Should their be a offical "scoring fights" handbook?

[RAESAAD]

Since people cant seem to score fights fairly, and are more than half the time biased, I think they should. Made public, sold in stores, and easily accessable.

people look for different things and see things a different way it is human nature, but most can clearly tell who won a fight but may have a hard time scoring certain rounds correctly.

[BadMagick]

Judging fights is so weird. You always think that you got it pretty much right and that if someone else sees it much different-they are blind or corrupt. Sometimes with fans the commentary can influence it. I'm a big fan of the HBO guys but if you listened to them do the Mosley-Oscar 2 fight, you would think of it as a blowout while I had it 115-113 Shane. Its very subjective. James Toney fights are always interesting for the philosophy of judging. Is barely getting hit with 4 shots and then throwing one hard counter indicative of Toney winning? It is to me but its hard to weigh agressiveness against clena punching sometimes. Scoring is tough and with some exceptions (Lewis-Holy 1) usually there is room for debate

I favor clean punching to agressiveness a lot, because if the punching isn't clean, the agressiveness is not effective, as far as I'm concerned. So, I take Toney in most bouts, even though he's getting hit more often, his punches are the cleaner, crisper punches, and have much greater overall effect on his opponents.