How would you score this?

I would give it to the B fighter. I always score fights and I always think about who would have I wanted to be in that round.

If he was clearly losing the round but not by that much and in the last 15 seconds he hurts the guy very badly then 9 out of ten judges are going to give him that round.

Kind of confused about your scenario. You said fighter A was winning clearly, then you said he was just holding his own and edging it out. If fighter A was winning clearly then he still gets the rd. If fighter A was just edging it out, then he loses the rd.

Depends but I'd go with B, for me the main goal in boxing is to hurt your opponent and if you have a guy wobbled and really hurt that gets you the round.

But you can't think of this in the context of simply one round. Think about if the whole fight progressed this way. Every round, fighter B starts out slowly and gets beat, then finally scores a big punch at the end of the round. But every round, fighter A comes back out fresh and starts pounding B again. There's no way you'd award B the victory of that fight. Does anyone picture fighter B as Chavez Jr? :lol1: That scorecard would be insanely inaccurate of what really happened. It would be a shutout on paper but a close fight when watching it.

hmm.. you talking about Bradley-Provodnikov, or?? No just in general. But this question does spring from an argument I had with my dad when we were watching a fight. I forgot which one it was but after the round ended, a commentator said something like "I had Fighter A winning up until that point" during a replay when Fighter A got hurt in a round he was winning. My dad, a fan of power punchers, agreed and I argued how hurting your opponent doesn't automatically win you the round you were losing. I wanted to get other people's take on it.

Fighter A would get the judges benefit if this would occur early in the fight. Late in the fight judges would tend to favor fighter B.

yeah there are too many ways to look at it, so without seeing the round... in general probably fighter A, BUT it depends on what kind of pressure fighter B is applying before and after the big shot. From the sound of your example, his pressure would have been somewhat effective because you said the other guy wasn't dominating. But, in just one round it would be tough to score for the guys who we know exert tons of mental pressure by how they move & cut off the ring...that would take longer to find out. And plenty of those same guys are known as slow starters, etc., so they give up rounds ot accomplish certain things and it shows on teh cards. if fighter A was buckled to the point where he has to somehow pick himself up as he's falling...for example, the shot Shane landed on Floyd....if he was buckled like that and then was also bambi'ed around like Khan then I would be swayed

hmm.. you talking about Bradley-Provodnikov, or??

But you can't think of this in the context of simply one round. Think about if the whole fight progressed this way. Every round, fighter B starts out slowly and gets beat, then finally scores a big punch at the end of the round. But every round, fighter A comes back out fresh and starts pounding B again. There's no way you'd award B the victory of that fight. Does anyone picture fighter B as Chavez Jr? :lol1:

Fighter B. Just because I want too.

I had a post I was just about done with **** out on me. But the ideas are this. Respect to Harold Ledermann, he's been doing this forever but it's the four rules of scoring a fight not clean, effective punching plus 3 suggestions. But if you're having a couple beers around family and friends, you'll probably score it exactly like that clean effective punching plus four suggestions. -You said fighter A wasn't dominating, so his hold on 2.effective aggression was non existant. He would have had to have been winning on 3.ring generalship (controlling the pace of the fight with lateral movement.) It's protect yourself at all times, not protect yourself for 2:45 out of 3:00. You said Fighter B didn't get hit with anything resembling that sledgehammer shot he hit fighter A with. This is because he must have been using his 4. defense to block the punches or avoid them altogether. That shot will be the shot of the round. Pac won round one against Bradley that way (I remember that round going a lot like what you described. Or ROund 2 of Mayweather-Mosley. There's a billion examples of this, and plenty of better ones. ) On the spot, (again) with a couple of beers around friends and family I'm not gonna kill myself dissecting it with a razor. So **** it. Fighter B.

One monster punch doesn't equal a barrage of punches. If fighter B landed the punch in the beginning of the round and it caused fighter A to throw and land less during the whole round, then give the round to fighter B. But fighter A outlanded B the whole round and didn't go down even after being stunned, so he wins.

Fighter B, if hes clearly losing the fight regardless, gets the round just because, if thats the round he did ALOT better than his previous rounds. Otherwise probably a 10-10 round if its a close fight. Idk, theres 1000 ways to look at it. When I was typing this question I thought about using a real life example but I was afraid certain things about the fight (personal feelings about fighters, how the fight progressed, outcome) would affect people's decision making. If you had to pick, without taking into account the other rounds, who would you give it to?

Fighter A would take it still imo

Fighter B, if hes clearly losing the fight regardless, gets the round just because, if thats the round he did ALOT better than his previous rounds. Otherwise probably a 10-10 round if its a close fight. Idk, theres 1000 ways to look at it.