It's the Scoring System

[TheOneAboveAll]

I don't believe I am making your point. In the scenario BOTH fighters landed clean, punches, which is 10. What you say is nonsense criteria, I say is vital to determining who wins, the round/ fight, albeit secondary to clean punching.

Lets say the first guy lands 10, under the same scenario, but the second guy lands 8/8. Who win the round? Boxing isn't all about punching. Outside of an outright ko, or tko, there's other factors to consider. Not understanding the rules or misapplication of the judging criteria doesn't mean the system is flawed.

Obviously, this cannot be reduced to simple numbers as in the amateur game, but assuming that the quality and impact of the punches you mention in your hypothetical example was the same, the fighter who landed 10 punches should get the nod over the one who landed 8 and threw 8. In your previous example where both fighters landed the same number and quality of punches but one was more efficient, then that's an even round in my opinion. It is illogical to me to even mention the number of punches thrown, or the ratio landed to try to impose some sort of efficiency criteria on the scoring. Taking consideration of one fighter's efficiency over the other muddles things and takes attention away from the only things that should matter: hard, clean punches and damage delivered.

Taken to the absurd fighters might just decide to throw and land 5 punches per round if we suddenly started giving extra credit for efficiency (which some fans apparently do). I have never understood why broadcasters emphasize the punches thrown to punches landed ratio at all.

I understand the judging criteria very well, and that's why I’m always baffled to hear other people insist that it makes any sense at all. I think a minority of fans, those who think the system makes sense, fail to realize that the current 4 criteria compete with and undermine each other. As I have noted several times now, having four criteria allows fans to pick and choose in every round what criteria they want to emphasize and which ones they want to ignore for that round. To go back to the basketball analogy, it would be like giving points for baskets scored, points for shots blocked, points for hustle and points for ball movement. If they did that we would regularly see teams lose that score more actual baskets than their opponent. It's as absurd for basketball as it is for boxing. I understand that boxing is an art form, but this is fighting so it’s about hitting and hurting your opponent more than anything else. The more the scoring system gets away from that focus, the more screwy it’s going to be.

[SplitSecond]

I don't believe I am making your point. In the scenario BOTH fighters landed clean, punches, which is 10. What you say is nonsense criteria, I say is vital to determining who wins, the round/ fight, albeit secondary to clean punching.

Lets say the first guy lands 10, under the same scenario, but the second guy lands 8/8. Who win the round? Boxing isn't all about punching. Outside of an outright ko, or tko, there's other factors to consider. Not understanding the rules or misapplication of the judging criteria doesn't mean the system is flawed.

*** this. Doesn’t matter if a guy is doing somersaults, if they are equal in punches/quality. It’s a draw.

[TheOneAboveAll]

This is an excellent example. I’ve made this exact point in the past. To use your scenario, just for kicks, I’d score the round for the more effective fighter — i.e. 10/10; the other guy was just flailing. Way, way too many fans give aggression too much credit. You’ve gotta land punches, dude.

Ok, but both guys LANDED the same number of punches and you gave it to the guy one who threw less punches. That means you're actually giving primacy to offensive efficiency rather than landed punches. Throwing punches that don't land doesn't necessarily mean a fighter is flailing. As we all understand, fighters often have to throw one or more setup punches to open their opponent up to land clean shots.

[The D3vil]

Are you telling me this because you want me to believe what you're saying so you can feel better about Haney losing nearly every damn round of that fight? lmao. Bro. You're wasting your time. You know damn will that Haney got his ass kicked. He did not outland Loma. Only in your wildest fantasies did Haney outland Loma. It's all on tape bro, so don't bother trying to gaslight anyone into believing your nonsense.

Devin Haney Lost BADLY--Alhumdulillah

LOMA--WIN CLEARLY

It's that simple. And the whole world knows it.

Genius, check the punch statistics.

You do know they have those things, now, right?

Haney outlanded Loma in 4 of the first 6 rounds and they tied in the 1st round.

Loma punching and hitting mitts or airmost of the time does not equal a landed punch.

[CubanGuyNYC]

Ok, but both guys LANDED the same number of punches and you gave it to the guy one who threw less punches. That means you're actually giving primacy to offensive efficiency rather than landed punches. Throwing punches that don't land doesn't necessarily mean a fighter is flailing. As we all understand, fighters often have to throw one or more setup punches to open their opponent up to land clean shots.

If landed punches were all it was about, we could just rely on Compubox and do away with judges. But back to the given example: Both fighters landed the same number of punches; no mention was made of the power of said punches. Therefore, in the absence of further information, the other scoring criteria come into play. I give the round to the guy who apparently displayed better defense, and more effective aggression (landed 100% of his punches). I used the word flailing, which may not necessarily be so, but it’s certain the other guy only landed 33% of his punches. That doesn’t sound very effective to me, in comparison. I consider this a fairly clear-cut case. If the second fighter had scored, say 15 punches (50%), I would have to give the round to him, as the number of landed shots takes precedence over other scoring criteria.

[Johnny2x2x]

more crying and biching from people that made out their scorecard before the fight started. Ya boy lost and yall still crying 2 days later. no robbery. stop the bullchit

People lose their freaking ones when their guy loses a close decision. They don’t realize that boxing loves controversy and close decisions that can whip one fan base or the other into a frenzy. Loma lost a fight that had several rounds that could have gone either way. Robbery crying is idiotic and I don’t care if it’s from boxers or fans.

Loma fans are worse than Pacquaio fans. Take the loss and move on, Loma still has a lot of big fights he can make.

[JakeTheBoxer]

more crying and biching from people that made out their scorecard before the fight started. Ya boy lost and yall still crying 2 days later. no robbery. stop the bullchit

Still you? You predicted that would be an easy win for Haney. I remember your posts before the fight. Now you act like Haney clearly won or something.

Your boy needed a gift to get a decision against older smaller guy, deal with it.

[TheOneAboveAll]

If landed punches were all it was about, we could just rely on Compubox and do away with judges. But back to the given example: Both fighters landed the same number of punches; no mention was made of the power of said punches. Therefore, in the absence of further information, the other scoring criteria come into play. I give the round to the guy who apparently displayed better defense, and more effective aggression (landed 100% of his punches). I used the word flailing, which may not necessarily be so, but it’s certain the other guy only landed 33% of his punches. That doesn’t sound very effective to me, in comparison. I consider this a fairly clear-cut case. If the second fighter had scored, say 15 punches (50%), I would have to give the round to him, as the number of landed shots takes precedence over other scoring criteria.

Ok, but I do think this example (and we could come up with a million more) also supports the argument that having multiple competing criteria muddies the water and forces judges to focus on unimportant things. These extra criteria which, again, are incidental to clean, hard punching only serve to give judges an avenue to avoid scoring even rounds when the offense (the important thing) of each fighter was roughly equal. This is not a dance contest. It's not even a break dance street batte. You're defending concepts like "effective aggression" and "ring generalship" because you've been told they matter, not because they actually do. Your thinking leads to giving decisions to fighters who actually got their asses beat.

[CubanGuyNYC]

Ok, but I do think this example (and we could come up with a million more) also supports the argument that having multiple competing criteria muddies the water and forces judges to focus on unimportant things. These extra criteria which, again, are incidental to clean, hard punching only serve to give judges an avenue to avoid scoring even rounds when the offense (the important thing) of each fighter was roughly equal. This is not a dance contest. It's not even a break dance street batte. You're defending concepts like "effective aggression" and "ring generalship" because you've been told they matter, not because they actually do. Your thinking leads to giving decisions to fighters who actually got their asses beat.

Well, yeah, I’ve been told those things matter the same way three strikes is an out in baseball and a free throw shot equals one point in basketball. Lol I didn’t make up the scoring criteria; they’ve been in place long before I got here. Clean punches landed is the main thing — that is recognized. I only resorted to the lesser criteria because of the specifics of one hypothetical round. Boxing isn’t street fighting; it’s a sport. Sadly, the way it’s scored is much more subjective than other sports.