Tweet
Controversy has always been present in boxing, especially with regard to scoring. A couple of older examples would be Leonard-Hagler and De La Hoya-Trinidad. What got me thinking of this topic again were comments on the recent Ortiz-Berto and Lopez-Salido fights. It seems that a discussion on how to score a fight might be beneficial to some people here on Boxingscene. I’m not a judge, nor do I consider myself an expert on anything regarding the sport of boxing. I am, however, a long-time fan of the sport (since the seventies), and consider myself fairly knowledgeable about certain aspects of the game. I welcome any corrections, additions or comments anyone might have.
The first thing to understand is how a round is won. Boxing is the art of hitting and not being hit. Really, that’s all it comes down to. If you can land more punches than you’re hit with, you win a round. If you win the majority of the rounds, you win the fight. Of course, the world, and the sport, is more complicated than that. The next most important consideration is “quality of punches.” As we all know, not all punches are created equal. Some land more cleanly, others land more forcefully. If two fighters land an equal number of punches, the person landing the cleaner and/or harder blows should be awarded the round.
Next, in order of importance, is “effective aggression.” This is an aspect that many people, especially the uninitiated, have real trouble with. If two fighters are landing an equal number of punches, of equal quality, the aggressor (the fighter in pursuit) is generally given the round in question. But this third aspect is less important than the first two, and usually only comes into play if all else is equal. Many people new to the sport (and some not so new) are easily swayed by aggressiveness, and give it too much weight.
The next factor might be deemed “effective defense“. Counter-punchers generally fall into this area. While defensive fighters aren’t given as much credit as their more aggressive counterparts, they deserve consideration for applying skillful, effective defense.
The final consideration is “ring generalship”, or the ability to dictate a fight. If a boxer is able to impose his will on a match, and make it the style of fight he wishes, he has an influence on the score of a round. Some might put this factor at number three, but I believe it’s the least of the scoring considerations. One will find that, in the real world, the boxer landing the greatest number of clean, forceful punches, while maintaining a good level of aggression (or effective defense) will win a very high percentage of fights.
Now to the nitty-gritty. Boxing matches are scored round by round. Judges don’t just sit there, without taking notes, and rely on memory to decide who they thought won a fight once it‘s over. This may appear obvious, but the concept is important to understand. It helps to explain why some fights appear one way and are scored another.
Let’s take a hypothetical ten round bout as an example (no knockdowns, point deductions or terribly lopsided rounds). Fighter “A” clearly wins the first five rounds of a fight by a small margin. (Theoretically, all else being equal, a fighter only needs to land one more punch than his opponent to win a round.) According to the rules of boxing, fighter “A” should be ahead on the cards 50-45.
Now, lets say that fighter “B” wins the remaining five rounds of the fight (an equal number of rounds), but by a more convincing margin than fighter “A“. To many observers, especially those not keeping score, fighter “B” might appear to have won the fight. However, the truth is that the fight should justly be called a draw (95-95), since both fighters won an equal number of rounds by the same score.
The floor is now open for discussion….
The first thing to understand is how a round is won. Boxing is the art of hitting and not being hit. Really, that’s all it comes down to. If you can land more punches than you’re hit with, you win a round. If you win the majority of the rounds, you win the fight. Of course, the world, and the sport, is more complicated than that. The next most important consideration is “quality of punches.” As we all know, not all punches are created equal. Some land more cleanly, others land more forcefully. If two fighters land an equal number of punches, the person landing the cleaner and/or harder blows should be awarded the round.
Next, in order of importance, is “effective aggression.” This is an aspect that many people, especially the uninitiated, have real trouble with. If two fighters are landing an equal number of punches, of equal quality, the aggressor (the fighter in pursuit) is generally given the round in question. But this third aspect is less important than the first two, and usually only comes into play if all else is equal. Many people new to the sport (and some not so new) are easily swayed by aggressiveness, and give it too much weight.
The next factor might be deemed “effective defense“. Counter-punchers generally fall into this area. While defensive fighters aren’t given as much credit as their more aggressive counterparts, they deserve consideration for applying skillful, effective defense.
The final consideration is “ring generalship”, or the ability to dictate a fight. If a boxer is able to impose his will on a match, and make it the style of fight he wishes, he has an influence on the score of a round. Some might put this factor at number three, but I believe it’s the least of the scoring considerations. One will find that, in the real world, the boxer landing the greatest number of clean, forceful punches, while maintaining a good level of aggression (or effective defense) will win a very high percentage of fights.
Now to the nitty-gritty. Boxing matches are scored round by round. Judges don’t just sit there, without taking notes, and rely on memory to decide who they thought won a fight once it‘s over. This may appear obvious, but the concept is important to understand. It helps to explain why some fights appear one way and are scored another.
Let’s take a hypothetical ten round bout as an example (no knockdowns, point deductions or terribly lopsided rounds). Fighter “A” clearly wins the first five rounds of a fight by a small margin. (Theoretically, all else being equal, a fighter only needs to land one more punch than his opponent to win a round.) According to the rules of boxing, fighter “A” should be ahead on the cards 50-45.
Now, lets say that fighter “B” wins the remaining five rounds of the fight (an equal number of rounds), but by a more convincing margin than fighter “A“. To many observers, especially those not keeping score, fighter “B” might appear to have won the fight. However, the truth is that the fight should justly be called a draw (95-95), since both fighters won an equal number of rounds by the same score.
The floor is now open for discussion….
Comment