Does a fighter deserve points for ineffective aggression?

Had brook not landed anything of consequence, I would have given more rounds to porter, but, he consistently caught porter coming in while porter landed nothing. I do score rounds for a guy bullying the other around the ring if its the only thing happening, I.e. canelo vs Lara.

Clean effective punches are the queens and everything else are the Knights. Brook landed the cleaner more effective (see:not pitty pat) punches the majority of the rounds so he deserved to win.

A fighter swinging and missing or hitting elbows and arms doesn't deserve any points imo. I just don't get it. How can people give a fighter credit for just throwing punches? I could understand if we're talking about Clottey just standing there and being a punching bag. I thought clean effective punches are what wins fights. No. Effective aggression is the criteria.

I don't think a fighter deserves anything for being "ineffective". But also "control" is an X factor. I had brook over porter because porter never controlled the pace of the fight. I had Maidana over Mayweather (by a hair) because Mayweather wasn't always in control of the fight. So, the aggression has to lead the dance so to speak. If the aggressive fighter controls the pace and flow and action of the fight he wins. But if the aggressive fighter continually gets the same results he loses. Pacquiao vs Marquez 3 is a good example. Pacquiao came forward, pressed the action, but he continually got tagged and never changed the narrative of the fight (until marquez tried to coast in rd 12). So it's a bit about narrative

I tend to give credit for aggression, I was expecting Porter to get the decision before they read the scorecard. I think brook is the better fighter just Porter is the kind of fighter who game is taking away your skills. Kell risked a lot with that fight plan, could have cost him. Porter head butts way too much, i seen him a few times when his head was on kell chest, move his head to the other side trying inflict more damage with it which should have been warned.

I don't get it. Jim Watt is one of the idiots that scores coming forward, 'pressing the action' apparently scores points even when you're landing nothing while getting punched in the face. Watt's line in Valuev-Haye sums it up for me 'Valuev round for me. He didn't land any punches, but he's pressing the action.' - Seriously, what? Watt really drops the ball at times. His scorecard for froch-groves 2 was wierd but the porter commentary was just strange at times. I would have thought he would be better at scoring considering he was once pro himself.

No phucking way, you land punches that count not just bum rush without landing anything, am not a judge but watching the fight yesterday I was praying that the judges sees what I was seeing and that was a fighter who was aggressive but landing his punches on elbows and gloves of his opponent.

Nice sum up, NE, but where does that factor in who's the biggest dish? There's a 3-4 round swing to the bigger dish. See: Saul Alvarez

the other criteria in scoring are really just means to an end. you're a ring general so you're the more effective puncher you're agressive so you're the more effective puncher or you defend to be the more effective puncher see a pattern? you score the round for the more effective puncher. our kell was the more effective puncher. Thats a good break down.

the other criteria in scoring are really just means to an end. you're a ring general so you're the more effective puncher you're agressive so you're the more effective puncher or you defend to be the more effective puncher see a pattern? you score the round for the more effective puncher. our kell was the more effective puncher.

I don't get it. Jim Watt is one of the idiots that scores coming forward, 'pressing the action' apparently scores points even when you're landing nothing while getting punched in the face. Watt's line in Valuev-Haye sums it up for me 'Valuev round for me. He didn't land any punches, but he's pressing the action.' - Seriously, what?

Judging should always come down to who is landing the largest number of effective punches. Nothing else should enter the equation unless that stat is close and you need to separate the two to score a round's winner. In the case of Brook/Porter, Brook was the only one landing clean, effective punches, while Porter landed petty garbage that was behind the head half the time.

I never cared for that bullsh*t notion of being outworked, which is another way IMO saying a fighter is trying which means nothing if he lands nothing of note or nothing at all. Idc to me you win the round with clean crisp punches weather it be 2 or 10 you win the round.