How to Score A Fight

[abadger]

Boxing is a subjective sport w/ how scoring is done, but it should be limited as much as possible. Stricter scoring guidelines that judges would have to follow would limit strange scoring and fighters would know what is rewarded and what isn't. As it stands, fans and judges differ opinions very greatly because of what they value in a fight/round.

Clean, Effective Punching

....

Defense

....

Ring Generalship

....
Effective Aggression

....

No, no, no, you've got it all wrong! The way to score a fight is to pick which fighter you like best and score the fight for them, regardless of what actually happens. Its usually a good idea to give a couple of rounds to your fighter's opponent, just to keep things on the up an up.

I thought everyone knew this...

[bsrizpac]

lol.

I think people look at effective aggression the wrong way. Sure, the fighter who is MORE effective in their aggression should get the nod, but if one fighter is completely non-aggressive and the other is ineffective, the ineffective fighter should get the round(and usually does).

AKA Floyd has lost every fight he's ever been in. We get it. you don't understand boxing. It's okay.

Keep on watching for those "brawls"

[warp1432]

I think people look at effective aggression the wrong way. Sure, the fighter who is MORE effective in their aggression should get the nod, but if one fighter is completely non-aggressive and the other is ineffective, the ineffective fighter should get the round(and usually does).

I disagree. Even if the non agressive fighter is showing better defense and lands more clean punches he should definietly get the round.

Good example is Jirov vs Toney. Toney would let Jirov be agressive as ****, but Toney was showing brilliant defense and rolling all his punches off. Jirov would hit toney's back with punches, buy Toney would land the cleaner punches. Granted this wasn't every round, but it was most of them and Toney took it. Harold Ledderman's scorecard is a disgrace.

Also just because you are pushing the fight doesn't mean you should automatically win the round. You don't win a hockey match for shooting more shots on goal, you win it by actually scoring a goal. If the Penguins have more shots on goal, but the Redwings have a goal then the Redwings win.

I find nothing wrong with waiting and then firing back, even if you aren't pressuring.

[bsrizpac]

I disagree. Even if the non agressive fighter is showing better defense and lands more clean punches he should definietly get the round.

Good example is Jirov vs Toney. Toney would let Jirov be agressive as ****, but Toney was showing brilliant defense and rolling all his punches off. Jirov would hit toney's back with punches, buy Toney would land the cleaner punches. Granted this wasn't every round, but it was most of them and Toney took it. Harold Ledderman's scorecard is a disgrace.

Also just because you are pushing the fight doesn't mean you should automatically win the round. You don't win a hockey match for shooting more shots on goal, you win it by actually scoring a goal. If the Penguins have more shots on goal, but the Redwings have a goal then the Redwings win.

I find nothing wrong with waiting and then firing back, even if you aren't pressuring.

BmoreBrawler should read this a thousand times then staple it to his forehead.

[Left Hook Tua]

i think we make judging too complicated imho......

to me? it's simple. who hurt who more? if you were to be one of those guys in that ring for that round who would you rather be.

in watching a street fight we judge the losers by who was hurt more. or who got dropped. why should it be any different in boxing?

i think we give too much credit to guys who punch a lot but if he doesn't land cleanly or hurt his opponent who cares? we also give too much credit to guys making their opponent miss a lot.

to box is to hit your opponent as much as you can and to get hit as little as possible. they go together and to win a round you should try to do both.

[Dirt E Gomez]

Watching the replay of Cotto-Margarito and now seeing the judge's scorecards make me cry. Seriously, how do these people get a job and suck that hard at it?

[squealpiggy]

Good point. Since Calz was aggressive but not effectively so, lost the clean punching, lost the defense, won the ring generalship, you're right. I'm shocked that you picked Hopkins as the winner of that fight, but good job.

Calzaghe was quite obviously effective against Hopkins hence Hopkins was looking for a way out in the late rounds. Hopkins' punches were cleaner but apart from the knockdown in the first they were not more effective.

That's the problem with clean effective punching. People tend to overlook "effective" in favour of "clean"

[Jone2ts]

I think the effective part has been done away with seems like the most punches wins barring a knock out. I hate it but its true a guy throws 1000 sloopy punches lands 300-400 that do no real damage and the other guy throws 600 punches lands 300-400 and has a better clean connect percentage and he still loses these days. Its insane.