Does a fighter deserve points for ineffective aggression?

[$tate of Mind]

A fighter swinging and missing or hitting elbows and arms doesn't deserve any points imo. I just don't get it. How can people give a fighter credit for just throwing punches? I could understand if we're talking about Clottey just standing there and being a punching bag. I thought clean effective punches are what wins fights.

[RetroSpeed05]

I never cared for that bull**** notion of being outworked, which is another way IMO saying a fighter is trying which means nothing if he lands nothing of note or nothing at all. Idc to me you win the round with clean crisp punches weather it be 2 or 10 you win the round.

[bojangles1987]

Judging should always come down to who is landing the largest number of effective punches. Nothing else should enter the equation unless that stat is close and you need to separate the two to score a round's winner.

In the case of Brook/Porter, Brook was the only one landing clean, effective punches, while Porter landed petty garbage that was behind the head half the time.

[gmc_rfc_06]

I don't get it.

Jim Watt is one of the idiots that scores coming forward, 'pressing the action' apparently scores points even when you're landing nothing while getting punched in the face. Watt's line in Valuev-Haye sums it up for me 'Valuev round for me. He didn't land any punches, but he's pressing the action.' - Seriously, what?

[New England]

the other criteria in scoring are really just means to an end.


you're a ring general so you're the more effective puncher
you're agressive so you're the more effective puncher
or you defend to be the more effective puncher


see a pattern?


you score the round for the more effective [damaging] puncher.



our kell was the more effective puncher.

[IronDanHamza]

the other criteria in scoring are really just means to an end.


you're a ring general so you're the more effective puncher
you're agressive so you're the more effective puncher
or you defend to be the more effective puncher


see a pattern?


you score the round for the more effective [damaging] puncher.


our kell was the more effective puncher.

Thats a good break down.

[Guest]

Nice sum up, NE, but where does that factor in who's the biggest dish?

[bojangles1987]

Nice sum up, NE, but where does that factor in who's the biggest dish?

There's a 3-4 round swing to the bigger dish.

See: Saul Alvarez

[Ray*]

No ******** way, you land punches that count not just bum rush without landing anything, am not a judge but watching the fight yesterday I was praying that the judges sees what I was seeing and that was a fighter who was aggressive but landing his punches on elbows and gloves of his opponent.

[Wuckoo]

I don't get it.

Jim Watt is one of the idiots that scores coming forward, 'pressing the action' apparently scores points even when you're landing nothing while getting punched in the face. Watt's line in Valuev-Haye sums it up for me 'Valuev round for me. He didn't land any punches, but he's pressing the action.' - Seriously, what?

Watt really drops the ball at times. His scorecard for froch-groves 2 was wierd but the porter commentary was just strange at times. I would have thought he would be better at scoring considering he was once pro himself.