I'm tired of ppl saying

Like I said earlier, Paulie would unfairly never have a chance if damage is how you determine a round. He'll never do more damage in a round unless he completely dominates. If he's landing more clean punches, he should win it. The problem with scoring a round based on power and damage is pre-fight perception of a fighter's power. Herrera doesn't punch as hard as Garcia, yet his punches were affecting Garcia more than the other way around. Algieri doesn't hit like Ruslan, but for most of 12 rounds, Provodnikov's power wasn't affecting Algieri and Algieri was snapping Ruslan's head around. Clean punching is the main criteria. Anything else only comes into play if the clean punches are close in number. damage is definitely a scoring criteria and it is covered in the clean/effective punching category but you are thinking of it wrong you dont think who did more damage that round as a whole, you compare the damage of the blow to the other guys output, the clean punches can come from one fighter and the effective punches can come from the other, and this is where the subjectivity of scoring comes in, you have to decide if the many clean blows outweigh the very few effective blows i think of it like a barometer or, you know those combo bars that you slowly have to fill up in games? that's how i think of it with punches, effective punches fill up the bar a bit more, so if you get hit 5 times and only land one big shot, it's not winning you the round unless you get a kd or those 5 blows weren't punches at all but touching and completely ineffective but if you imagination sucks, this is why the categories exist clean/effective punching defense ring generalship effective aggressor if you can only land one big punch after losing 2:30 of the rd, then you were obviously losing in all the other categories thus you dont win the round, even for a guy like malignaggi, but he still has to land some stiff blows, and malignaggi in the broner fight didn't really do that, his body shots for the most part shouldn't even be categorized as punches in that fight

Every scoreboard is different. Imagine nfl refs calling the game 6 different ways. Or certain ref crews call games certain ways .

It's true though. Some people score activity and ineffective aggression and don't even know what the scoring zone is.

Most people score fights like its one big round not 12 individuals. the championship count the same way as rounds 1-4. No round has anything to do with the other Winky vs Jermaine Taylor showed that.

Lets take round 3 in the Floyd/Maidana rematch. Floyd landed more scoring punches but Maidana landed a bomb to close the round and hurt Floyd. Who do u give the round to? Do you give it to the guy who landed more or to the guy who inflicted more damage? Here's reality that punch landed after the round was over so it doesn't count towards anything; if you give rounds for one landed punch than whats point of doing anything else lets just see who lands the biggest punch in each round.

This is not entirely true. Power does matter. It's not, but boxing ought to be scored exclusively on who does more damage in a given round. Since this is subjective due to different durability etc, the who would you rather be criteria is best. Power really should matter in pro boxing. Like I said earlier, Paulie would unfairly never have a chance if damage is how you determine a round. He'll never do more damage in a round unless he completely dominates. If he's landing more clean punches, he should win it. The problem with scoring a round based on power and damage is pre-fight perception of a fighter's power. Herrera doesn't punch as hard as Garcia, yet his punches were affecting Garcia more than the other way around. Algieri doesn't hit like Ruslan, but for most of 12 rounds, Provodnikov's power wasn't affecting Algieri and Algieri was snapping Ruslan's head around. Clean punching is the main criteria. Anything else only comes into play if the clean punches are close in number.

Accurate scoring is not subjective or opinionated. Whoever is landing the most clean punches wins the round. No ifs, ands, buts, or opinion of any kind involved. The only opinion comes when two fighters land roughly the same amount of punches. This is not entirely true. Power does matter. It's not, but boxing ought to be scored exclusively on who does more damage in a given round. Since this is subjective due to different durability etc, the who would you rather be criteria is best. Power really should matter in pro boxing.

Just being active or just making your opponent miss and not being to active dont win fights. To dumb judges yes. To me other things are more important. Of coarse punches landed. Imo they should have sensors in the gloves . and how would these sensors differentiate between gloves/forearms/shoulders/elbows etc from face and body?

Just being active or just making your opponent miss and not being to active dont win fights. To dumb judges yes. To me other things are more important. Of coarse punches landed. Imo they should have sensors in the gloves .

By that logic, Paulie Malignaggi can never win a fight, because his punches will never hurt more than anyone he fights. U saw what happened when he faced broner. He outworked and outlanded broner but failed to hurt or back broner up. Broner on the other hand landed fewer but more meaningful shots and won the fight.

Scoring by punches landed is the old ass Amateur way of scoring a fight. Different punches carry more weight and can tip the scales more than a jab alone. Max Kellerman simplified it best of all. Who would you rather be at the end of that round? That is the best way to score a pro fight. Who laid more hurt on their opponent? That makes it easier to write a 10 beside their name. By that logic, Paulie Malignaggi can never win a fight, because his punches will never hurt more than anyone he fights.

Scoring by punches landed is the old ass Amateur way of scoring a fight. Different punches carry more weight and can tip the scales more than a jab alone. Max Kellerman simplified it best of all. Who would you rather be at the end of that round? That is the best way to score a pro fight. Who laid more hurt on their opponent? That makes it easier to write a 10 beside their name. Yup, even if it is just one punch

Scoring by punches landed is the old ass Amateur way of scoring a fight. Different punches carry more weight and can tip the scales more than a jab alone. Max Kellerman simplified it best of all. Who would you rather be at the end of that round? They is the best way to score a pro fight. Who laid more hurt on their opponent? That makes it easier to write a 10 beside their name. I have to agree. Do I want to be the guy who got hit with 15 love taps for 3 minutes or the the guy who got rocked by 2 hard shots?

Scoring by punches landed is the old ass Amateur way of scoring a fight. Different punches carry more weight and can tip the scales more than a jab alone. Max Kellerman simplified it best of all. Who would you rather be at the end of that round? That is the best way to score a pro fight. Who laid more hurt on their opponent? That makes it easier to write a 10 beside their name.

Yeah judges are bias. I score fights like this 1.ring general. Who dictates the pace and space of the fight .who gains the the timing and comfort. 2.smart agression. Meaning when you decide throw punches you become aggressive , are you landing your jab an essential weapon in boxing and are you landing power shots and are you landing body shots moving forward sideways or backward.I count head shots as 75% of the score chart for points 25% for body shots.how hard you hit doesnt matter.ring generalship will take effect if a boxer doesnt have power at somepoint. (Paulie) 3. Defense. Do you make your opponent miss with movement or head movement or do you deflect (catch or roll ) punches in which they do not land? Do you neutralize your opponents offense or smart aggression . 4. Do you hurt or damage your opponent ? Who would i have rather have been in recovery during the break physically . Scoring fights based off activity Or volume or can come into play, but not very often,Yet its used in scoring way to often. While the others are sometimes neglected. Thoughts please all of this lends to punches landed, that's why you shouldn't be bothered with this ring generalship is who is having their way, it can go back and forth but you go about it who spent the most time as the ring general thus who landed more punches the aggressor is simply who leads and lands more, you can be fighting off the back foot and still be the aggressor if you throw more and lead, thus who wins as the effective aggressor is the one who landed more punches defense is also again, who landed more punches the last should be clean/effective punches, which is basically who landed more punches which you are certain of and not punches which you just think landed(in reality it was blocked, avoided) and so my point is, all you need to worry about when scoring a fight is who landed more and weigh in the damage against the output, do you think the damage this guy did with one punch offsets the rest of the work the other guy did? sometimes it's yes sometimes it's no and on rewatch i give maidana that 3rd round, their landed punches was about even, floyd leading with maybe 1 headshot but that right hand edged it for maidana

Yeah judges are bias. I score fights like this 1.ring general. Who dictates the pace and space of the fight .who gains the the timing and comfort. 2.smart agression. Meaning when you decide throw punches you become aggressive , are you landing your jab an essential weapon in boxing and are you landing power shots and are you landing body shots moving forward sideways or backward.I count head shots as 75% of the score chart for points 25% for body shots.how hard you hit doesnt matter.ring generalship will take effect if a boxer doesnt have power at somepoint. (Paulie) 3. Defense. Do you make your opponent miss with movement or head movement or do you deflect (catch or roll ) punches in which they do not land? Do you neutralize your opponents offense or smart aggression . 4. Do you hurt or damage your opponent ? Who would i have rather have been in recovery during the break physically . Scoring fights based off activity Or volume or can come into play, but not very often,Yet its used in scoring way to often. While the others are sometimes neglected. Thoughts please Clean punches landed / Effective aggression should always be the top priority in scoring. The other factors mainly come into play when this is close or difficult to determine. Personally I'd also be very wary of applying a pre-decided weighting to head / body punches.

Don't agree at all man, most damage done is not always about volume I didn't mention volume. And damage done is often an opinion. Who landed the most clean punches is often not. That's what determines who wins a round. Not volume, not damage, not ring generalship, not defense, only who is landing the punches. All that other stuff only comes into play if the landed punches are close. That's how fights are supposed to be scored.

Yeah judges are bias. I score fights like this 1.ring general. Who dictates the pace and space of the fight .who gains the the timing and comfort. 2.smart agression. Meaning when you decide throw punches you become aggressive , are you landing your jab an essential weapon in boxing and are you landing power shots and are you landing body shots moving forward sideways or backward.I count head shots as 75% of the score chart for points 25% for body shots.how hard you hit doesnt matter.ring generalship will take effect if a boxer doesnt have power at somepoint. (Paulie) 3. Defense. Do you make your opponent miss with movement or head movement or do you deflect (catch or roll ) punches in which they do not land? Do you neutralize your opponents offense or smart aggression . 4. Do you hurt or damage your opponent ? Who would i have rather have been in recovery during the break physically . Scoring fights based off activity Or volume or can come into play, but not very often,Yet its used in scoring way to often. While the others are sometimes neglected. Thoughts please To me Ring generalship , smart aggression and defense won out for 2 min 55 sec At the end it was a nice hurt him and rather be maidana on the break. But thats 3 vs 1 in my top 4 ways. Floyd wins the round.

Lets take round 3 in the Floyd/Maidana rematch. Floyd landed more scoring punches but Maidana landed a bomb to close the round and hurt Floyd. Who do u give the round to? Do you give it to the guy who landed more or to the guy who inflicted more damage?

Yeah judges are bias. I score fights like this 1.ring general. Who dictates the pace and space of the fight .who gains the the timing and comfort. 2.smart agression. Meaning when you decide throw punches you become aggressive , are you landing your jab an essential weapon in boxing and are you landing power shots and are you landing body shots moving forward sideways or backward.I count head shots as 75% of the score chart for points 25% for body shots.how hard you hit doesnt matter.ring generalship will take effect if a boxer doesnt have power at somepoint. (Paulie) 3. Defense. Do you make your opponent miss with movement or head movement or do you deflect (catch or roll ) punches in which they do not land? Do you neutralize your opponents offense or smart aggression . 4. Do you hurt or damage your opponent ? Who would i have rather have been in recovery during the break physically . Scoring fights based off activity Or volume or can come into play, but not very often,Yet its used in scoring way to often. While the others are sometimes neglected. Thoughts please Volume is overated. Agression comes when you punch only. Footwork of any sort is ring generalship . Clinching or dirty boxing in clinches is Tactics. Which like volume is scored by judges as a criteria.