Can anyone remember any fights where...

[Boxing_1013]

This article explains a bias in judging not the criteria.

Bro...you can't be serious lol...that is a top judge, explaining what he and other judges look for in judging fights...the other criteria other than who is landing more and better punches is just not actively scored, and should not be.

If you choose to say otherwise, oh well, that is unfortunate

[daggum]

can someone explain to me how you win clean punching and yet lose the defense category? guess its an even fight right? one guy won the clean punching other guy won the defense...

[Boxing_1013]

compubox is not accurate. please stop using it. compubox is so bad it had floyd landing 11 power shots against pac in round 3. he landed zero clean power shots in that round. its just people guessing. flat out. if the opponent blocked it or parried it thats a clean punch according to them. its bad. we should have known this because there was this poster named daggum on here who warned us about compubox all the way back during the calzaghe-hopkins wars.

Lol thanks man...I don't always endorse compubox...but I do feel more or less they get it right...and when I cite punch stat numbers, I am generally saying what I saw in the fight...I don't personally write down the numbers, but I do count more or less during the round...and if I see compubox after the fight I can more or less remember if their numbers are close to mine.

Notable exception that comes to mind is GGG-Canelo 2 in the 6th round...compubox had Canelo winning that round by quite a few punches...but I had it very close in terms of punches landed and in terms of whose round it was.

[Boxing_1013]

can someone explain to me how you win clean punching and yet lose the defense category? guess its an even fight right? one guy won the clean punching other guy won the defense...

Right...if I throw 1000 punches and land 100...but you throw 10 and land 5...I obviously win the fight.

And also, isn't my defense in a way better than yours? Mine is so good you aren't even able to attempt to score on me.

[daggum]

Lol thanks man...I don't always endorse compubox...but I do feel more or less they get it right...and when I cite punch stat numbers, I am generally saying what I saw in the fight...I don't personally write down the numbers, but I do count more or less during the round...and if I see compubox after the fight I can more or less remember if their numbers are close to mine.

Notable exception that comes to mind is GGG-Canelo 2 in the 6th round...compubox had Canelo winning that round by quite a few punches...but I had it very close in terms of punches landed and in terms of whose round it was.

i can understand watching a fight live and thinking certain things happened that didnt but when you rewatch a fight there is no excuse for missing things. like if you had ward somehow beating kovalev live. go rewatch it and pay more attention. he didnt and it really wasnt that hard to score if you are only focusing on punches. if you are focusing on how much you love ward then yes you could find enough rounds. i found 12 for him!

[daggum]

Right...if I throw 1000 punches and land 100...but you throw 10 and land 5...I obviously win the fight.

And also, isn't my defense in a way better than yours? Mine is so good you aren't even able to attempt to score on me.

well you think you win...but i have wards judges! you lose

[Marchegiano]

Also...for another example of why actively scoring defense, for example, is bad practice...who has better defense, a guy who avoids more punches, or a guy who neutralizes his opponent from even being able to attempt to score/throw punches.

Again, those other criteria matter, but only in as much as they allow you to score/land punches! That is all boxing is my friend...sincerely trying to help ya out.

To actively score the other criteria, other than who is landing more and better punches, I mean it is just silly imo to argue you actively score those...if you do, you can end up justifying some really really bad cards and decisions.

'yeah my guy won because he was controlling the fight (in your opinion) and had better defense (again subjective) and was able to neutralize the other guy's aggression (again subjective)'...you see what I mean?

All that matters is who is landing more and better punches...the other stuff matters, as far as it helps you to land punches...but again, to actively score things like defense is not the way to do it, and frankly it isn't boxing...I could feel the guy who doesn't allow his opponent to throw that often has better defense, and you could feel the guy who avoids a few more punches has better defense.

It is all about the number of punches landed, and their effectiveness...take it from all the judges who score fights my friend...very surprising again that anyone who purports to be a big boxing aficiando would really think those other criteria is actively scored...sad day for the site imo.

In any event, have a great night!

Do you not know who I am?


Judging bias has codified since the WBC made up the 10 point system.

It is, in effect, whatever they say it is. If I prefer dodging to blocking and I am the official judge then I'll score for the man who gives me better dodge work.

If I prefer cuts to swelling damage will go to the man drawing blood.

If I prefer posture fighting to punching a man into place I'll score generalship for the man who successfully moves the other man around the ring with posture alone

I could be flippant about clean punching like you're being about the rest of the criteria. There's a reason why so many hate compubox. They think they have better eyes than the folks at compubox. They think they count clean punches more accurately. Because what you say lands clean may not be what i say lands clean. If I prefer direct powerlines to slapping shots and I am the judge I am well within my rights to score clean punching in favor of the structurally sounds punches.


When a fight is over it'd behoove a fan to try to understand where the judges are coming from rather than *****, whine, and cry about how some statistic doesn't match their scorecard.

It is whatever the judges are looking for. Always has been.

[daggum]

Do you not know who I am?


Judging bias has codified since the WBC made up the 10 point system.

It is, in effect, whatever they say it is. If I prefer dodging to blocking and I am the official judge then I'll score for the man who gives me better dodge work.

If I prefer cuts to swelling damage will go to the man drawing blood.

If I prefer posture fighting to punching a man into place I'll score generalship for the man who successfully moves the other man around the ring with posture alone

I could be flippant about clean punching like you're being about the rest of the criteria. There's a reason why so many hate compubox. They think they have better eyes than the folks at compubox. They think they count clean punches more accurately. Because what you say lands clean may not be what i say lands clean. If I prefer direct powerlines to slapping shots and I am the judge I am well within my rights to score clean punching in favor of the structurally sounds punches.


When a fight is over it'd behoove a fan to try to understand where the judges are coming from rather than *****, whine, and cry about how some statistic doesn't match their scorecard.

It is whatever the judges are looking for. Always has been.

essentially what you are saying is that the judges aren't really focusing on punching because they dont konw what is landing. i couldnt agree more. also judging is easy for professional judges. which fighter is the a-side and will get me more work down the line? ok he must be doing something great cause im about to give him enough rounds to win!

[Boxing_1013]

i can understand watching a fight live and thinking certain things happened that didnt but when you rewatch a fight there is no excuse for missing things. like if you had ward somehow beating kovalev live. go rewatch it and pay more attention. he didnt and it really wasnt that hard to score if you are only focusing on punches. if you are focusing on how much you love ward then yes you could find enough rounds. i found 12 for him!

well you think you win...but i have wards judges! you lose

Lol yeah...that was honestly the worst decision in a big fight that I have ever seen...ironically it wasn't the worst robbery of the night...Hooker-Perez was worse...but I thought surely they will just let the best man win vs Kov-Ward...to have that spoiled by the 'corrupt' judging was sad for sure

[Boxing_1013]

Do you not know who I am?


Judging bias has codified since the WBC made up the 10 point system.

It is, in effect, whatever they say it is. If I prefer dodging to blocking and I am the official judge then I'll score for the man who gives me better dodge work.

If I prefer cuts to swelling damage will go to the man drawing blood.

If I prefer posture fighting to punching a man into place I'll score generalship for the man who successfully moves the other man around the ring with posture alone

I could be flippant about clean punching like you're being about the rest of the criteria. There's a reason why so many hate compubox. They think they have better eyes than the folks at compubox. They think they count clean punches more accurately. Because what you say lands clean may not be what i say lands clean. If I prefer direct powerlines to slapping shots and I am the judge I am well within my rights to score clean punching in favor of the structurally sounds punches.


When a fight is over it'd behoove a fan to try to understand where the judges are coming from rather than *****, whine, and cry about how some statistic doesn't match their scorecard.

It is whatever the judges are looking for. Always has been.

I am not sure who you are to be honest, no offense.

Man I just think 95% of fights end up with a clear winner...maybe it is just me, but after years of watching fights, I feel I can just tell when a guy is a in a fight, and when a guy is putting on a show and is coasting.

A lot of 12 rounders are rather close fights, with about half clear rounds and half close rounds...deciding whose punches were more effective will always be rather subjective, but in general I think it is pretty easy to do...imo you split more or less the close rounds and then see who the better man is outside of that.

I personally think that clouding up the judging criteria with anything other than clean punches and amount of punches muddies the waters and helps to allow for bad decisions...I feel that the assertion that some fights could have cards that read 8-4 for either guy muddies the waters as well, and again allows for bad decisions to be attempted to be explained away.

My 2 cents is that 19/20 fights are not that hard to score and have a clear winner...1/20 are 7-5 either way fights...Lara/Hurd falls into this category for me...Floyd Castillo 1 as well.