This is how you score POWER

[War Room]

As the best poster on Boxingscene, I feel it's my duty to give back as much as I can. I would say 75% of this forum has no idea how to score a fight. In modern times, the top 3 criteria are: Power, Clean Punching, and Effective Aggression. Those are your meat and potatoes.

As a professional judge, it's not as easy to score power as it is to score clean puching the etc, but I found the perfect example.

In this clip, both fighters are clearly landing clean punches and it should be crystal clear who's power is having the most effect.

• At 0:02 Taylor lands some power shots, but the effect is small. Serrano keeps coming forward and throwing.
• At 0:12 Serrano has stunned Taylor who's now stepped backwards from the effect of power, goes into a hold, and stumbles inside that moment.
• At 0:19 they're both exchanging hardcore, how to score? 0:20 Taylor lands a good left hook with visible effect, Taylor lands a big right hand that moves Serrano's head and she half steps backward, followed by another big left hook with no visible effect. At 0:22 Serrano lands a big right hook that snaps Taylors head back and stumbles at 0:24 from the postfx. Serrano continues to keep landing punches as Taylor stumbles forward.

I score this volley of exchanges for Serrano based on power.

I will say that I picked Serrano to win this fight before it happened, but as of the final bell I thought Taylor clearly won. I am not biased in any way, shape, or form.

Class dismissed.

[Smash]

As the best poster on Boxingscene, I feel it's my duty to give back as much as I can. I would say 75% of this forum has no idea how to score a fight.

forget the forum, some might say 75% of judges have no idea how to score a fight

lets rephrase here, most know how to score a fight but scoring a fight for someone they dont want to win is something much more difficult than scoring for your guy who gets most if not all close rounds somehow

[Cypocryphy]

As the best poster on Boxingscene, I feel it's my duty to give back as much as I can. I would say 75% of this forum has no idea how to score a fight. In modern times, the top 3 criteria are: Power, Clean Punching, and Effective Aggression. Those are your meat and potatoes.

As a professional judge, it's not as easy to score power as it is to score clean puching the etc, but I found the perfect example.

In this clip, both fighters are clearly landing clean punches and it should be crystal clear who's power is having the most effect.

• At 0:02 Taylor lands some power shots, but the effect is small. Serrano keeps coming forward and throwing.
• At 0:12 Serrano has stunned Taylor who's now stepped backwards from the effect of power, goes into a hold, and stumbles inside that moment.
• At 0:19 they're both exchanging hardcore, how to score? 0:20 Taylor lands a good left hook with visible effect, Taylor lands a big right hand that moves Serrano's head and she half steps backward, followed by another big left hook with no visible effect. At 0:22 Serrano lands a big right hook that snaps Taylors head back and stumbles at 0:24 from the postfx. Serrano continues to keep landing punches as Taylor stumbles forward.

I score this volley of exchanges for Serrano based on power.

I will say that I picked Serrano to win this fight before it happened, but as of the final bell I thought Taylor clearly won. I am not biased in any way, shape, or form.

Class dismissed.

kung-fu-master-sensei.gif

As the self-proclaimed master of posting, you should have consulted me, the Grandmaster, before doing so. First, you don't grade on "POWER." We've been through this before. I'll wire you $1,000 if you can find in the four criteria where it says "power." The word is "effective." What punches that landed cleanly are the most effective."

So right from the start, you're wrong.

But lets keep going ... at the end there, there was only one person's head being snapped back and to the side: Amanda Serrano. While Katie took a couple clean one's flush in the beginning, the more effective punches were landed my Taylor. Let me rephrase that: The cleaner, more effective punches were landed by Taylor because the two words work together. Punches that don't land cleanly are not that effective and vice versa, effective punches can't be blocked but have to land cleanly.

The problem with that clip is that Katie had been hurt in a previous round. That "hurt' carried over into the subsquent rounds, which is why it's given the illusion to some that Amanda landed the more effective, clean punches. But it simply isn't so. Amanda landed a nice right hook afterward that almost dropped Taylor, but that was the one clean punch she landed at the end. And like I said, Taylor was hurt going into those later rounds, so you can really assume that Amanda's punch was harder. When you see a fighters head snap around while the other's head remain fixed, staring straight ahead, you know who landed the more effective punch.

With all of that being said, this is where subjectivity is involved. This is where you have an argument to see it either way, except that Taylor landed more often. That tends to weigh in favor of Taylor, tbh.

Stay after school for study hall.

[War Room]

As the self-proclaimed master of posting, you should have consulted me, the Grandmaster, before doing so.

kung-fu-master-sensei.gif

First, you don't grade on "POWER." We've been through this before. I'll wire you $1,000 if you can find in the four criteria where it says "power." The word is "effective." What punches that landed cleanly are the most effective."

I start saying grandmaster, everybody starts saying it. Bite my gifs, now my parlance. As always, I'm flattered.

Let's just start with, you get a knockdown you get a point. Therefore, power reigns supreme. Furthermore

When scoring each round, judges are to refer to the Scoring Criteria outlined in the ABC’s Regulatory Guidelines:⁸

“…. Judges are to score each round using the following scoring criteria:

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

So right from the start, you're wrong.

Jerry Roth goes into great detail on how power is the true number 1 scoring criteria, then it's the rest as follows.

But lets keep going ... at the end there, there was only one person's head being snapped back and to the side: Amanda Serrano.

Try the coupon code for a free set of frames.

While Katie took a couple clean one's flush in the beginning, the more effective punches were landed my Taylor. Let me rephrase that: The cleaner, more effective punches were landed by Taylor because the two words work together. Punches that don't land cleanly are not that effective and vice versa, effective punches can't be blocked but have to land cleanly.

Are you ready to feel super silly?


Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquess_of_Queensberry_Rules

When scoring each round, judges are to refer to the Scoring Criteria outlined in the ABC’s Regulatory Guidelines:⁸

“…. Judges are to score each round using the following scoring criteria:

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

You don't even know the criterion, you still think it's effective punching, it's Effective Aggressivenes.

The problem with that clip is that Katie had been hurt in a previous round.

Sounds like a you problem. Has nothing to dow with scoring in boxing. You make up your own stuff like effective punching, no such thing.

Stay after school for study hall.

We both know there is only one teacher here.

P.S. You've got another reply coming on the Shakur thread. You're not going to like that one either. Stay mad lol!

[Cypocryphy]

I start saying grandmaster, everybody starts saying it. Bite my gifs, now my parlance. As always, I'm flattered.

Let's just start with, you get a knockdown you get a point. Therefore, power reigns supreme. Furthermore






Jerry Roth goes into great detail on how power is the true number 1 scoring criteria, then it's the rest as follows.



Try the coupon code for a free set of frames.





Are you ready to feel super silly?


Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquess_of_Queensberry_Rules


You don't even know the criterion, you still think it's effective punching, it's Effective Aggressivenes.



Sounds like a you problem. Has nothing to dow with scoring in boxing. You make up your own stuff like effective punching, no such thing.



We both know there is only one teacher here.

P.S. You've got another reply coming on the Shakur thread. You're not going to like that one either. Stay mad lol!

*****.gif

SMH ... You missed the mark with this one. Let me show you how it's done.

First, nice try with that broken link you posted. But since we are posting rules from the Association of Boxing Commissions, let's do it. Shall we?

FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED:

There are four basic factors that should be considered when scoring a boxing contest. If these factors are observed objectively, the scoring of the bout will for the most part be consistent. The factors are as follows:

CLEAN PUNCHING-Simply put, fights are won by clean punches landing. Not all punches are created equally. The

effect of the punch is very important. Hard punches are certainly considered, as are the number of the punches. There is no mathematical formula that equates the hard punches with lighter punches, but judges must be fair to take both into account. Also, good, solid body punches must be considered when judging a bout. Many judges just seem to concentrate on head shots and forget the use of effective body work.

(You can click the link on the Factors To Be Considered title.)

So you see, it's not about power but EFFECT, which contemplates not just one-shot knock your rocks off but also the accumulation of punches. It takes into account both.

Let's look and see what Pat Russell says about this:

The first and primary scoring criterion, clean punching, refers to number but also the quality of the punches. Russell stated, “Effective punches have damaging effect.”

In general, effectiveness is more important than volume. However, if, for example, a smaller fighter is landing so much that he’s keeping his larger opponent’s hands at home more of the time, this means the smaller fighter took away the effectiveness of the bigger boxer’s heavier punches. The judge has to then weigh which had greater effect (the smaller fighter’s quantity or the larger fighter’s more damaging punches).

You see—they judge on the effectiveness because it contemplates a smaller fighter who doesn't hit as hard as the larger boxer or a boxer who doesn't have the natural power as the other boxer.

I will address your other response later.

tumblr_mg9wni2NVf1rdsiguo1_400.gif

[War Room]

SMH ... You missed the mark with this one. Let me show you how it's done.

First, nice try with that broken link you posted. But since we are posting rules from the Association of Boxing Commissions, let's do it. Shall we?

You're fucking retarded, literally unreachable. I've given you solid proof and it still won't sink in your rock for brains. You said effective punching, there is NO SUCH THING YOU MONG. Now you've backed off it like you never said it. Admit defeat like a real man. Don't be like some bitch woman jumping to the next thing when you lose.

Nice try? I copied it from wiki you fucktard. I even gave you the link.

So you see, it's not about power but EFFECT, which contemplates not just one-shot knock your rocks off but also the accumulation of punches. It takes into account both.

You don't win rounds later on from what you did earlier, are you insane?

Let's look and see what Pat Russell says about this:

The first and primary scoring criterion, clean punching, refers to number but also the quality of the punches. Russell stated, “Effective punches have damaging effect.”

In general, effectiveness is more important than volume.

The quality of punches is POWER.

Effectiveness (the effect of the punch) is more important than volume that is called POWER and that counts more than the volume of punches.
It's right there in plain English.

Volume is for the amateurs, power (or the effect of a single punch) is for the pro's, this is basics! I can't do this, you got something wrong with you. Don't bother responding, I'm not reading. I told you in my last post, bring something or you get nothing.

[juggernaut666]

You're fucking retarded, literally unreachable. I've given you solid proof and it still won't sink in your rock for brains. You said effective punching, there is NO SUCH THING YOU MONG. Now you've backed off it like you never said it. Admit defeat like a real man. Don't be like some bitch woman jumping to the next thing when you lose.

Nice try? I copied it from wiki you fucktard. I even gave you the link.



You don't win rounds later on from what you did earlier, are you insane?



The quality of punches is POWER.

Effectiveness (the effect of the punch) is more important than volume that is called POWER and that counts more than the volume of punches.
It's right there in plain English.

Volume is for the amateurs, power (or the effect of a single punch) is for the pro's, this is basics! I can't do this, you got something wrong with you. Don't bother responding, I'm not reading. I told you in my last post, bring something or you get nothing.

As a self proclaimed Fury fan you really better watch out using your own criteria .

Just saying Mr BEST Poster ?

Go ahead respond back now ,I’m bored .

[FeFist]

If Malignaggi hit someone 40 times and the other fighter landed 4 crisp punches, I am scoring the round to Malignaggi.

You don't start giving rounds to fighters simply because you reason that they did more damage. It is on them to get the knockdown, break them down, or stop them.

[kafkod]

The quality of punches is POWER.

Effectiveness (the effect of the punch) is more important than volume that is called POWER and that counts more than the volume of punches.

This is nonsense. Like saying that lap time = engine power in a motor racing time trial! What about the weight and handling qualities of the vehicle? What about the weather conditions? What about the skills of the driver?

Like wise, power is just one of many factors which determine the quality of a punch and the effect it has on the fighter who takes it. Timing, accuracy, punch placement, are all as important - if not more important - than sheer power.

[kafkod]

So what if a fighter was so slick that he could stand right in front of his opponent for a full round, just making him look like a fool, missing countless shots. The slick guy landed one o.k. shot but his opponent was able to land one big shot during the round.

Who gets the round?

The slick guy or his opponent? And why?
................Rockin'

That's a good question which illustrates how important subjective judgements are in scoring fights.

Both guys landed one punch, but the slick guy showed great defensive skills, which is a recognised scoring criterion, so maybe the slick guy should win the round. But wait .. was the slick guy visibly hurt by the one big shot the power puncher landed? If so, then maybe the effective aggression criterion should swing the round in favour of the power puncher?