Who knows better how to score a boxing match?

[Boxing_1013]

Only a ret4rd scores a round for defense. If you make an opponent miss 300 punches, and he lands 50, and you only threw 40, and landed 20, the other guy won the round. He did more damage than you.

What good did your defense do you whem the other guy landed nore punches.

Exactly...glad to see some get this point...great post.

A 'missed punch' can also be a bit subjective...was it a feint, setting a trap, creating range/distance...some may say the best defense is a good offense as well, if that makes sense.

[Boxing_1013]

Lol I should have made the poll public...would have limited Mr Time's votes...I presume...

[llll]

Nobody is claiming that. Punches are more important.

But if the punches are equal then defence comes in to scoring.

The point being made here is that punches landed and their effectiveness are the only meaningful criteria in scoring.

Any other criteria is redundant.

[Robbie Barrett]

The point being made here is that punches landed and their effectiveness are the only meaningful criteria in scoring.

Any other criteria is redundant.

But they aren't. If a round is basically even in punches, then criteria like defence comes into consideration. That's why it's in the rules.

[Boxing_1013]

But they aren't. If a round is basically even in punches, then criteria like defence comes into consideration. That's why it's in the rules.

I see where you are coming from - but this is from a top boxing judge, saying that defense is only important insofar as it helps a fighter to not get landed on/and presumably land more on his opponent:

"Defense: Defense is important because it helps a boxer set up his offense. Most judges that I have spoken to do not give credit for defense alone. If a boxer has a good defense, it means that he is not being hit with punches. But let's remember the purpose of the sport: to land punches on your opponent.

If Boxer A throws 10 punches in a round, but lands none of them, and Boxer B lands zero and throws zero, you still have an even round with no punches landing. You don't want to create a disincentive for a boxer to land punches if he thinks he's going to be penalized for missing."

Not to mention that what I deem 'good defense' could differ from someone else's opinion. Some may value a certain defensive style over others. Defense matters, but really only as far as limiting your opponent's scoring.

[CauliflowerEars]

Aboutfkntime?

Or Steve Weisfeld, and by his admission, every other top judge in the world?

Your thoughts boxing world? Poll is there for your vote.

I assume this is all a bit tongue-in-cheek. Some judges may be biased, most NSB self-proclaimed experts may be biased, hometown scoring happens, but of course I'd rather see Steve Weisfeld or an experienced, proven judge over some forum guru.

We live in the age of the internet expert. Nothing against aboutfkntime or any aficionados around NSB, but there's a lot of self-importance and arrogance that percolates the forum. Opinions are welcomed and appreciated but they are not always fact.
Even Polls are not dependable. People could vote for/against aboutfkntime based on emotion, or something else abstract. What if they just dislike the TS ?

If the real question is about scoring defense in a round of boxing, I think it's all semantics. If not getting hit is defense, then I guess it matters. As long as you land harder and more often than the other guy, no matter how pretty, your defense sufficed, right ?
Ask Lomachenko, he'll tell ya. If his face gets nicked up, he's not happy with his defense. The great ones want to do all the damage and never get hit.

[Boxing_1013]

I assume this is all a bit tongue-in-cheek. Some judges may be biased, most NSB self-proclaimed experts may be biased, hometown scoring happens, but of course I'd rather see Steve Weisfeld or an experienced, proven judge over some forum guru.

We live in the age of the internet expert. Nothing against aboutfkntime or any aficionados around NSB, but there's a lot of self-importance and arrogance that percolates the forum. Opinions are welcomed and appreciated but they are not always fact.
Even Polls are not dependable. People could vote for/against aboutfkntime based on emotion, or something else abstract. What if they just dislike the TS ?

If the real question is about scoring defense in a round of boxing, I think it's all semantics. If not getting hit is defense, then I guess it matters. As long as you land harder and more often than the other guy, no matter how pretty, your defense sufficed, right ?
Ask Lomachenko, he'll tell ya. If his face gets nicked up, he's not happy with his defense. The great ones want to do all the damage and never get hit.

Good post my friend...glad to hear from ya

[llll]

But they aren't. If a round is basically even in punches, then criteria like defence comes into consideration. That's why it's in the rules.

The effectiveness of your defense already affected the tally of punches.

You don't give extra points for it.

[Robbie Barrett]

The effectiveness of your defense already affected the tally of punches.

You don't give extra points for it.

I disagree and so do the ABC whom specifically mention defence as a scoring criteria in their rules.

[4truth]

Defense is last on the list for a reason. If you avoid or block 5 of my punches but my 6th punch is a weak jab to your nose, I win that exchange.

Offense trumps defense.