How do you rank and weight the 4 criteria for scoring/judging boxing matches?

[MJ223]

the other criteria are a means to an end.


you score the round for the more effective puncher.


who does more damage?

Couldn't agree more

[mconstantine]

In my opinion it depends on the circumstances, and of course on judges' preference.

For instance, if fighter A is the aggressor, throws 100 punches in one round and lands 5 clean shots, while Fighter B only throws 10 punches, lands 4 and manages to keep the fight on the center of the ring, I'd score the round for Fighter B because of defense and ring generalship. Also his aggression would be in substance more effective.

Agreed 100%. But I bet most judges would incorrectly go with Fighter A because "he was the busier fighter" despite not actually landing.

[smoothsmg]

The bernard Hopkins fight is the perfect example of how people dont score defense and ring generalship enough (or well). Hopkins defense and ring generalship I felt weighed more (if the scale is 100%) than his effective aggression (he did little of it) and clean punches (in my honest opinion). His defense and his rolling with puches and making Cloud miss wildly was spectacular to me. He controlled the ring COMPLETELY in this fight. I love what I saw out of Hopkins and I think his defense and ring generalship weight more in thsi fight

[techliam]

Agreed 100%. But I bet most judges would incorrectly go with Fighter A because "he was the busier fighter" despite not actually landing.

But it's not incorrect though, is it? They just view the fight differently based on those rules you pointed out. It's a subjective sport. Don't be getting into the correct/incorrect based on your views. As a former amateur judge/ref (same thing here) sometimes you had to base it on who was better at the type of fighting was going on in the round.. judges often look at things casual fans don't even care to look at, especially over here, such as how the fighter is fighting, was he struggling, who has control..

[White_Knight]

Good defense is it's own reward: you prevent the other guy from landing. So defense shouldn't be a scoring criteria. The same goes for ring generalship.

All the emphasis should be on clean punching. If the fighters are equal in clean punching, you go to effective aggression.

[mconstantine]

But it's not incorrect though, is it? They just view the fight differently based on those rules you pointed out. It's a subjective sport. Don't be getting into the correct/incorrect based on your views. As a former amateur judge/ref (same thing here) sometimes you had to base it on who was better at the type of fighting was going on in the round.. judges often look at things casual fans don't even care to look at, especially over here, such as how the fighter is fighting, was he struggling, who has control..

Perhaps the bold is the problem. There is a clearly defined protocol at least in terms of the criteria you should use to judge a fight.

Clean punches
Effective aggression
Defense
Ring generalship

If the things a judge is looking at doesn't reasonably fall into 1 of these 4 categories, they shouldn't be looking at it...or those things should be impacting 1 of these 4 areas.

I agree that this is a subjective sport...but the only part that should be subjective is the importance/weight of each criteria...not the criteria itself.

[mconstantine]

Good defense is it's own reward: you prevent the other guy from landing. So defense shouldn't be a scoring criteria. The same goes for ring generalship.

All the emphasis should be on clean punching. If the fighters are equal in clean punching, you go to effective aggression.

^^^ This is a good argument.

Although there are less tangible benefits to defense than just missed punches. Making opponents miss tires them out more and oftentimes frustrate them and can take them out of their game plan. Although you can argue a more tired and frustrated fighter will likely show up in less effective ring generalship.

A lot of these criteria influence the other. I think the criteria are good, just needs to be more education on what each mean and how to weight them.

[techliam]

Perhaps the bold is the problem. There is a clearly defined protocol at least in terms of the criteria you should use to judge a fight.

Clean punches
Effective aggression
Defense
Ring generalship

If the things a judge is looking at doesn't reasonably fall into 1 of these 4 categories, they shouldn't be looking at it...or those things should be impacting 1 of these 4 areas.

I agree that this is a subjective sport...but the only part that should be subjective is the importance/weight of each criteria...not the criteria itself.

The biggest problem in my view is the vagueness of the criteria. When you go through the motion of getting to judge fights for a board, effectively, they leave you to view these criteria how you like. Sometimes you get to shadow someone else, and their views can rub off onto you.

But really, look at the criteria:

Clean punches
Effective aggression
Defense
Ring generalship

What is meant by clean? If 1 fight lands 4 punches which look sharp and well timed, but his opponent lands 50, though looks like he had to run to get them, most judges would score it for the guy landing 50. If there's a big gap in punches landed, I don't see how 'clean' punches can be scored over that?

What is 'effective' aggression? There isn't an objective way to see effective, it's based on how you see fights. To me, not throwing a punch for 30 seconds a time isn't effective, and it amazes me how Floyd Mayweather get's so many rounds despite landing less than his opponent in some cases. The Cotto fight surprised me with the scores.

Defence is fine, but landing punches is the aim of the game. You need offense too.

Ring Generalship is the most subjective of all of them. There really isn't a single definition of what this actually is. It might aswell be called "Your gut feeling".

The criteria are mainly guidelines, not rules.

Remember, judges tend to be watching one person more than the other. It's a fight. Whoever gets the best of the other should get the round, but it's not always the case. Many judges judge rounds based on technique more so than what landed.... it's getting more popular nowadays.

[Russian Crushin]

1. Clean Punches (91%)
2. Effective Aggression (3%)
3. Defense (3%)
4. Ring Generalship (3%)

Boxing is about clean effective punching

[Russian Crushin]

Good defense is it's own reward: you prevent the other guy from landing. So defense shouldn't be a scoring criteria. The same goes for ring generalship.

All the emphasis should be on clean punching. If the fighters are equal in clean punching, you go to effective aggression.

Exactly right, defense is also based off of offense. You can make a guy miss 200 punches a round but if he lands more and better clean punches then he wins the round and also has the better defense.

Same with ring generalship, the guy with the best ring generalship is the guy who sets himself up to land the best punches. You cannot possibly win a fight on defense and ring generalship