POLL: How To Score A Fight – Jabs To Powerpunches

[Madison Boxing]

i dont agree tbh, people overcomplicate scoring, most people can see who is winning a fight its not hard. usually find a lot of people on twitter etc have cards which are fairly similar, the reason with bad official scorecards are nothing to do with subjectivity/objectivity its because theyve been told to score rounds for the popular/hometown fighter. you can see the fights where there are going to be controversial cards a mile off.

[Marchegiano]

Not that defined is the answer.

Effective punching, doesn't matter what kind of punches, there's no point system for landing certain kinds of punches, this is not taekwondo.

[War Room]

HelpfulLimpAlaskankleekai-max-1mb.gif

I heard you're one of the alt's for ThuglifeNelo, is that true?

Silencer is the new alt.

Source: https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/n...5#post31433345

NO WAR ROOM—THEY DO NOT! Stop. Just stop you jack ass. I don't know how old you are, but apparently you have had years to squeeze your head so far up your ass that there's no going back. This is how judges finagle a win for the fighter they want to win. Let me put it to you this way: Nothing matters more than clean, effective punching. Everything else is secondary. Why? If your defense is good, that means your opponent isn't landing clean, effective punches. If you are being effectively aggressive rather than just merely aggressive, you are landing clean, effective punches with your aggression. And if you are controlling the fight (aka ring generalship), you are doing so by landing clean, effective punches. Nothing else matters. Clean, effective punching trumps all. So when you come across a situation where one guy is clearly landing more than the other guy but somehow the other guy wins, they will come to this little grey area of jabs versus power punches. This is where they will justify giving the nod to one guy over the other, although, you are right that sometimes they will give a nod to defense. But doing that just makes defense worth more than punches because not only did the other guy not get to score, which by default means that if you've landed, then you've won that engagement. But you get BONUS points for not letting the guy hit you. It's totally redundant. If both guys are making each other miss, then the round is a draw. If one guy misses more than the other, then you can try to give the round to the guy with better defense, but aside from that scenario, you have to go toward clean, effective punches.

I'm well aware that the rules don't distinguish between power punches and jabs, but I'm also well aware that the judges do because they've said so (at least some).

There is no effective punching criteria you funktard. It's CLEAN PUNCHING & EFFECTIVE AGGRESSION. LMAO!

1. Clean punching (power versus quantity)
2. Effective aggressiveness
3. Ring generalship
4. Defense

”The test to measure the awarding of points for “offensive boxing” should be the number of direct, clean punches delivered with the knuckle part of the closed glove on any part of the scoring zone of the opponent’s body above the belt line. The judges should also consider the effect of blows received versus the number of punches delivered. Punches that are blocked or deflected should not be considered in tabulating your score. Blocked or deflected punches that land foul are not to be considered fouls in the awarding of points at the end of the round.”⁹ (Professional Boxing Judges, Chapter III – Scoring Zone).

10-Point system
The 10 Point system was first introduced in 1968 by the World Boxing Council (WBC) as a rational way of scoring fights. It was viewed as such because it allowed judges to reward knockdowns and distinguish between close rounds, as well as rounds where one fighter clearly dominated their opponent. Furthermore, the subsequent adoption of this system, both nationally and internationally, allowed for greater judging consistency, which was something that was sorely needed at the time. There are many factors that inform the judge's decision but the most important of these are: clean punching, effective aggressiveness, ring generalship and defense. Judges use these metrics as a means of discerning which fighter has a clear advantage over the other, regardless of how minute the advantage.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profes...0_Point_System

Show me where it says effective punching?

TL;DR

YDKSAB

[War Room]

And here is another twist than complicates the issue or criteria: What if a light-puncher managed to cause one of his opponent's eye to swell -- perhaps due to a headbutt, not even necessarily due to a clean-punch. Although the jab landing on a closed-eye is coming from a pillow-fist puncher, it is inflicted more damage due to the injury on the eye.

This is where experience, expertise, and knowing the fighter comes into play. Not every face has the same strength, doesn't mean you score power due to a cut or swollen eye. Gatti would swell from a warm breeze. Pazienza would get cut licking his lips, Chuck Wepner nickname was the Bayonne Bleeder.

Power is scored when it disrupts the other fighter. If a fighter is all on you peppering you with shots, then you land a hard shot and he wobbles, ties you up, stops what he's doing to go into defense ---> power is scored.

[real raw]

The premise is flawed. All punches are equal in the sense the a punch is a punch is a punch. Just because a hook or a straight is labeled a "power punch" doesn't necessarily indicate that it's doing more damage than a jab. A punch, any punch has to land cleanly for it to be effective. A fighter may land a glancing hook, if the opponent rolls with it, there's going to be very little effect. Where as a fighter may land a flush jab, that snaps the opponent's head back. Is one supposed to give more weight to the hook just because it's labeled a "power punch"?

The important thing when judging a fight is how much damage does any given punch do, not what type of punch it is. First and foremost, a punch has to land cleanly.

[1hourRun]

This is where experience, expertise, and knowing the fighter comes into play. Not every face has the same strength, doesn't mean you score power due to a cut or swollen eye. Gatti would swell from a warm breeze. Pazienza would get cut licking his lips, Chuck Wepner nickname was the Bayonne Bleeder.

Power is scored when it disrupts the other fighter. If a fighter is all on you peppering you with shots, then you land a hard shot and he wobbles, ties you up, stops what he's doing to go into defense ---> power is scored.

Scoring could be tricky, Its like buckling Amir Khan with a jab that has little force, he is chinny. Nevertheless, the light punch buzzed him regardless of his poor-punch resistance. Probably a poor example I used there because I'm talking about how a light-jab can weigh more on a injured eye, from my perspective.

Not everyone is created equal in boxing.

[Silence]

I heard you're one of the alt's for ThuglifeNelo, is that true?



Source: https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/n...5#post31433345

The Big Dumb's ****** post doesn't make me alt you dumb. He supposes all Canelo fans the same poster.

Anyway, I think Canelo beat GGG in the second fight in terms of all 4 criterias.

Cleaner and crispier punches
You can see Canelo's signatures on GGG's face. GGG only landed a few uppercuts and the cross. Cross was helluva punch tho. Most meaningful combinations came from Nelo. GGG only landed jabs. This is why Canelo's face was clean asf.

Effective Aggression
GGG was one of the most ducked fighters at the time and fought at his front foot any time. Canelo walked him down all night long and GGG "needed to change his style completely". Abel Sanchez talked about that millions times and indirectly accept Canelo's win by saying "fight could go either way, Golovkin shouldn't have fought at his back foot". Then, GGGeezer fired him shamelessly.

Ring Generalship
The pace and gear of the fight were what Canelo wanted. GGG wasn't comfortable. Canelo is clear winner here.

Defense
GGG's defense was better than first fight. He did good job with his high guard. But, Canelo's punch accuracy was better. Canelo had better defense like always. And, he made this by pure head movement not by sissy high guard.

GGG has a case in the first fight but Canelo is clean winner of second bout.

[Cypocryphy]

I heard you're one of the alt's for ThuglifeNelo, is that true?



Source: https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/n...5#post31433345



There is no effective punching criteria you funktard. It's CLEAN PUNCHING & EFFECTIVE AGGRESSION. LMAO!

1. Clean punching (power versus quantity)
2. Effective aggressiveness
3. Ring generalship
4. Defense

”The test to measure the awarding of points for “offensive boxing” should be the number of direct, clean punches delivered with the knuckle part of the closed glove on any part of the scoring zone of the opponent’s body above the belt line. The judges should also consider the effect of blows received versus the number of punches delivered. Punches that are blocked or deflected should not be considered in tabulating your score. Blocked or deflected punches that land foul are not to be considered fouls in the awarding of points at the end of the round.”⁹ (Professional Boxing Judges, Chapter III – Scoring Zone).

10-Point system
The 10 Point system was first introduced in 1968 by the World Boxing Council (WBC) as a rational way of scoring fights. It was viewed as such because it allowed judges to reward knockdowns and distinguish between close rounds, as well as rounds where one fighter clearly dominated their opponent. Furthermore, the subsequent adoption of this system, both nationally and internationally, allowed for greater judging consistency, which was something that was sorely needed at the time. There are many factors that inform the judge's decision but the most important of these are: clean punching, effective aggressiveness, ring generalship and defense. Judges use these metrics as a means of discerning which fighter has a clear advantage over the other, regardless of how minute the advantage.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profes...0_Point_System

Show me where it says effective punching?

TL;DR

YDKSAB

You live in your own world old man, one where Frazier is an arm puncher or you know the rules of boxing In other words, not do you not know **** about boxing, you simply don't know ****. Anyway, I just wanted to thank you.

Thank you War Room for dropping your guard (which, in this instance, is your brain) and giving me the opportunity to send you straight to hell.

See here: (NRS 467.030)(And because you're a moron, I'll explain to you that this is an administrative rule in Nevada, promulgated by the Nevada Athletic Commission, which all judges must follow.)

(1) (e) Each judge of a contest or exhibition of mixed martial arts that is being judged shall use the following judging criteria and priority for scoring a round:

(1) The judge shall first assess whether one of the unarmed combatants has an advantage in effective striking or grappling, or both.

(2) If, and only if, effective striking and grappling are even, the judge shall next assess effective aggression to determine the winner of the round. The judge shall not assess or consider effective aggression if effective striking and grappling are not even.

(3) If, and only if, the round is still even after considering the criteria set forth in subparagraphs (1) and (2), the judge shall assess cage or ring control to determine the winner of the round. The judge shall not assess or consider cage or ring control if the criteria set forth in subparagraphs (1) and (2) are not even.

(And to explain to you what "effective" means in this instance, it means that the more powerful blows are given more weight in scoring than punches that have more of a cumulative effect.)

Ahahahah Ahahahaha Tanks for playing old man; say hello to the devil for me

[War Room]

Scoring could be tricky, Its like buckling Amir Khan with a jab that has little force, he is chinny. Nevertheless, the light punch buzzed him regardless of his poor-punch resistance. Probably a poor example I used there because I'm talking about how a light-jab can weigh more on a injured eye, from my perspective.

Not everyone is created equal in boxing.

I know Prescott got him, but that dude had pretty good power even though he's got a lot of lossed. Khan wasn't always chinny, he raised the war banners and beat great fighters in the early part of his career. He did have a chink in his chin which got bigger over time.

The Big Dumb's ****** post doesn't make me alt you dumb. He supposes all Canelo fans the same poster.

Anyway, I think Canelo beat GGG in the second fight in terms of all 4 criterias.

Cleaner and crispier punches
You can see Canelo's signatures on GGG's face. GGG only landed a few uppercuts and the cross. Cross was helluva punch tho. Most meaningful combinations came from Nelo. GGG only landed jabs. This is why Canelo's face was clean asf.

Effective Aggression
GGG was one of the most ducked fighters at the time and fought at his front foot any time. Canelo walked him down all night long and GGG "needed to change his style completely". Abel Sanchez talked about that millions times and indirectly accept Canelo's win by saying "fight could go either way, Golovkin shouldn't have fought at his back foot". Then, GGGeezer fired him shamelessly.

Ring Generalship
The pace and gear of the fight were what Canelo wanted. GGG wasn't comfortable. Canelo is clear winner here.

Defense
GGG's defense was better than first fight. He did good job with his high guard. But, Canelo's punch accuracy was better. Canelo had better defense like always. And, he made this by pure head movement not by sissy high guard.

GGG has a case in the first fight but Canelo is clean winner of second bout.

GGG won both fights, get over it.

You live in your own world old man, one where Frazier is an arm puncher or you know the rules of boxing In other words, not do you not know **** about boxing, you simply don't know ****. Anyway, I just wanted to thank you.

Thank you War Room for dropping your guard (which, in this instance, is your brain) and giving me the opportunity to send you straight to hell.

See here: (NRS 467.030)(And because you're a moron, I'll explain to you that this is an administrative rule in Nevada, promulgated by the Nevada Athletic Commission, which all judges must follow.)

(1) (e) Each judge of a contest or exhibition of mixed martial arts that is being judged shall use the following judging criteria and priority for scoring a round:

(1) The judge shall first assess whether one of the unarmed combatants has an advantage in effective striking or grappling, or both.

(2) If, and only if, effective striking and grappling are even, the judge shall next assess effective aggression to determine the winner of the round. The judge shall not assess or consider effective aggression if effective striking and grappling are not even.

(3) If, and only if, the round is still even after considering the criteria set forth in subparagraphs (1) and (2), the judge shall assess cage or ring control to determine the winner of the round. The judge shall not assess or consider cage or ring control if the criteria set forth in subparagraphs (1) and (2) are not even.

(And to explain to you what "effective" means in this instance, it means that the more powerful blows are given more weight in scoring than punches that have more of a cumulative effect.)

Ahahahah Ahahahaha Tanks for playing old man; say hello to the devil for me

You're the biggest crumb-off on this site and you've been punished mercilessly. But it has been a long time so I gues you forgot what pain feels like and maybe I stretched you a bit so now you're ready for more girth.

MMA you silly little pink man. They say a man is never the same once he's been castrated and you my dear Reek have been cropped senseless!

[Cypocryphy]

The Big Dumb's ****** post doesn't make me alt you dumb. He supposes all Canelo fans the same poster.

Anyway, I think Canelo beat GGG in the second fight in terms of all 4 criterias.

Cleaner and crispier punches
You can see Canelo's signatures on GGG's face. GGG only landed a few uppercuts and the cross. Cross was helluva punch tho. Most meaningful combinations came from Nelo. GGG only landed jabs. This is why Canelo's face was clean asf.

Effective Aggression
GGG was one of the most ducked fighters at the time and fought at his front foot any time. Canelo walked him down all night long and GGG "needed to change his style completely". Abel Sanchez talked about that millions times and indirectly accept Canelo's win by saying "fight could go either way, Golovkin shouldn't have fought at his back foot". Then, GGGeezer fired him shamelessly.

Ring Generalship
The pace and gear of the fight were what Canelo wanted. GGG wasn't comfortable. Canelo is clear winner here.

Defense
GGG's defense was better than first fight. He did good job with his high guard. But, Canelo's punch accuracy was better. Canelo had better defense like always. And, he made this by pure head movement not by sissy high guard.

GGG has a case in the first fight but Canelo is clean winner of second bout.

I don't know about that. Golovkin did where sunglasses but that was due to having a cut on the side of his right eye. Canelo had a bad cut on the side of his left eye, so it seemed pretty even as far as face damage was concerned. (And don't go post any of those photoshopped images on the internet where Golovkin was made to look like he was hit by a bus. All of them are bull**** grifters trying to redefine history.)

Technically, the effectiveness of the punch needs to be taken into account, regardless as to whether it's a jab or a power punch. That being said, of course a jab will not be as powerful as a straight, hook, overhand, etc. However, Golovkin outlanded Canelo by 60 punches approximately, and he outlanded Canelo is every single round except the sixth round.

You have a much stronger case arguing that Golovkin won than Canelo. Much stronger. But if you wanted to go with a draw, I wouldn't argue otherwise too much.