Criteria for judging boxing

[sargo]

Ring generalship, effective aggression, clean effective punching.

Seems to me ring generalship is an excuse to score the fight for the one who keeps running away. Effective aggression is redundant when there is effective punching.

Why not just score the round for the one who was hurt less. After all it is about hitting and not getting hit.

Your thoughts.

[A.K]

My thoughts is these judges are old, incompetent, and most of all don’t know a lick about boxing all they know is this guy paid me.

['b']

My thoughts is these judges are old, incompetent, and most of all don’t know a lick about boxing all they know is this guy paid me.

Sad but true, boxing is one sport where if anyone tells you they know the rules, they are full of shyt. No-one knows the rules, and that is how it's supposed to be. Makes corruption so much easier.

[Rock&Roll]

If your trying to figure out why there is often poor scorecards, i would suggest seeking answers to certain questions rather than the criterea for which they score.

For example:

Who chooses the judges?
Are judges on a salary?
How do athletic commissions pick judges?
Do they get paid the same amount for different fights?
If they get paid more for big fights (involving a popular fighter), does that mean they would prefer to work on popular fighters cards?
If they want to work on a popular fighter's card and score against them, can they be stopped from judging all their future fights?
Do judes have to consider their own interests when judging a fight (even sub consciously)?
Given the above considerations, is it natural for a judge to favour the more popular fighter whom has greater future potential earnings?
Are the rules the same for the different UNITED states?
Why didn't Adelaide Byrd get a suspension, at least to deter others?

Trust me, the boxing system is f#cked. It's governed like a rouge sport. If judges have a natural bias towards certain fighters, they are corrupted and the officiating lacks integrity, even if they're not getting direct payoffs.

Teddy Atlas stated the above questions simply saying "follow the money trail."

[Toffee]

And then there's the simple fact that they don't have best view from which to judge.

[Curtis Harper]

Those are the main 3.

Some judges love pressure fighters, regardless of how ineffective it is. Some judges love tacticians, Jabjabjabmove.....

How do we score jabs vs power punches ?

Judges need to not have style preferences when judging a fight. Score to the main 3 criteria and be fair.

[Curtis Harper]

And then there's the simple fact that they don't have best view from which to judge.

Why do they need to actually be there at ringside ? Put them in separate, yet MONITORED rooms, that have a big assed tv. They get to see/score everything.

I stress monitored (via hidden camera with audio) because we need to know that they were actually watching the fight and nothing else.

[A-Wolf]

Clean and effective punching - actual scoring - is how to properly judge a fight. When it's too close to call you fall back on secondary considerations like ring generalship. People have been listening to Harold Lederman making it seem like this is supposed to be hyphenated. It's not.

[sargo]

Discouraging the 10-10 and forcing the 10-9 score I think also just gives judges the excuse to give the round to the favored fighter when the round is close. Making it easier to manipulate the result.

[Silkstone]

TBH I don't envy judges. I generally keep and save the scores from fights I've watched and go back a while later to see if I still agree with myself. One thing that I uniformly find is that my scorecards tend to reflect a natural bias towards my disposition on those fighters. If I prefer a particular fighter over another... there are just instances in which I'm going to defer to my bias. I've seen this in my review of fights like Khan/Barrera, Broner/Malignaggi, Hatton/Collazo and, most recently, Porter/Ugas.

Sure, I wish there were more clearly empirical methods, but I do understand that the "sense" of a round also has to be taken into account. Unfortunately, try as I might, there's no getting around the fact that when I assess a fight, I'm doing so as a human being who is intrinsically biased, I doubt judges are capable of doing different, but I suppose we have to just trust that they're a bit more discerning.