How do you score a round?

so the boxer A got hit by 10 clean jabs by boxer B but then the boxer A hit him(boxer B) with 3 clean power punches? so who wins that round?

What's that supposed to mean? :lol1: Yeah, Barthelemy's arms and hands must've been pretty swollen by the end of the fight. Good defense doesn't just mean slipping and ducking punches, it also means blocking them (without your face). I'm not trying to say Rances was a defensive wizard; he took enough punches, especially to the body. What I'm saying is that he blocked a lot of punches and delivered the better shots. He just didn't do enough of it to deserve the win. I tend to root for guys that hail from the same homeland as I (just like everyone else around here, regardless of screenname), but I try very hard not to allow that to blind me to the truth. To that, I will admit. His defense was so good that he allowed almost 300 punches to hit him, while landing way less punches, especially power punches. He delivered better shots? Tell me when and where that happened where he delivered such great shots. Maybe if this was the amateurs, you can use this excuse but its not and even if it was, Usmanee landed more punches That's a terrible over-generalization, but it's called boxing. Your preferences don't overrule the criteria that have been in place long before you were born. Not at all, this is how you're scoring the fight. Somehow blocking punches and running around wins rounds for you, all while getting beat up and outlanded in the same round

With the four criteria that we have to.... I will say the number one thing that makes people score fights badly is that they cant even follow the action because of the speed....the second is their preconceived notions(for example, giving more credit to the fighter who is perceived to have more power......i judge power by the effect it actually has on the fighter....the reaction....some punches look pretty, but theyre not super effective....you have to give credit to looks since this is an appreciation sport, but if the fighter in the receiving end of a good punch comes back landing clean as well, how effective was that good looking punch really?...or when people think since some guy is an "outboxer", discrediting him for fighting inside or trading......as long as he is landing more effective punches, he is winning....but people are too stupid/arrogant to put their preconceived notions behind and be objective...) Good post! Posted from Boxingscene.com App for Android

Im the kinda guy the gives rounds to guys who win rounds. Barth took a good beating while landed a good punch here and there. You win fights on offense, not defense, which Barth didnt even have, thats the funny part. He was hit by almost 300 punches, 258 being powers shots to Barth's 189. And yes i am, thats pretty clear, nothing to be ashamed of, just admit it to yourself and move on What's that supposed to mean? :lol1: Yeah, Barthelemy's arms and hands must've been pretty swollen by the end of the fight. Good defense doesn't just mean slipping and ducking punches, it also means blocking them (without your face). I'm not trying to say Rances was a defensive wizard; he took enough punches, especially to the body. What I'm saying is that he blocked a lot of punches and delivered the better shots. He just didn't do enough of it to deserve the win. I tend to root for guys that hail from the same homeland as I (just like everyone else around here, regardless of screenname), but I try very hard not to allow that to blind me to the truth. To that, I will admit. Nothing is more hilarious when people score rounds for guys like Judah and Paulie when they land 5 jabs while running around and getting pummeled with power punches That's a terrible over-generalization, but it's called boxing. Your preferences don't overrule the criteria that have been in place long before you were born.

With the four criteria that we have to.... I will say the number one thing that makes people score fights badly is that they cant even follow the action because of the speed....the second is their preconceived notions(for example, giving more credit to the fighter who is perceived to have more power......i judge power by the effect it actually has on the fighter....the reaction....some punches look pretty, but theyre not super effective....you have to give credit to looks since this is an appreciation sport, but if the fighter in the receiving end of a good punch comes back landing clean as well, how effective was that good looking punch really?...or when people think since some guy is an "outboxer", discrediting him for fighting inside or trading......as long as he is landing more effective punches, he is winning....but people are too stupid/arrogant to put their preconceived notions behind and be objective...)

Nothing is more hilarious when people score rounds for guys like Judah and Paulie when they land 5 jabs while running around and getting pummeled with power punches And use sh*t reasons like ring generalship and footwork.

Its simple as hell, who is landing more clean punches. Defense and ring generalship and all that should only come into play if both guys are landing basically the same.

clean effective punching and boxing skill

Nothing is more hilarious when people score rounds for guys like Judah and Paulie when they land 5 jabs while running around and getting pummeled with power punches

It explains exactly what you just said. You're the kind of guy that sees aggression, not effective aggression. Barthelemy wasn't as active, but he generally landed the cleaner, harder punches. Usmanee won, but most of his punches caught leather and elbows. You're calling me a nationalistic nuthugger? :lol1: Chill, boy. Im the kinda guy the gives rounds to guys who win rounds. Barth took a good beating while landed a good punch here and there. You win fights on offense, not defense, which Barth didnt even have, thats the funny part. He was hit by almost 300 punches, 258 being powers shots to Barth's 189. And yes i am, thats pretty clear, nothing to be ashamed of, just admit it to yourself and move on

Explains alot what? Barth danced around catching punches all night long while doing little. If you score rounds for guys who get beat up all round while throwing a few punches, maybe you should change you're scoring method. If this only happens when you score cuban fighters, then stop being a nationalistic nut hugger It explains exactly what you just said. You're the kind of guy that sees aggression, not effective aggression. Barthelemy wasn't as active, but he generally landed the cleaner, harder punches. Usmanee won, but most of his punches caught leather and elbows. You're calling me a nationalistic nuthugger? :lol1: Chill, boy.

Explains alot what? Barth danced around catching punches all night long while doing little. If you score rounds for guys who get beat up all round while throwing a few punches, maybe you should change you're scoring method. If this only happens when you score cuban fighters, then stop being a nationalistic nut hugger Shots fired..

effective punching. that's the end toward which you endeavor. you want to effect your opponent. you want to damage him. defense, ring generalship, aggression, are all a means toward that same end. you want to effect your opponent with your punches more than he effects you. do more damage. if the give and take of damage is equal you can look to other aspects of the fight. namely ring generalship, aggression, and defense. when the give and take of damage is equal i will generally score a round even. i rarely score live fights. sometimes i'll score an undercard to make it interesting.

That explains a lot. Explains alot what? Barth danced around catching punches all night long while doing little. If you score rounds for guys who get beat up all round while throwing a few punches, maybe you should change you're scoring method. If this only happens when you score cuban fighters, then stop being a nationalistic nut hugger

Who would be against live crowd/fan scoring? Do you think promoters or fighters will go for or against it? What problems would it bring up? Posted from Boxingscene.com App for Android It would never be implemented. Everybody knows promoters have the last say in a fight that went to a full decision, the odds of somebody knocking out his hypejob plus the crowd/fan picking the right decision will be far too great for what a slimy promoter is expecting.

Depends. If both dudes are trading punches at a fair rate, then I look at who is landing the most punches first. If one guy is landing more than his opponent but his punches aren't doing anything and he is showing damage from his opponent, I'll favor the guy landing the harder punches. I also factor in the degree to which one person is forcing the other fighter out of their style and dictating the pace, distance, etc. (ring generalship) If one guy is just trying to steal rounds in the final minute, I'll give him a round or two on that alone but after a few, I'm going to give it to the guy who is doing the most work in the round as a whole. I score defensive strategy as well but too often, the guy with the good defense has zero offense. Those types of fights come down to a judgement call, one guy threw 500 punches and landed 30 while his opponent blocked 470 and threw 30 of his own. I usually favor the guy who hurts the opponent (if that happens) or the guy who lands the most punches because that is usually all you have to go by in a "muddled fight". I'll favor a smaller fighter who is landing more and outboxing the bigger fighter almost all the time even if he is getting moved around by the bigger boxer because the bigger, stronger guy should be able to break the smaller guy down with less effort. It all depends on the type of fight because there are a lot of factors at play with every fight. I look at size, age, KO capability, style, who is being pushed as the star, all kinds of things when I consider who is doing better IMO.

Whoever throws the most punches. It doesn't matter if they are landing or not as a thousand punches are a thousand punches! :lol1: You say that joking, but it's apparent there are people who see it that way. lol

What if a fighter lands the cleaner shots but he's not the aggressor? what if a boxer is pressing the action but he's getting tagged a lot? These are some of the gray areas that need to be the same across the board. That's were there will be differences of opinion, and individual judgement takes effect. That's why you have fights where the judges' scores diverge.

Most effective I'm not huge on defense tho, i think people give too much credit for blocking/avoiding a punch That explains a lot.

Who would be against live crowd/fan scoring? Do you think promoters or fighters will go for or against it? What problems would it bring up? Posted from Boxingscene.com App for Android