should aggression be rewarded more than it currently is

[Madison Boxing]

Exactly. It's blatantly obvious where this post is coming from and why. Despite the fact that said "boring fighters" have never had any visible damage outside of the occasional bloody nose. So clearly that aggression is ineffective. No, that shouldn't be scored any differently.

Fighters have to adapt. Your "normal" flow not working should be a clue to change it up.

playing tag and run, refusing to engage, stinking out the place, holding/clinching should not be rewarded. If neither fighter is landing much of a substance (and i dont count a couple of jabs flicked out as proper shots) the aggressive fighter should get the benefit of the doubt.

[Combat Talk Radio]

playing tag and run, refusing to engage, stinking out the place, holding/clinching should not be rewarded. If neither fighter is landing much of a substance (and i dont count a couple of jabs flicked out as proper shots) the aggressive fighter should get the benefit of the doubt.

Sure. If it's EFFECTIVE aggression. Meaning there is visible damage - not "he connected!!!!" on a rolled punch.

Giving a fighter rounds simply because they're throwing punches? No.

Oscar threw nearly twice what Floyd did, yet connected on less than 20%. Meanwhile TBE was nearly 50% accurate. Why would you score it for Oscar when he missed over 80% of his punches just because he threw a bunch? That's ignorant.

Boxing basically scores a punch that has the power of a jab but would score it as a power punch because it was a hook....

But the Clinching man.....I say boxing rules would be enforced, hard. Refs that doesn't penalize fighters after 5-7 clinches in 1 round should be fired. We don't want an another Ward-Kessler 88 clinch fight, or Floyd-Maidana 71 clinch fight or the Floyd-Pacquiao 46 clinch fight.

So basically you disliked Rumble in the Jungle, right? Because that was a clinchfest.

[Jsmooth9876]

Fighters do get credit for being aggressive but if it's not effective then they shouldn't get credit for just walking into punches and being out boxed. Floyd wasn't aggressive but he made guys pay when they were so he won fights. Ward is not as good defensively as Floyd so he uses different tactics. Clinching ****ing etc...all part f the game. Maybe not pleasing to the eye but the other can always try to stop it...

[Eff Pandas]

I think boxers get about the right amount of credit for aggression. I would say I feel like guys not using enough aggression should lose some credit for that doe.

I'd be a huge fan of boxing updating their rules for the betterment of the sport, the fans & the competitors like other sports are doing all the time.

I'd lean boxing strongly towards conclusive endings which I think would help make boxing more popular than its been in awhile. F#ck a 10 count, if you can't get up before 5 you got KTFO & it'll probably reduce the brain injuries & later years CTE bs since guys are more likely to just get one injury instead of multiple injuries which is what tends to get guys into dangerous situations with brain problems. No holding. Holding when you got dropped or are hurt is gonna make it a 10-7 round way more often between the KD or wide round + losing a point for bs holding. I'd also bring back that Dempsey creep up on a guy getting up from a KD to hit him immediately once he's on his feet rule from back in the day. And lets throw in auto-extra round to determine a winner if a fight is a draw after the scheduled number of rounds so there is always a winner for a fight that went to a official decision. Almost no one digs a draw in a sporting event so outside of head clashes or bs like that I think we get rid of draws.

[bojangles1987]

If you can't stop a fighter from spoiling, you don't deserve to win. Your boy Gennady knows how to stop it. Good pressure fighters know how to stop it. If you can't, that is your fault, not the guy spoiling.

If anything reckless aggression is rewarded too much these days, while the guy landing the actual effective work is punished.

[Eff Pandas]

If you can't stop a fighter from spoiling, you don't deserve to win. Your boy Gennady knows how to stop it. Good pressure fighters know how to stop it. If you can't, that is your fault, not the guy spoiling.

If anything reckless aggression is rewarded too much these days, while the guy landing the actual effective work is punished.

I definitely see & understand this side.

I just think boxing as a whole should look for ways to make boxing more entertaining &/or exciting for more fans for the greater good of the sport. How far you go towards that goal is debatable, but I definitely think you go further than boxing has although to be fair boxing is such a clusterf#ck I'm not sure boxing could streamline anything along these sorta lines very well if at all so its all just a fantasy discussion.

[bojangles1987]

I definitely see & understand this side.

I just think boxing as a whole should look for ways to make boxing more entertaining &/or exciting for more fans for the greater good of the sport. How far you go towards that goal is debatable, but I definitely think you go further than boxing has although to be fair boxing is such a clusterf#ck I'm not sure boxing could streamline anything along these sorta lines very well if at all so its all just a fantasy discussion.

Honestly, fighters just aren't trained to fight in the clinch or stop spoiling like they used to be. That's why spoiling seems so much worse now. Cutting off the ring and fighting in the clinch isn't a thing you see very often. Andre Ward is probably the best inside fighter in the sport just for very basic knowledge of what to do in close regarding clinching and positioning. Fighters have no idea how to chase anymore, so spoilers look more effective than they should. It astounds me how many fighters don't do the very basic things that a fighter like Golovkin does regarding his footwork to make the ring smaller.

For whatever reason, fighters have been conditioned to accept the clinch rather than use it to keep fighting or work out of it. I've seen people blame the old amateur system. Hopefully the new amateur system operating more like a pro fight will fix some of these major flaws that fighters have nowadays.

[Real King Kong]

im sick of seeing fights in which someone wins a decision by fighting negatively, spoiling and landing punches with no weight behind them. Often people who fight against these boring fighters, dont look as if theyve even been in a fight at the end of it.
Boxing is an entertainment industry, thats the whole point of it, if everyone was boring noone would watch it and noone would get paid. So why should negative tactics be rewarded?
With the upcoming ward v kovalev fight, i cant see into the future but its pretty likely we are going to have one guy who comes to fight (kovalev) and one guy who comes to spoil (ward). In my view, how can someone win a fight, if they spend 12 rounds trying to avoid a fight? Its unlikely wards going to exchange with this guy at all, and hes never going to remotely hurt him cause his punches are as weak as piss. So why should he win rounds for fighting (or avoiding fighting) in this way?
So my question is, should judges place more of an emphasis in their scoring, on aggression and landing powerful punches? And should a knockdown be worth two points, not one?

Lucky it's not very easy to do and keep it up for a whole fight...and there's only a handful of elite fighters who can pull it off on a consistent basis. You better believe more fighters would be doing it if it was easy.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

im sick of seeing fights in which someone wins a decision by fighting negatively, spoiling and landing punches with no weight behind them. Often people who fight against these boring fighters, dont look as if theyve even been in a fight at the end of it.
Boxing is an entertainment industry, thats the whole point of it, if everyone was boring noone would watch it and noone would get paid. So why should negative tactics be rewarded?
With the upcoming ward v kovalev fight, i cant see into the future but its pretty likely we are going to have one guy who comes to fight (kovalev) and one guy who comes to spoil (ward). In my view, how can someone win a fight, if they spend 12 rounds trying to avoid a fight? Its unlikely wards going to exchange with this guy at all, and hes never going to remotely hurt him cause his punches are as weak as piss. So why should he win rounds for fighting (or avoiding fighting) in this way?
So my question is, should judges place more of an emphasis in their scoring, on aggression and landing powerful punches? And should a knockdown be worth two points, not one?

From what I've seen, effective aggression is usually rewarded as it definitely should be. Usually, when a spoiler type does win, the aggressive one just wasn't that effective for one reason or another. I know what you're saying and I prefer guys that come to fight, but I mean look at the Paul Williams-Erislandy Lara fight. I'm no fan of Lara but his counters beat the piss out of Williams who did come to fight. I hated to see it. I love a volume puncher who moves forward, but when they continually miss and keep getting caught by the other fighter moving away, you can't just give them the round based on solely being the aggressor. You have the style you prefer and like, as do I. I like action fights. So I'm with you. But when the style we like isn't effective, the other guy does have to be scored for. It's not pretty and it's not entertaining for me, but that doesn't mean it doesn't win sometimes. And those styles can be fun if they have some real pop on their punches. However, my whole thing is that a fighter should be well rounded and know how to come forward fighting and go back fighting. What really gets on my nerves are guys who prove one dimensional. I really wonder if they are learning or being taught at all in the gym or are just continually going through the motions.

[Kigali]

Only if it's effective.

We have a winner.