How is defense a scoring criteria?

[Spray_resistant]

Don't get me wrong its important because ideally in boxing you want to land as many clean punches while having as few as possible landed on you, defense aids this greatly but as a scoring criteria its inconsequential.

Getting on your bike and running, initiating clenches, slipping these are defensive tactics but without the clean counters after you slip in terms of scoring these things = doing nothing.

If I see 1 fighter for example throwing punches coming forward and landing nothing while his opponent slipping, grabbing, and running but not punching I am giving the fighter throwing the round on effective aggression because the aggression effectively is causing his opponent not to initiate any offense of his own.

Am I missing something here?

[Kevin Malone]

I agree with you. In a round that is essentially even when neither guy is doing anything, nothing substantial is landed, but one guy is throwing and the other isn't I give it to the busier guy.

[Spray_resistant]

Oh yeah I also forgot blocking punches, can't forget Clottey.

[Swag Hustla]

I can't see how defense on it's own can score points or win rounds.

I see defense as a way to prevent your opponent from scoring or winning a round, but defense by itself doesn't win fights. Or at least it shouldn't.

[GrandpaBernard]

Don't get me wrong its important because ideally in boxing you want to land as many clean punches while having as few as possible landed on you, defense aids this greatly but as a scoring criteria its inconsequential.

Getting on your bike and running, initiating clenches, slipping these are defensive tactics but without the clean counters after you slip in terms of scoring these things = doing nothing.

If I see 1 fighter for example throwing punches coming forward and landing nothing while his opponent slipping, grabbing, and running but not punching I am giving the fighter throwing the round on effective aggression because the aggression effectively is causing his opponent not to initiate any offense of his own.

Am I missing something here?

If you look at the scorecards for some of Floyd's fights, the judges have it much tigher for Floyd than what the majority of fans do. This suggests to me that judges do look at defense when scoring. The Mayweather-Judah fight scorecards being the prime example of this.

[bojangles1987]

I can't see how defense on it's own can score points or win rounds.

I see defense as a way to prevent your opponent from scoring or winning a round, but defense by itself doesn't win fights. Or at least it shouldn't.

Defense on its own doesn't win rounds, but it is a big part of ring generalship, which in a good fight is an important part of scoring a round.

[Larry the boss]

cause..if your not getting hit..how can the other guy score? but you still have to land punches of your own

[Spray_resistant]

If you look at the scorecards for some of Floyd's fights, the judges have it much tigher for Floyd than what the majority of fans do. This suggests to me that judges do look at defense when scoring. The Mayweather-Judah fight scorecards being the prime example of this.

Then what exactly are they scoring? really its mostly landed effective punches that matter though sometimes rounds aren't always so clear as to who won.

[Steak]

Its an indirect scoring criteria. The less you get hit=the less you have to hit the opponent to win the round. so its still VERY important.

but I wont give the round to a guy just because he showed better defense, if he didnt do as much damage as his opponent. unless its straight the guy wiffing punches and falling over, but thats rare.

dont forget that blocked punches often still hurt. youd know that if you actually boxed people.

[Spray_resistant]

cause..if your not getting hit..how can the other guy score?

He presumably won based on another criteria, but I just can't see on what basis someone wins a round on total D.