How is defense a scoring criteria?

[CubanGuyNYC]

Which is why I said in my OP that it was important, I just don't see it as a scoring criteria but rather tactics used to prevent your opponent from scoring and something used to lead to scoring opportunities.

It is an often overlooked scoring criteria. You're not a boxer if you have no defense. I like a brawler as much as the next man, but a flat-out brawler isn't a boxer, by definition. Effective defense (as opposed to running) is only factored in if everything else is equal. In a very close round, all else being equal, I just might give the nod to the guy who's displaying his mastery over a less-skilled opponent.

[Spray_resistant]

HOw is defense not apart of judging? The rules clearly state that defense is apart of the judging criteria.

But my question is how so what are they scoring? would you just give a fighter a round for just initiating clenches and slipping without the counters and maybe inside work in a clench? I wouldn't

[BallisticAffair]

im a firm believer of this too.....thats why it's funny to me when people say hoya did'nt really beat swetpea....or that sweetpea got robbed vs chavez ...

Umm, DLH is more arguable, but Pea had the better offense by far vs. Chavez...it wasn't close.



You're truly a ******.

[-KPB-]

But my question is how so what are they scoring? would you just give a fighter a round for just initiating clenches and slipping without the counters and maybe inside work in a clench? I wouldn't

I think you applying the defence scoring criteria to the most exaggerated example....no way would a boxer ever (maybe a few exceptions) win a round based soley on defense...but it can be the difference........a boxer slipping/dunking puches is show casing part of the sweet science...which is what boxing is about...if it were a street fight....then I would agree.......but people tend to forget that not only is this a sport...its also an art form...and IMO...showing good defense is using part of your ring IQ

[CubanGuyNYC]

no, to me no...that's just showboating...... the name of the game is hit and not get hit, not just " not get hit".....and i think it's obvious , a combination of both is best...

Take my words literally. I'm not describing "showboating," I'm describing slipping jabs, ducking hooks, deflecting all manner of punches, defensive footwork (not running), etc. You're right, you must hit back at some point, in order to accumulate points. But the scenario you described is extremely tight in regard to punches landed. A man who displays clear mastery over the other, while scoring an almost exact number of punches might be deemed to have won the round. At the very least, the round should probably be scored even.

[Spray_resistant]

It is an often overlooked scoring criteria. You're not a boxer if you have no defense. I like a brawler as much as the next man, but a flat-out brawler isn't a boxer, by definition. Effective defense (as opposed to running) is only factored in if everything else is equal. In a very close round, all else being equal, I just might give the nod to the guy who's displaying his mastery over a less-skilled opponent.

If both fighter land about the same amount of effective punches it doesn't seem reasonable or fair even to give 1 fighter a 10 and 1 fighter a 9 based on a couple of slick evasive movements, I would just go with an even round personally because its really about landed punches.

[puga]

Umm, DLH is more arguable, but Pea had the better offense by far vs. Chavez...it wasn't close.



You're truly a ******.

when did i say he did'nt ?......he did'nt get rob tho, thats for sure.....

[CubanGuyNYC]

I think you applying the defence scoring criteria to the most exaggerated example....no way would a boxer ever (maybe a few exceptions) win a round based soley on defense...but it can be the difference........a boxer slipping/dunking puches is show casing part of the sweet science...which is what boxing is about...if it were a street fight....then I would agree.......but people tend to forget that not only is this a sport...its also an art form...and IMO...showing good defense is using part of your ring IQ

Well said, especially the bold. Green K.

[Spray_resistant]

I think you applying the defence scoring criteria to the most exaggerated example....no way would a boxer ever (maybe a few exceptions) win a round based soley on defense...but it can be the difference........a boxer slipping/dunking puches is show casing part of the sweet science...which is what boxing is about...if it were a street fight....then I would agree.......but people tend to forget that not only is this a sport...its also an art form...and IMO...showing good defense is using part of your ring IQ

If the offense is behind it but just can't see preventing damage and thus scoring alone as a reason alone why someone would win a round over another fighter if its that close.

[puga]

Take my words literally. I'm not describing "showboating," I'm describing slipping jabs, ducking hooks, deflecting all manner of punches, defensive footwork (not running), etc. You're right, you must hit back at some point, in order to accumulate points. But the scenario you described is extremely tight in regard to punches landed. A man who displays clear mastery over the other, while scoring an almost exact number of punches might be deemed to have won the round. At the very least, the round should probably be scored even.

oh ok,....two fighters landin same punches, one had better defense,(meaning the other guy missed more) then yeah, defensive fighter simply wins...