forward. Never fails

i usakky score on who can land more cleaner hits

Unfortunately, the beef usually comes in because 7-5 can easily become 6-6. Or 8-4 the other way. Gotta love boxing! Or 9 to 3, boxing judging is very subjective.

Harold is not that bad, but like anyone that watches that many fights you get some crazy results. Also with boxing scoring being highlt subjective it is easy to see 2 or 3 rounds different. I always like when people make it a big deal about a 8-4 score instead of 7-5, i mean come on that is 1 round different. Unfortunately, the beef usually comes in because 7-5 can easily become 6-6. Or 8-4 the other way. Gotta love boxing!

ive said those exact words several time, i even started a thread saying harold was a good jusge, boy did i get shit on. Harold is not that bad, but like anyone that watches that many fights you get some crazy results. Also with boxing scoring being highly subjective it is easy to see 2 or 3 rounds different. I always like when people make it a big deal about a 8-4 score instead of 7-5, i mean come on that is 1 round different.

Wouldn't you say though that Lederman is much better than most people think he is? I mean it's popular for internet fanboys who watched eleven pro fights to talk about how badly Lederman scores. He does better than the consensus here a hundred times out of a hundred, even if he has his flaws. ive said those exact words several time, i even started a thread saying harold was a good jusge, boy did i get shit on.

bump because people should read this

The biggest misconception I hate about scoring is that so many judges favor the guy coming forward. Harold Lederman is as guilty of this as any judge I've ever seen. If you're coming forward and walking into jabs, Harold will STILL give you the round. I mean he flat out sucks in that regard. Some guys' styles are predicated on moving backwards and nailing you. And that's ring generalship too if they hit you from a spot where you can't hit them. Clean punching is the criteria for scoring a fight and everything else only comes into play when it isn't clear who landed more/harder punches each round. As for 10-8 rounds, I never give them without a knockdown though I considered doing so for a while, but it becomes way too subjective (and scoring is already too subjective as it is) as to when a guy deserves 8 or 9. Wouldn't you say though that Lederman is much better than most people think he is? I mean it's popular for internet fanboys who watched eleven pro fights to talk about how badly Lederman scores. He does better than the consensus here a hundred times out of a hundred, even if he has his flaws.

The biggest misconception I hate about scoring is that so many judges favor the guy coming forward. Harold Lederman is as guilty of this as any judge I've ever seen. If you're coming forward and walking into jabs, Harold will STILL give you the round. I mean he flat out sucks in that regard. Some guys' styles are predicated on moving backwards and nailing you. And that's ring generalship too if they hit you from a spot where you can't hit them. Clean punching is the criteria for scoring a fight and everything else only comes into play when it isn't clear who landed more/harder punches each round. As for 10-8 rounds, I never give them without a knockdown though I considered doing so for a while, but it becomes way too subjective (and scoring is already too subjective as it is) as to when a guy deserves 8 or 9.

Ahaha! Are you referring to Pacquiao? LOL! not everything has to do with floyd or pacquiao , mr. floyd.

"Ring generalship" is so grossly ambiguous it should almost never be mentioned. I definitely agree with this. Judges can't seem to make up their minds either on what they consider ring generalship. Seems to depend on who is fighting on a particular Saturday if you ask me. You'll have bouts where the guy controlling the fight is going backwards, but doesn't get the close dec, and vice versa.

when im scoring fights i imagine a health bar above each guys head jabs take a little of the health bar and solid punches take a lot, at the end i give the round to who has more health left in his bar if the damage is so bad that one guy got his health bar completely depleted i score the round 10/8 even if there was no knockdown of course that almost never happens btw i heard judges score on ring generalship like how one guy managed to stay i n the middle of the ring or how he forced his opponent to fight his fight thats bs "Ring generalship" is so grossly ambiguous it should almost never be mentioned. And the "fight his fight" nonsense is a sure sign that the person talking should be completely ignored. That's mistake #1 on my list: scoring with respect to expectation. You can't watch the fight with any sense of who wants to fight in what style. You don't know their gameplans, and if you did you couldn't use that knowledge to affect your judgment.

i just ask myself...... who would i rather not be in that round? ...... then i score 10-9 for the other guy. if damage was equal and no one really got hurt...... i ask myself...... who was trying to hurt the other guy more? ...... then i score 10-9 for him. forget looking pretty. forget misses. forget punch connect ratio. boxing is to hurt the other guy more than he hurts you.Ahaha! Are you referring to Pacquiao? LOL!