When scoring a fight, are people only looking for clean punches?

Defense plays a part but you cant win with defense, you can only stop the other guy from scoring. If you do nothing but block punches the entire round and dont throw anything back, youre not going to win anything. Ye, that's what I'm saying, there are a number of factors. Then again, Pep did once win a round without throwing a single punch.

Then he would win the round. Well there is no situation where you personally would factor in defense?

Then he would win the round. I guess 5 is too big a number. How about 1 or 2?

the other criteria are a means to an end. you score the round for the more effective puncher.

Your example is based off aggression. We were discussing defense more so. So with everything being equal (Floyd lands 5 more punches, yet caused SR to miss an extra 20) with both fighters landing the same type of punches, you would not factor in the fact that those 20 punches missed was caused by good defense? Then he would win the round.

NO. If I were to judge his performance afterwards I'll take it into consideration, but I'm not gonna give the other guy points for not having shots landed on him. Like, I said, the way I score a round is by most clean shots landed, effective aggression, and ringmanship. EDIT: Here's an example, let's say Floyd was fighting Chavez SR and Floyd made him miss a lot during the round, didn't let his hands go and only landed 20 or so punches. SR was stalking him the entire round so he outlanded him by 10 punches. Who would you give the round to? Floyd cause he landed 20 punches and made him miss or SR cause he was relentless and landed more? I would give it to SR. Your example is based off aggression. We were discussing defense more so. So with everything being equal (Floyd lands 5 more punches, yet caused SR to miss an extra 20) with both fighters landing the same type of punches, you would not factor in the fact that those 20 punches missed was caused by good defense?

So you seriously dont care if a fighter makes another fighter miss punches by one move to the left, a duck, or a hop back? NO. If I were to judge his performance afterwards I'll take it into consideration, but I'm not gonna give the other guy points for not having shots landed on him. Like, I said, the way I score a round is by most clean shots landed, effective aggression, and ringmanship. EDIT: Here's an example, let's say Floyd was fighting Chavez SR and Floyd made him miss a lot during the round, didn't let his hands go and only landed 20 or so punches. SR was stalking him the entire round so he outlanded him by 10 punches. Who would you give the round to? Floyd cause he landed 20 punches and made him miss or SR cause he was relentless and landed more? I would give it to SR.

The problem with rewatching a fight is you start looking for reasons to give rounds to another boxer. The first time watching is going to be generally your real opinion of the fight. With that said to me its simple. Who would I rather be after the round. I look at damage and how clean the shots are. I dont care if you land 10 flicking jabs that graze off the glove and barely land. If the other guy lands a huge left that knocks your head back, the guy who landed the big punch is winning. Im going to have to disagree with you on that. Too many factors play a role in watching the fight live. If it is a "big event" then there is a great chance I will have beer and liquor flowing so im not fully engaged of every second of the fight. I will inevitably miss some key parts of each round, so re-watching it is not to try and find rounds to give to a fighter, but to watch it more of a sober state. I know you are referring to Bradley/Manny when you speak of watching it to give rounds to someone, but with such a "controversal" decision its like a given to rewatch it. So 10 landed punches compared to one, and you give it to the one punch? :poke:

Does ANYONE use defense, effective aggression, and ring generalship when scoring a round and fight? I dont want to pin point one fight, but the fight that sticks in my head is Manny/Bradley. I remember watching the fight the first time and feeling Manny won pretty easily, but on 2nd look the fight was much closer than first appeared. And this was based off ring generalship and defense mainly. So when you are scoring a fight, are you looking at ANYTHING else besides the punches that landed? The problem with rewatching a fight is you start looking for reasons to give rounds to another boxer. The first time watching is going to be generally your real opinion of the fight. With that said to me its simple. Who would I rather be after the round. I look at damage and how clean the shots are. I dont care if you land 10 flicking jabs that graze off the glove and barely land. If the other guy lands a huge left that knocks your head back, the guy who landed the big punch is winning.

Myth........ My grandpa told me this really happened..Then again,old people do like to tell story's..

I get that; but how many to times has a guy won a round landing basically nothing but gave it to him on activity alone. Too many times...thats why they stress judging on effective aggression and not just aggression

Willie Pep.. Myth........

You are misunderstanding the term...effective aggression means exactly what you want it to Essentially if the punches are cleaner a guy that lands 15 punches and throws 25 can win a round vs a guy that lands 25 and throws 90. I get that; but how many to times has a guy won a round landing basically nothing but gave it to him on activity alone.

3 clean successive jabs to the face vs one big clean right hand. Who is winning? Depends on whose throwing those punches. Golovkin's jab vs. Macklin's one right hand is going to Golovkin. Trout's jab vs. Alvarez's right hand is going to Alvarez.

Defense plays a part but you cant win with defense, you can only stop the other guy from scoring. If you do nothing but block punches the entire round and dont throw anything back, youre not going to win anything. Willie Pep..

3 clean successive jabs to the face vs one big clean right hand. Who is winning? The answer is "it depends"

3 clean successive jabs to the face vs one big clean right hand. Who is winning? Great question, and you know what I should have asked this as well because people seem to weight "power punches" more than they should. In some people eyes, that one power punch is equivelant to three jabs. I go with the 3 jab guy.

there's no effective about landing at a 10% rate missing alot punches means nothing in my eyes. If I hit you more than you hit me no way did I lose unless I kept getting dropped. You are misunderstanding the term...effective aggression means exactly what you want it to Essentially if the punches are cleaner a guy that lands 15 punches and throws 25 can win a round vs a guy that lands 25 and throws 90.

Only noobs scored that fight for Bradley. And yes, clean punches IS NOT the only thing to look for. Defence plays part, as does the abstract idea of "ring generalship" but also activity, aggression and the ability to hurt an opponent. What does that even mean, "only noobs scored the fight for bradley." I brought that fight up cause I thought of ring generalship and defense which Bradley controlled. Neither had effective aggression and the clean punches was minimal. The cleanest punches I remember was Bradley's jab to Manny's stomach.

3 clean successive jabs to the face vs one big clean right hand. Who is winning? The jab guy Posted from Boxingscene.com App for Android