Comments Thread For: Deontay Wilder-Tyson Fury - Boxing Insiders Weigh In on Scoring

[Combat Talk Radio]

That is not a fact. The main criteria for scoring is clean, effective punching. Ring generalship, aggression, and defense are all secondary criteria. You should watch boxing sometime. They literally say it before every fight.

First of all, the bold is a lie. Link a video where they say it. You can't. Because there is no 'priority' sorting.

Second, you're completely wrong anyway. Know how I know?

If what you say is true, Jeff 'The Hornet' Horn simply could not have beaten Manny Pacquiao at the Battle of Brisbane.

If what you say is true, Floyd 'Money' Mayweather simply could not have beaten Manny Pacquiao at the Battle for Greatness.

If what you say is true, Gennady Golovkin simply could not have lost either fight against Canelo.

If what you say is true, Danny 'Swift' Garcia should be WBC Welterweight Champion.

Reality : all criteria matter the same. Which is why outcomes don't go the way you think they should everytime. It's subjective. Thus why so many cats on NSB completely ignore ring generalship and defense, but forget : the judges have every right to prefer them, and frequently do.

Especially ring generalship. The reason: when you walk your opponent down or make them fight timid or out of their usual style, you look dominant, and CJ Ross is the only judge I can recall that doesn't score for that. It's an easy way to get a decision. Not everyone does it because today's fighters, with the exception of Horn, Porter and Crawford, are afraid to get hurt.

That's why so many fights really aren't robberies. A robbery is where you'd have to suspend basic logic and give pity rounds to get the same outcome.

Lara/Williams was a robbery.
Wilder/Fury was a robbery.
Relikh/Barthélemy 1 was a robbery.
Ward/Kovalev 1 was a robbery.

All in common: the guy who won three of the four criteria didn't get their hand raised.

[Bs_king]

This, right here, is it. Any judge will tell you that clean effective punching is the #1 scoring criteria. In many ways it's the ONLY scoring criteria because everything else is secondary and depends on this. That's how fights are scored.

Let's look at the other 3 criteria often mentioned in scoring - effective aggression, defense and command. You'll find they all depend on the punching aspect to have any real meaning.

It's called "effective aggression" because unless that aggression turns into punches it means nothing. You can't flail wildly around the ring and score points. It has to lead to an exchange of punches where you come out on top. Defense is another criteria that's used in scoring but only when it turns into offense. You cannot win a round without punching even if you dodge everything. The same goes for Ring Generalship. It means nothing unless you turn it into your advantage and win the exchanges with clean punches. You don't get points for making the other guy fight your fight if he is beating you at it. So in each case - aggression, defense and command - you get a bit of a bonus if you turn these aspects into exchanges where you win but by themselves they mean virtually nothing.

Too many people don't understand this and they think these secondary aspects must win rounds by themselves. That's not the case. Clean punching wins fights and there wasn't enough last night to create any kind of clear-cut winner.

Willie pep?

[Bronx2245]

"Total: 6 for Tyson fury, 3 for Deontay Wilder, 5 even."

That just means we need a rematch...ASAP! Tyson deserves to have that rematch in the UK! FInkel, Warren, Make It Happen!

[trippers1]

I have read his complaints a few times, and he is saying the ref gave Fury additional time after he was up to recover. Allowing him to move, answer questions, so on.

I have not seen the fight, so I am not backing him up or anything. But I have not seen him say the count was long. Just that he was given an extra long time to get his sea legs back.

it took him 9 seconds to get to his feet, by 10 he was saying he was ok. the count was fine, deontay was too busy dancing about thinking he had won to watch the count , so no idea how he would know.

[hitking]

Its tough to win a fight when you’re dropped twice and do next to nothing offensively in the majority of rounds. Personally, I score defense. So in the rounds where neither got much done offensively, I favored Fury because he defense was better. But most judges tend to favor aggression, even if its ineffective. And there were enough of those rounds, along with the KDs to score the fight a draw. Or even swing Wilder’s way if one wants to badly enough.

[TheWinners]

Can we please stop calling this a robbery now? Sheesh

[yoshik]

And those are professionals scoring about? Goes to show you deontay Wilder is still getting boxing welfare.

[DaNeutral.]

My problem with it wasnt so much that it was a draw, with the 2 knockdown rounds it closed it up but my problem is with the Mexican card. If i really tried hard and was very lenient to Wilder i can see how he could maybe get a draw, personally i had Fury the winner, But there is no argument, no justification to give the fight to Wilder and certainly not to give it to him by the margin he did. It is nonsense and its STINKS of more WBC corruption.

So people can shove the draw up their backsides Fury won and was robbed with 1 clear corrupt card. How come these crazy judges always favour the homr fighter? Why couldnt he of had it as a shut out to Fury? It always falls a certain way. How come those chips never fall in the foreigners favour when taking on an American in America?

[Redgloveman]

Horrible decision.

As a boxing fan these days, if you find yourself trying to justify a draw which is seen to favour the home fighter then you really need to look long and hard at your own position. If you favoured one fighter before the fight and you find yourself arguing that they deserved a draw, then you should really consider the possibility that your objectivity is compromised.

I'm seeing people arguing that Fury was robbed
I'm seeing other people arguing that Wilder deserved a draw
I'm seeing nobody upset on Wilder's behalf that Wilder was robbed of victory by the judges

When you consider how adversarial the internet is; the above really suggests that Fury won on Saturday night.

[Redgloveman]

My problem with it wasnt so much that it was a draw, with the 2 knockdown rounds it closed it up but my problem is with the Mexican card. If i really tried hard and was very lenient to Wilder i can see how he could maybe get a draw, personally i had Fury the winner, But there is no argument, no justification to give the fight to Wilder and certainly not to give it to him by the margin he did. It is nonsense and its STINKS of more WBC corruption.

So people can shove the draw up their backsides Fury won and was robbed with 1 clear corrupt card. How come these crazy judges always favour the homr fighter? Why couldnt he of had it as a shut out to Fury? It always falls a certain way. How come those chips never fall in the foreigners favour when taking on an American in America?

Draws in boxing almost always stink.

And as you point out, above, this one stinks.