Corruption or incompetence?

[Yogi007]

I honestly thnk it's just imcompetence running rampant.

So much of what you see in boxing is subjective, anyway, but the scoring criteria is based on four separate categories : clean punching, effective (keyword) aggression, ring generalship, and defense.

Nowdays too many judges just score a fight based on the one criteria they prefer over all others. You see this often in contests where the judges give the fight to whichever guy throws more punches, even if his opponet was dictating the pace as a counterpuncher and landing the cleaner blows.

By his very nature : A counterpuncher should be favored by the judges based on the scoring criteria categories. Because more times than not, it's the counterpuncher who has the better defense (gets hit less), lands the cleaner shots, dictates the tempo of the bout (by his very style alone), and is more effective in his aggression. (As in he's not just swinging wildly - he's making his punches count)

Yet who do the judges almost always give the fight to?

The guy who throws more punches.

Sorry, but I can't see that. If your opponent is constantly having to chase you down, pushing you up against the ropes, and landing as many if not more punches then you are, I can't see where they should give you the fight. It is the passive nature and lack of aggression that cost some of them fights, and so it should be. I have nothing against doing some counter punching, but you need to have more detentions in your game, then just constantly running away.

[Juanma9]

Yes, I feel that in most cases you mentioned, it was corruption. The judges don't decide "oh, it's good for boxing if I let this guy win" all of a sudden. Still, on the Khan fight, I believe it was pure incompetence.