Comments Thread For: Boxing judge Tom Schreck reveals which rounds are the hardest to score and give the officials fits

[BoxingUpdates]

Not all rounds are created equal, and despite being armed with scoring criteria and years of experience, there are still some rounds that if you can get them to admit it give judges fits.
[Click Here To Read More]

[daggum]

Jabs with the weight on the back leg, a foot turned ready to escape, and executed tentatively shouldn’t be given as much credit when it comes to scoring.

Power shots — whether they are crosses, hooks, or uppercuts — should also be thrown with good body mechanics. That is, feet planted, weight moving forward, commitment to the punch, and executed with speed and force. To do this, the boxer must have crossed into the neutral zone, which means risking getting hit, and they must use the torque of shifting their body weight to throw the punch.

floyd vs pac...floyd did everything negative described here while pac did everything positive and landed the much cleaner harder punches. too bad this guy forgot the most important rule of judging which is who is fighting?

[THC]

So long as judges can subjectivly score rounds, the sport allows these (corruptible) people to apply their own interpertion of the criteria that determines the winner of a round.

[PittyPat]

Tricky also are those rounds where a fighter is hitting arms and gloves but visibly hard, while the other fighter doesn't do much except be on "deeee-fence". Surely effective aggression has to nullify defence in that case? I'm referring to any Clottey, Abraham or Sturm fight.

[FairPlay]

I guess that the intention behind these articles written by a boxing judge was to explain or demystify or quantify the scoring process. But in reality, both this and the previous article by the same author just prove that scoring is completely subjective and that no amount of empty talk and jargon buzzwords can make it seem objective. When you distill both articles, behind the quasi professional talk the end result is the same - the judges score rounds the way they feel to them, and that is the right word. Feel. Nothing objective nor scientific, no clear set of rules or instructions that would ensure that different people, if they follow them, will end with the same result. All the talk about "expertise" and "experience" mean nothing. If you have "expertise" in being subjective, that does not make your scoring objective or right nor better than that of any other spectator.
And that is without mentioning all the corruption, that is, of course, made possible by having such vague scoring criteria.