How should you score a fight??

[ßringer]

i score it how i see it
i dont think throwing 20 punches a round and landing 8 is ring generalship like some people seem too lol
i understand the judges have a hard job,but they are too easily influenced sometimes imo

What if you throw 50 a round, but only land 15?

By land I mean cleanly, not arm shots, glancing blows, and shots picked off on the opponet's gloves/guard.

[The_Demon]

What if you throw 50 a round, but only land 15?

By land I mean cleanly, not arm shots, glancing blows, and shots picked off on the opponet's gloves/guard.

thats acceptable,but a fighter rarely lands 15 'clean' shots in a round- whatever compubox says
aggression pays in boxing,boxers should know that by now but some still seem comtempt too do as little as possible

[ßringer]

thats acceptable,but a fighter rarely lands 15 'clean' shots in a round- whatever compubox says
aggression pays in boxing,boxers should know that by now but some still seem comtempt too do as little as possible

Effective aggression pays.

I don't know really, it's hard **** ; this judging stuff.

There's so many things that go on during a fight that you have to consider, and more often than not there's close rounds that people seem to split on who won.

It's crazy, sometimes.

I mean, how do you pick between a guy who throws very little, but lands half of it, and a guy who throws a lot, but lands very little?

Then there's ring generalship, knockdowns, referee errors, accidental headbutts, fouls, etc....

That's why I try not to call any close fight a "robbery" like everybody here seems to do immediately after a fight.

I'll just say something like "I thought it was close, but I had (X fighter) winning.".

Unless it's some blatant bull**** decision like Casamayor/Santa Cruz or something.

[daggum]

Effective aggression pays.

I don't know really, it's hard **** ; this judging stuff.

There's so many things that go on during a fight that you have to consider, and more often than not there's close rounds that people seem to split on who won.

It's crazy, sometimes.

I mean, how do you pick between a guy who throws very little, but lands half of it, and a guy who throws a lot, but lands very little?

Then there's ring generalship, knockdowns, referee errors, accidental headbutts, fouls, etc....

That's why I try not to call any close fight a "robbery" like everybody here seems to do immediately after a fight.

I'll just say something like "I thought it was close, but I had (X fighter) winning.".

Unless it's some blatant bull**** decision like Casamayor/Santa Cruz or something.

is it really that hard to figure out? why should you get any credit for inaccurate punches and being ineffective. reward them cause they are bad and cant hit the other guy?

[ßringer]

is it really that hard to figure out? why should you get any credit for inaccurate punches and being ineffective. reward them cause they are bad and cant hit the other guy?

It's not hard for me ; I give it to whoever landed the cleaner shots.

I don't give two ****s about an ineffective workrate.

But a lot of judges see it very differently, which is why I posed the question.

[PACBOY]

It's not hard for me ; I give it to whoever landed the cleaner shots.

I don't give two ****s about an ineffective workrate.

But a lot of judges see it very differently, which is why I posed the question.

i Like that avi

[The_Demon]

Effective aggression pays.

I don't know really, it's hard **** ; this judging stuff.

There's so many things that go on during a fight that you have to consider, and more often than not there's close rounds that people seem to split on who won.

It's crazy, sometimes.

I mean, how do you pick between a guy who throws very little, but lands half of it, and a guy who throws a lot, but lands very little?

Then there's ring generalship, knockdowns, referee errors, accidental headbutts, fouls, etc....

That's why I try not to call any close fight a "robbery" like everybody here seems to do immediately after a fight.

I'll just say something like "I thought it was close, but I had (X fighter) winning.".

Unless it's some blatant bull**** decision like Casamayor/Santa Cruz or something.

its the hardest sport too judge,with so many different factors in a fight the judges have very tough decisions too make
its all about opinions on here ya know,and there is no definitive answer to who is right and who is wrong

[Chunk..]

I look for who is landing the cleaner punches. Pretty simple. You shouldn't have to look busy to win rounds IMO. Any fighter can run around a ring like a lunatic and trowing there arms about but it isn't about how much you throw, it's about how much you land!

[KittenFlaps]

I always score it on how I perceive it. I tend to lean towards the fighter that pushes the action and scores more powerful meaningful shots, but ultimately it's going to come down to who throws more punches because I can't always tell when they land or don't land.

Any knockdowns or penalties are scored the exact way the referee calls them.

If I notice something during a fight such a slip or a throw being counted as a knockdown, i'll put a second scoring for the round which I consider a "what if" score, but really it doesn't matter.

So far I'd rate myself a relatively level headed judge, but I do tend to have a extra point for a fighter that is more of a offensive fighter than a defensive fighter. Also, I can't help but watch the fighter I like a little more favorably.

[ßringer]

i Like that avi

Thanks.

It was my idea, but Phoetoe made it for me because my photoshop isn't installed at the moment.