How do you judge a fight?

I think it is tough to properly judge a fight. In theory I like the idea of counting punches thrown and landed but in practice that is a flawed system. I think that the compubox guys are probably counting punches that don't land well or even punches that are partially deflected. I think judges also allow the crowd to influence their decision. Fighter A could be winning the exchanges all fight but fighter B could be the crowd favorite and the noise the crowd makes could persuade the judges to score the fight in his favor...I'm not really sure of the best way to judge a fight but I will reference the DLH vs. Trinidad fight. I think most observers agree that DLH won the majority of the rounds 1-9 but he shifted his focus to defense in 10-12. Some people call that running and maybe that is fair but that doesn't mean Trinidad out-boxed him in those last 3 rounds. I would have judged that fight for DLH It is difficult to judge a fight and that is why I wanted to get different takes on it. For me, I ignore the crowd noise and remain as objective as possible. Like you said, a crowd favorite might throw 5 punches that catch nothing but elbows and forearms while the other guy blocks, lands and clean counter and moves of danger. If I'm judging and I see that, then the crowd favorite lost that exchange

I think it is tough to properly judge a fight. In theory I like the idea of counting punches thrown and landed but in practice that is a flawed system. I think that the compubox guys are probably counting punches that don't land well or even punches that are partially deflected. I think judges also allow the crowd to influence their decision. Fighter A could be winning the exchanges all fight but fighter B could be the crowd favorite and the noise the crowd makes could persuade the judges to score the fight in his favor...I'm not really sure of the best way to judge a fight but I will reference the DLH vs. Trinidad fight. I think most observers agree that DLH won the majority of the rounds 1-9 but he shifted his focus to defense in 10-12. Some people call that running and maybe that is fair but that doesn't mean Trinidad out-boxed him in those last 3 rounds. I would have judged that fight for DLH

Just be like the rest of the guys on this site and judge a fight based on a fighters skin color, country of origin, or if theyre their favorite. Then listen to them tell you how the fight when when they didnt actually score any rounds because they dont actually know how to score any fights. Then listen to them tell you that some people who scored the fight for their guy without actually having scored the fight round by round just by a 36 minute experience.

That’s some great intel man. I do a scorecard thread on here to try and track down bad scorecards and single out repeat offenders. Dave Moretti has been a repeat offender this year. Nice. I found it and I'll follow. Thanks.

I track judges history now compared to my own scores. If I score a fight 116-112 and the judge had it 115-113 I consider that a one round difference. Then I keep track to see who I most often agree with. And so far it's Steve Weisfeld, Don Trella, Julie Lederman and Glenn Feldman. I agree with them all more than 93% of the time. I agree with the average judge 88% of the time. Some judges I disagree with 20% of the time. That's awfully wide and I probably wouldn't bet on fights when they are involved. Here is my tracking sheet over the last year or so. https://boxeoguide.com/judges That’s some great intel man. I do a scorecard thread on here to try and track down bad scorecards and single out repeat offenders. Dave Moretti has been a repeat offender this year.

The biggest problem is soo many ppl ignore DEFENSE and body work! Some people seem to simultaneously ignore good defense AND give way too much credit the other fighter who isn't landing cleanly just because he's "more active" which creates an even further problem. Activity level can obviously be the difference in close rounds, but straight up failing to be effective while being the aggressor should also count against a fighter at some point.

The biggest problem is soo many ppl ignore DEFENSE and body work ! Definitely........

If you are a fan of one of the contestants you first make him the winner and then work backwards, if necessarily making stuff up, until you can show that he actually was the winner. Check out some practard's posts, they are not very good at it but by george they keep trying the little rascals.

Great analogy and I made this thread because it seems like a lot of people would give more weight to the "home run" (winning a round or two really big), even though the singles and doubles (winning more rounds by a narrow margin) far outweigh it. Knockdowns are impressive and hard to come by, BUT.....

Whoever gets beat up more is usually the winner in my scorecard.

i dont judge a fight by the colour of their skin but by content of their skills I'm sure Dr. King would be proud of how you judge fights :rofl:

1) Use ALL four scoring criteria with the emphasis- the bottom line criterion holding a little more weight- on the one about clean effective punches. This means defense and ring generalship and effective aggression are all equally weighted; the only criterion that trumps the other three is clean, effective punches. 2) 10 pt must with winner getting 10 and loser getting less, usually 9 if there is no knockdown. Even rounds are possible but should not be often scored that way. Knockdowns as ruled by the ref should be counted. Point deductions ruled by the ref should be counted. A judge cannot deduct a point or count a knockdown that is not first so ruled by the referee. However, a judge may score a 10-8 round without anyone being knocked down if the output was overly one-sided or damaging. Before awarding a 10-10 round, ask yourself if you would have preferred being one of the fighters more than the other that round as far as the work done and punches landed. If the answer is yes, award that fighter 10 points and the other 9. 3) Split each round into one minute segments. Apply 4 scoring criteria to each minute, and determine which fighter won the segment. The fighter who wins 2 of the 3 segments should ordinarily win that round unless the one segment won by the other fighter included a scored knockdown or was more dominant and active than the other two segments combined. In the case of two minute rounds, decide which fighter won their minute more decisively. 4) Avoid scoring blood, especially from cuts accidentally created. However, damage administered by punches can be part of the clean effective punching criterion. 5) Avoid going back and changing round scores unless a real error was made. 6) Be consistent. Awesome and I plan on breaking each round into one-minute segments from now on. Great job :boxing:

By judging rounds. In general, stripped down to it's absolute basics I'm looking for the dude whose landed clean punches had the greatest cumulative effect on the opponent in a given 3 minute stanza. There's nuance, of course, but that's it in a nutshell. Simple and to the point. I like it. And the key words are "3-minute stanza" vs. a 36-minute fight.

I use Boxing MMA Scoring App to judge the fight. With the help of this app in order to judge clean punching criteria I try to count and evaluate every clean punch from both sides. For example ordinary punch - 1 point, if the head snaps back - 2 points, spagetti legs - 3 points. In the end of the round the boxer who gets more points - wins automatically. If the score is equal I can judge other criteria - effective aggression, defence, ring generalship. That's really interesting and I never knew about that app. It's interesting you mention the head snapping back too because I could see guys doing lots of neck exercises if that system was implemented. They would need to get better at hiding the effects of a punch.

This is boxing, not baseball It's an analogy though. What they mean is that winning more rounds by a narrow margin should outweigh winning one or two rounds big.

A baseball analogy - team is down 5-0...batter hits a solo home run making it 5-1 (the other team didn't hit a home run. just singles and doubles)....Who is winning ? Great analogy and I made this thread because it seems like a lot of people would give more weight to the "home run" (winning a round or two really big), even though the singles and doubles (winning more rounds by a narrow margin) far outweigh it.

Whoever wins more rounds wins. Or if you ko the other guy. That's definitely the basic idea. How do you determine who wins rounds? (as far as how you personally score it)

An outside the box thought - Judges are people So is CompuBox Do away with judges ?

And the devil shall appear :lol1:

I use Boxing MMA Scoring App to judge the fight. With the help of this app in order to judge clean punching criteria I try to count and evaluate every clean punch from both sides. For example ordinary punch - 1 point, if the head snaps back - 2 points, spagetti legs - 3 points. In the end of the round the boxer who gets more points - wins automatically. If the score is equal I can judge other criteria - effective aggression, defence, ring generalship.