Should Ineffective Aggression Be Regarded As A Major Scoring Criteria?

[FlatLine]

Some judges do take into consideration a boxer's aggression when scoring a round, even ineffective aggression, but most judges these days score for effective aggression only.

If "Ineffective Aggression" was regarded as a staple scoring criteria, would it actually make for more entertaining fights and perhaps level the playing field a little between boxers and brawlers?

In other words, imagine if Ineffective Aggression attained almost the same status as "Effective Aggression", it would mean that the more aggressive and active a fighter is, the higher possibility he has to win a fight, even if he's outgunned, over-matched, out-sized and out-skilled!

Oftentimes, the fighter which the audience finds most entertaining is the one who is being aggressive, it's that fighter who usually provides the activity, the motion and movement, the action, while the measured boxer bides his time waiting patiently to counter. So that "ineffectively aggressive" fighter is actually the one entertaining the paying masses and it might make sense to repay him more appropriately by acknowledging his efforts officially on the scorecard?

[Doctor_Tenma]

No.....................................

[tangalog2200]

Some judges do take into consideration a boxer's aggression when scoring a round, even ineffective aggression, but most judges these days score for effective aggression only.

If "Ineffective Aggression" was regarded as a staple scoring criteria, would it actually make for more entertaining fights and perhaps level the playing field a little between boxers and brawlers?

In other words, imagine if Ineffective Aggression attained almost the same status as "Effective Aggression", it would mean that the more aggressive and active a fighter is, the higher possibility he has to win a fight, even if he's outgunned, over-matched, out-sized and out-skilled!

Oftentimes, the fighter which the audience finds most entertaining is the one who is being aggressive, it's that fighter who usually provides the activity, the motion and movement, the action, while the measured boxer bides his time waiting patiently to counter. So that "ineffectively aggressive" fighter is actually the one entertaining the paying masses and it might make sense to repay him more appropriately by acknowledging his efforts officially on the scorecard?

if i am to give a point between an ineffective aggressor and a runner/clincher to..

well, to the aggressor it will be...at least the guy tries to make a fight of it....

i can appreciate good defense, but defense alone won't do for me..

[John Locke]

No, because it's ineffective...

[hhs661]

No, it's ineffective for a reason.

[M Bison]

Ineffective aggression shouldn't be scored highly I mean look at what happened with Kameda when he fought McDonnell they were scoring all the ineffective jabs that didn't land over clean power shots.

[champion4ever]

In many cases it's not regarded as a major scoring criteria if the opponent is off setting that aggression with strong defense and accurate punching. That's how Money May wins the majority of his fights against opponents who try to outwork him with flurries and high volume punching.

[Ahmed_Ismail]

Why not blindfold fighters and take 1 point away for every punch they block and 3 points for every punch they slip, and anybody who takes a 1 step back or to the side should be disqualified.

I guess that's what some people really want boxing to be like, people these days have no understanding of boxing and have zero compassion with fighters, it's just pathetic to see some fat keyboard warriors who don't know **** about boxing talk **** about pro fighters who are actually WINNING and being SUCCESSFUL in what they do. People like Larry Merchant obiously played a big role in making people appreciate the drama part of the sport much more than the technical aspects of it, which is a damn shame really.

[-PBP-]

Lmao....ineffective offense = points?

That's like rewarding basketball players for missed shots. The Bulls outscored the Lakers 120-110 but the Lakers took way more shots and were more exciting.

[Jimmy 23]

Who else can make stupid thread?Course this is b1tch Flatline