When exactly did work rate become part of the scoring criteria?

[prinzemanspopa]

I must have missed out on the articles notifying us all of the moderation to the traditional scoring criteria. I can only assume there was some sort of moderation due the large number of people who justify their scorecards based on an opponents work rate (or lack of.)

[bojangles1987]

I think people have become so used to crap scorecards that they have started judging fights based on how crap judges score fights.

[Citizen Koba]

I must have missed out on the articles notifying us all of the moderation to the traditional scoring criteria. I can only assume there was some sort of moderation due the large number of people who justify their scorecards based on an opponents work rate (or lack of.)

I ain't quite sure if you've got a particular fight in mind, but I guess most people are thinking of the category of 'effective aggression'. Of course, merely throwing a lot of punches is not 'effective' if they are blocked or don't land, but even lighter punches can throw an opponent off their game, frustrate and tire or weaken them.

[The Big Dunn]

I must have missed out on the articles notifying us all of the moderation to the traditional scoring criteria. I can only assume there was some sort of moderation due the large number of people who justify their scorecards based on an opponents work rate (or lack of.)

When hbo decided to use compubox full time to track punches landed. The perception became culmulative #of punches was indicitive of who won. Of course that's not right because scoring is round by round.

Good point and good thread.

[Public_Enemy]

Are you talking about the Chavez/Vera fight? That wasn't just work rate. Vera landed more and controlled the pace of that fight. It was effective aggression.

If you are talking about the sport in general, I agree.

[prinzemanspopa]

Are you talking about the Chavez/Vera fight? That wasn't just work rate. Vera landed more and controlled the pace of that fight. It was effective aggression.

If you are talking about the sport in general, I agree.

The numbers also tell us that Tony Thompson lander more punches than Wladimir Klitschko in their first fight, yet the actual bout itself was comprehensively one-sided.



Why do you think the fight itself was an entirely different story to what the numbers gave us?

[New England]

you score the effectiveness of the punches.


a guy throwing 1000 punches that don't land flush is much more effective than a guy who throws 10 that don't land flush.



a guy can lump you up and make it look like you've been in a fight without landing many clean shots. they can deflect off the gloves, just sc**** by and hardly land, get absorbed by elbows, etc, while still scoring some points. they're better than nothing.



workrate is generally an evaluator of punches that do land, anyway. if both guys land @ 20%, and have equal power, and one guy throws 3x as many shots, he will have "outworked" his opponent.

[Public_Enemy]

The numbers also tell us that Tony Thompson lander more punches than Wladimir Klitschko in their first fight, yet the actual bout itself was comprehensively one-sided.



Why is that?

I'm not basing my view of the fight on punch stats. I'm going by what I saw. Chavez wasn't active but he landed clean shots. Imo he didn't land enough per round to justify giving him so many rounds. I saw Vera hitting Chavez more and pushing the pace. Not just jabs either, he was landing power shots. A lot of Vera's punches were landing cleanly too despite hbo's biased commentary.

[-PBP-]

Vera was landing clean, effective shots and more of them. Look at Chavez' face. He did his fair share of damage.

But it wasn't a "robbery" but 98-92 is criminal. I don't care enough about Chavez or Vera to go into any detail but that fight could have gone either way. And that is sad considering Versa is a journeyman middleweight fighting at light heavy.

[johnm is...]

The numbers also tell us that Tony Thompson lander more punches than Wladimir Klitschko in their first fight, yet the actual bout itself was comprehensively one-sided.



Why do you think the fight itself was an entirely different story to what the numbers gave us?

So you're suggesting that Chavez controlled the pace of the fight?

I mean, I saw you mention 'ring generalship' in another thread. Just wondering if you thought Chavez lead in that department as well. Since you're so quick to tell everyone else that they don't know how to judge a fight.