Stop Placing Such Heavy Emphasis on Landed and Thrown Punches!

Objectively, the main criteria in which every round of a boxing bout should be scored, is by effective punches landed. So the boxer that lands more effective punches in more rounds deserves to win the bout if it goes to the scorecards. So how do we determine 'effective' punches landed? It's punches that inflicts damage upon the opponent. How do we determine whether a punch inflicts damage upon the opponent? By seeing if a punch does the following things to an opponent: 1) Knocks an opponent out. 2) Knocks an opponent down. 3) Stuns the opponent. 4) Inflicts visible damage upon the opponent (such as swelling, bruises, cuts, blood and so forth). 5) Snaps the opponents body / head back after punch is landed. If a punch does any one or more of those things, then it should be classified as an 'EFFECTIVE' punch landed. However, if a landed punch doesn't do any one of those things, then such a punch can be classified as an 'INEFFECTIVE' landed punch. Excluding knockouts, knockdowns, point deductions or disqualifications, if a boxer lands more effective punches on his opponent than vice versa in a given round, then he should deserve to win that particular round irrespective of anything else. However, if both boxers land the same amount of 'EFFECTIVE' punches or neither land any 'EFFECTIVE' punches in a particular round, then the winner of that round should be based on who landed more total punches in that round (which also includes who landed more ineffective punches as well). If both boxers land the same number of effective and ineffective punches (total punches) in a particular round, then that round should be decided by secondary criteria such as defense, ring generalship and so forth so on. However, the primary criteria is always who landed the more effective punches in a particular round. So it doesn't matter which boxer looks better subjectively, if he is getting out landed in the effective punching department, he simply deserves to lose that round. Very well said.

I don't think the TS mentioned Compubox once did he? If Compubox punch stats are what he meant then yeah, it's legitimate to question their accuracy, but assuming we had perfect punch stats (for landed punches) broken down RBR then I would say they would be a very important tool in judging how a fight went - I mean really, what else is the point of boxing? Clearly factors such as how effective the punches were and how cleanly they land are a big factor too, but I would have said that it's as clear as day that - all other things being equal - the guy who landed the most punches should win the round. The TS does legitimately bring up the issue of how some people use the total final punchstats to add weight to their arguments instead of the RBR stats, but i think most people with even a modicum of common sense were already aware of that issue (I still see it happening plenty though). Yea RBR is much more reable ,but its still counted by a guy pushing button, watching Live uyou can make mistakes too, if you count with replays and slowmotion you can be very accurate with this stats doe.

its counted by a guy who push the button for **** sake I don't think the TS mentioned Compubox once did he? If Compubox punch stats are what he meant then yeah, it's legitimate to question their accuracy, but assuming we had perfect punch stats (for landed punches) broken down RBR then I would say they would be a very important tool in judging how a fight went - I mean really, what else is the point of boxing? Clearly factors such as how effective the punches were and how cleanly they land are a big factor too, but I would have said that it's as clear as day that - all other things being equal - the guy who landed the most punches should win the round. The TS does legitimately bring up the issue of how some people use the total final punchstats to add weight to their arguments instead of the RBR stats, but i think most people with even a modicum of common sense were already aware of that issue (I still see it happening plenty though).

I was listening to the ring podcast. One guy thought Manny won. The other horn. The guy who thought horn won admitted Manny landed more and landed cleaner. But he gave it to horn because horn was aggressive and controlled the action and pace. Ummm the point of controlling the action and pace is to give yourself the best opportunity to land punches. If you controlled the pace, style, type of fight and still got tagged cleaner and double the amount.... you lost. I admire horn fighting hard and giving himself the best opportunity to win..... but he didn't win in that ring. He won on the scorecards but not in the ring. so why the hell did you say Manny beat Floyd?

Pacman won in every way possible. Higher connect percentage. Dodged more punches. Landed more punches. Won the most rounds. Did more damage. Won in fan polls.

Pacman won in every way possible. Higher connect percentage. Dodged more punches. Landed more punches. Did more damage. Won in fan polls.

I had Pacman winning the fight or a draw with Horn. Love Manny but he didn't get the decision and I'm not upset about it. All this emphasis lately on thrown and landed punches takes away from the most important thing in a fight that goes the distance. Boxing is scored by the SUM of ROUNDS WON not by total amount of punches thrown or landed. This isn't the amateur system where you score based on punches landed. This is a system based off of who wins rounds. For example (with intentional exaggeration to prove my point), if I'm fighting and in the first 6 rounds I out land my opponent 100 punches to none; and he is unable to land one single punch. Yes, I've managed to win the first six rounds. If the rest of the fight I land 100 punches per round, to my opponents 101 punches per round. Guess what? I landed 1200 punches that fight and my opponent landed 606. The FIGHT COULD STILL BE A DRAW!!! My point is, punches thrown and landed are crucial aspects of winning a fight, however, scoring in the pros isn't solely based off of it. So many variables to consider including ring generalship and effective aggression, body language (believe it or not), and intangibles that resonate with specific judges based on the personalities of both fighter and judge(i.e. fight expectations/odds, comparing a fighters known skill and dominance to the current one, etc etc). I'm not saying I don't think boxing should be scored more objectively (like who threw and landed more), however, these have been the rules for over 100 years. Comments? Leave the negativity out please and thank you! I don't post much but have been a member for like 11 yrs. Yes but I think only casuals misunderstand this, and a few die hards esp those with agenda. You can out land me in the first 3 rounds by 500 punches, then the next 4-12 rounds you're only landing 5. While im landing 15. Thus gets me an 9 round advantage over you. But the stats would still not reflect that I landed more because i didnt. But how about in times when someone is landing 8 pitty pat punches while im just landing 2 punches but powerful ones and they stagger you?? There's really plenty of criteria for judging and i think the judges last sat can explain why they gave it to horn.

its counted by a guy who push the button for **** sake Not talking about compubox counting Talking judges scoring

I was listening to the ring podcast. One guy thought Manny won. The other horn. The guy who thought horn won admitted Manny landed more and landed cleaner. But he gave it to horn because horn was aggressive and controlled the action and pace. Ummm the point of controlling the action and pace is to give yourself the best opportunity to land punches. If you controlled the pace, style, type of fight and still got tagged cleaner and double the amount.... you lost. I admire horn fighting hard and giving himself the best opportunity to win..... but he didn't win in that ring. He won on the scorecards but not in the ring. Exactly. For those saying Horn controlled the pace/ring generalship, he should landed more but he did not. Pac did land cleaner and more punches than Horn. Pac also countered Horn. Horn was just aggressive, just threw more punches, and trying to bully Pac.

its counted by a guy who push the button for **** sake This is true. An old guy with bifocals probably....

Landing punches is crucial? Landing punches is the only thing that matters. Everything else, footwork, ring generalship, aggressiveness, defense..... is all to land more punches than the other guy. :dunce: It's who landed the most or landed the cleanest or landed the hardest. That's the only thing that matters. The reason defense fighters win is because it's hard to land on them so therefore they landed more, cleaner or harder too. its counted by a guy who push the button for **** sake

I was listening to the ring podcast. One guy thought Manny won. The other horn. The guy who thought horn won admitted Manny landed more and landed cleaner. But he gave it to horn because horn was aggressive and controlled the action and pace. Ummm the point of controlling the action and pace is to give yourself the best opportunity to land punches. If you controlled the pace, style, type of fight and still got tagged cleaner and double the amount.... you lost. I admire horn fighting hard and giving himself the best opportunity to win..... but he didn't win in that ring. He won on the scorecards but not in the ring.

Landing punches is crucial? Landing punches is the only thing that matters. Everything else, footwork, ring generalship, aggressiveness, defense..... is all to land more punches than the other guy. :dunce: It's who landed the most or landed the cleanest or landed the hardest. That's the only thing that matters. The reason defense fighters win is because it's hard to land on them so therefore they landed more, cleaner or harder too.

Objectively, the main criteria in which every round of a boxing bout should be scored, is by effective punches landed. So the boxer that lands more effective punches in more rounds deserves to win the bout if it goes to the scorecards. So how do we determine 'effective' punches landed? It's punches that inflicts damage upon the opponent. How do we determine whether a punch inflicts damage upon the opponent? By seeing if a punch does the following things to an opponent: 1) Knocks an opponent out. 2) Knocks an opponent down. 3) Stuns the opponent. 4) Inflicts visible damage upon the opponent (such as swelling, bruises, cuts, blood and so forth). 5) Snaps the opponents body / head back after punch is landed. If a punch does any one or more of those things, then it should be classified as an 'EFFECTIVE' punch landed. However, if a landed punch doesn't do any one of those things, then such a punch can be classified as an 'INEFFECTIVE' landed punch. Excluding knockouts, knockdowns, point deductions or disqualifications, if a boxer lands more effective punches on his opponent than vice versa in a given round, then he should deserve to win that particular round irrespective of anything else. However, if both boxers land the same amount of 'EFFECTIVE' punches or neither land any 'EFFECTIVE' punches in a particular round, then the winner of that round should be based on who landed more total punches in that round (which also includes who landed more ineffective punches as well). If both boxers land the same number of effective and ineffective punches (total punches) in a particular round, then that round should be decided by secondary criteria such as defense, ring generalship and so forth so on. However, the primary criteria is always who landed the more effective punches in a particular round. So it doesn't matter which boxer looks better subjectively, if he is getting out landed in the effective punching department, he simply deserves to lose that round.

I appreciate it. What do you think about the idea of scoring a pro fight like how it's done in the amateur world? Just curious. I don't think we need that. I just think we need judges more in line with what the major sports do, with training and evaluations and accountability. I think judges that turn in controversial scorecards should have their pay withheld until they fully explain in a public forum how they scored a fight and it has to make sense according to the scoring criteria.

The "you" was rhetorical, Honda. Apologize if it came off like I was coming at you, cuz I wasn't. I agree with what you said and have used the exact same logic to explain fights. I appreciate it. What do you think about the idea of scoring a pro fight like how it's done in the amateur world? Just curious.

Nothing I said disagrees with your post. And I'm not just talking about the Paq/Horn fight. I'm with you, but like I said landing more punches per round also doesn't guarantee you won the round. Specifics as to who landed the cleaner and harder punches are purely subjective based on a judge. The 117-111 card is insane though. The "you" was rhetorical, Honda. Apologize if it came off like I was coming at you, cuz I wasn't. I agree with what you said and have used the exact same logic to explain fights.

Landing more clean hard punches than the other boxer is what should win rounds. Mauling, wrestling, headlocks, head butts, pushing the other boxer's head down and illegal holding and hitting should not win rounds. Horn fought dirty as hell and got away with it. Pacquiao landed far more and cleaner punches than Horn in almost every round. Pacquiao won by a mile. The decision was a robbery. The ref never enforced the rules and let Horn fight like it was an MMA fight and not a boxing match. The judges scored the fight as if they had been bribed to make Horn the winner no matter what happened in the ring.

Nothing I said disagrees with your post. And I'm not just talking about the Paq/Horn fight. I'm with you, but like I said landing more punches per round also doesn't guarantee you won the round. Specifics as to who landed the cleaner and harder punches are purely subjective based on a judge. The 117-111 card is insane though.

The problem is that Manny outlanded him in almost every round. Total Punches in 11 of the 12 rounds. Jabs in 10 of the 12 rounds. Powershots in 9 of the 12 rounds. And pretty much everyone agrees Manny was landing the cleaner harder punches. So, how does a fighter outland a guy almost all the rounds, and lands harder punches almost all the rounds, and does such damage the ref is thinking about stopping it.... ...yet still lose a unanimous decision and wide on one card? If, as a fan, you cannot see anything wrong with this then I would question whether you are a fan of the sport at all, or know how to score a fight.