What do you think of boxing's scoring criteria?

i think it sucks and needs to be revamped. Clean punching(power vs quantity) The only criteria i would take into consideration. Maybe also add damage done by a fighter. Cotto had more power than margarito but Mr. Bricks was the one doing damage. Effective agression Makes no sense. Suppose two boxers fight a dead even round. They land the same amount of punches with just about the same force and cause about the same amount of damage. Im supposed to give the round to the guy that was coming forward just because? Defense This one is irrelevant. You score when you land punches. The whole point of defense, in this and any other sport, is to stop the opponent from scoring. However defense itself is not scoring. Ring generalship Who dictates the style, pace, and tactics. I dont see how this carries importance. Maidana forced floyd to fight at maidana style and pace. Even when maidana slowed down ,the pace was not the one floyd usually likes to fight at. They each won six rounds in terms of punches landed and maidana has the edge in power. Floyd gets the edge in defense, maidana in effective aggression. Also maidana had the edge in ring generalship. Given this criteria maidana should have won, but i didnt see it that way. Neither did the judges, or press row. I guess what im saying is that just because a fighter isnt fighting at the style and pace he likes(or using the tactics he likes) doesnt mean he is losing. If anything he should be commended for it. It means he has more dimensions. Also dictating style, pace, and tactics doesnt score punches. Take Pac/Mosley for instance. After the knockdown mosley was the one dictating style, pace, an tactics. Style: Mosley runs and hopes to see twelve. Mosley dictated the pace because he ran and Pac sucked at cutting the ring. Tactics: Also dictated by Mosley as he ran, engaged when he had no choice, and held whenever he had the chance. Pace: Slow because Mosley ran and Pac couldnt cut the ring off. So Mosley was the ring general but it didnt help him at all to win, because manny could hit him with the jab and the straight( although mostly single punches) due to his hand speed. Ring generalship does not always equate to landing punches.

Comments (7)

Yep I'd like to see 1/2 points or a 20 point must system. Too many guys trying to edge rounds rather than go out and win it. 20-19 close round or round with little action. 20-18 clearly won round. 20-17 dominated the round and or had fighter seriously hurt or close round win with KD. 20-16 win round with KD plus -2 for further KDs. I think this would lead to better fights.

9y ago

Mike_D

I still like the idea of adding half points, a guy barely winning a round should not be the same as a guy dominating a round Agree 100%. Let's say fighter A wins his 6 rounds in clear and one sided fashion (without any knockdowns). And then fighter B eeks out 6 tightly contested rounds. Now in a perfectly scored boxing world that fight would be scored a draw. It's like the Cavs winning quarter 1 and quarter 2 by scores of 28 to 15 (respectively), and the Bulls winning quarters 3 and 4 by scores of 20-19. And then calling the game a draw. Sh*t don't make any sense.

9y ago

Redd_Foxx

pro boxing is different from amateur boxing; while the amateurs do well in highlighting points scored, the pro game has almost always been about the amount of damage delivered in a round/fight. Doubt that that changes. I don't watch amateur boxing and don't care for it. But, pro boxing is still a sport and making contact should count. I took Alvarez over Lara because he did more damage so I'm obviously not favoring amateur style scoring. However, the emphasis on damage is still often given too much credit. Not just damage, but easily visible punches get too much credit (Pac/Marquez).

9y ago

Scipio2009

I agree, though I understand why they're trying to get away from it. Indecision can be a dangerous thing. I see too many slips and KDs getting called falsely. In this day and age, why the fk don't we use instant replay? Come on already. One other area is power getting rated far too highly over volume whenever it's convenient. Canelo has benefited from this numerous times. Yes, power should get more credit but you don't negate 10 good jabs for one left hook, unless it truly hurts a guy. pro boxing is different from amateur boxing; while the amateurs do well in highlighting points scored, the pro game has almost always been about the amount of damage delivered in a round/fight. Doubt that that changes.

9y ago

Redd_Foxx

The main issue is boxing's deliberate move away from judges scoring 10-10 rounds. All the criteria is currently geared towards point out different aspects that would, logically, give an observer a good idea for which fighter is actually controlling the round in question. When both guys do good work, and no one really "takes" the round, you end up with screwy scores, where a judge simply puts their finger in the air and goes with whatever style that they find more appealing (ie activity judges rewarding a guy for the simple fact of walking forward). I agree, though I understand why they're trying to get away from it. Indecision can be a dangerous thing. I see too many slips and KDs getting called falsely. In this day and age, why the fk don't we use instant replay? Come on already. One other area is power getting rated far too highly over volume whenever it's convenient. Canelo has benefited from this numerous times. Yes, power should get more credit but you don't negate 10 good jabs for one left hook, unless it truly hurts a guy.

9y ago

The_Gambler1981

I still like the idea of adding half points, a guy barely winning a round should not be the same as a guy dominating a round, and a guy should not have to damn near beat someone to death in a round without a knockdown to get an advantage on the scorecards. I just thinks it works way better in terms of providing the right amount of separation for work done in a round rather than basically every round being 10-9 one way or the other unless a knockdown occurs. Which doesn't make any sense to a casual observer.

9y ago

Scipio2009

9y ago