What are you scoring in fights/boxing matches?

[Marchegiano]

? I never posted that article for you before. Maybe you should read it. You would learn how to score a fight better.

https://www.premierboxingchampions.c...ow-score-fight

Have you not? Seems to me you've been doing this about a year.


You're pushing a casual article as if it is meant to inform knowledgeable fans. Because you're too ****** to separate a general rule of thumb for outcomes from criteria you see all manner of robbery and corruption when really all you need to do is understand most fights come down to punch count while close fights and their rulings can be legitimized with all manner of reasonings from things like more effective shots to just aggressiveness.


It is no one here's fault you refuse to understand why Steve himself has several times abandoned punch count in his officials cards but your own. You go around posting a PBC article at us like that **** was written for us or was ever meant to be anything that explains any insight to any long time fan.


Keep crying about punch count and keep telling yourself the only justification for you being wrong is corruption.......that **** doesn't make you a dumb prick with twice as much opinion as understanding.




trying to make JUDGING a rigid system while talking about what we don't understand read a GD book. Go to a gym and get prepared for a fight.

[QueensburyRules]

I ask this question sincerely...I am a bit stunned when some posters on here claim they actively score things such as defense, ring generalship, effective aggression.

I felt it was pretty obvious that the only things judges score, and that any of us should be scoring, in a fight is who is landing the better (more, cleaner, harder, more effective etc) punches.

Those other qualities mentioned are obviously important...but only as far as they allow you to 'score' on (or not be scored on by) your opponent.

A big problem that can exist when someone actively scores those other areas (imho) is it opens up a can of worms and really makes it possible for some judges (and some of us) to try and justify horrible cards and decisions.

A judge could say 'well fighter X was fighting his fight and made fighter Y fight a fight he didn't want to (ring general)...I felt he nullified the effective aggression of fighter Y...fighter X showed better defense in my opinion as well.'

But in that scenario, if fighter X lands 20 punches and misses 20, and fighter Y lands 5 punches and misses 3...and all the punches are basically the same effectiveness, well it is obvious that fighter X wins the round.

If you actively score the other criteria, it as much as anything becomes a serious opportunity to rig scorecards and justify terrible decisions/cards.

Not to mention that I feel it is pretty intuitive that when scoring a fight/boxing match, all that matters is who is doing the better scoring/damage/work...this holds as true for a pro boxing match, as it does for a street fight...that's all we are looking to judge when we are deciding the winner.

I am of the belief that judges (or any of us) should rarely if ever differ by more than 2 rounds in any given fight...we may differ on if a round is very clear, or close but clear, or a 50/50 pick em round.

But in general we should agree within about 1 round of each other...most fights just aren't that hard to score...you more or less split the too close to call rounds...and score the others, and them bam, there you go.

Imho 95% of fights have one clear winner...5% are the '7-5 either way' type of fights, where maybe you shade it one way but could see how someone else shades it another way...Floyd JLC 1 was this way for me...I shade it 7-5 to Floyd or could go with 6-6...but could see 7-5 JLC as well.

In any event, interested in hearing everyone's thoughts.

- -Boxing attracts the lowest IQ fans in pro sports save a close run with mma, hence the Commishes, judges, and refs tend to do whatever they're told to do.

When MLB/NLF have controversies, the action stops the teams, usually thru their mgr argue their case, and in the NFK while officials review video. It's tougher to judge calls in such a large field with so many bodies in action.

In boxing the field has been reduced to 2 half naked boxers in an 20x20 foot ring with the ref floating around where most of the action can be seen.

The fact that judges may have access to the hoax of punch# counts adds to the fraud committed.

We don't see nba teams starting a game tied at 120 points and then deducted points by 3 score keepers to end up with 3 different scores sometimes as wide as a 118-110 for each team.

Boxing is the ultimate betting game, so of course the fans hollering the loudest are the ones losing their stake like in every week.

That's just the tip of the problem, but even in decline boxing is very lucrative for officials who toe the company line.

[Shadoww702]

I score all of it and my cards are usually close to at least one judge. Most people don't value defense, or just can't see it.

And that’s just ****** as ***! Hit and don’t get hit is the sweet science

[Shadoww702]

Let me ask you a question.

Have you ever been around an actual sanctioned fight? As in, been in the room before?

*** no! He’s not even consistent in his scoring criteria His scorecard is already filled out. He looks at the boxers decides who is cuter and might have the bigger dic to put in his mouth and then POOF card is filled out with him getting his HAPPY ENDING.

Like is said watch how that Rtard scores fights...

[Shadoww702]

We ALL know you ignore defense and only give a *** about who landed more punches. So quit acting like you know sht about boxing.

I don’t see you betting on fights??? Because your ALWAYS fkn WRONG! I lose I have repercussions. I’m out money. U lose and your just like ohh well!!! I still FEEL I won doe.

Bet against this clown for a FOR SURE win...

[Lomadeaux]

*** no! He’s not even consistent in his scoring criteria His scorecard is already filled out. He looks at the boxers decides who is cuter and might have the bigger dic to put in his mouth and then POOF card is filled out with him getting his HAPPY ENDING.

Like is said watch how that Rtard scores fights...

All of this **** he was saying yesterday, and then the Rigo fight happened... It was PICTURE PERFECT timing... Lol absolutely hilarious.

Either guys landing anything really and Rigo winning the fight based off of Ring generalship & defense.

[Lomadeaux]

Have you not? Seems to me you've been doing this about a year.


You're pushing a casual article as if it is meant to inform knowledgeable fans. Because you're too ****** to separate a general rule of thumb for outcomes from criteria you see all manner of robbery and corruption when really all you need to do is understand most fights come down to punch count while close fights and their rulings can be legitimized with all manner of reasonings from things like more effective shots to just aggressiveness.


It is no one here's fault you refuse to understand why Steve himself has several times abandoned punch count in his officials cards but your own. You go around posting a PBC article at us like that **** was written for us or was ever meant to be anything that explains any insight to any long time fan.


Keep crying about punch count and keep telling yourself the only justification for you being wrong is corruption.......that **** doesn't make you a dumb prick with twice as much opinion as understanding.




trying to make JUDGING a rigid system while talking about what we don't understand read a GD book. Go to a gym and get prepared for a fight.

It's tough to do this man. If you saw a picture of this guy you'd probably feel like a fool arguing with him. I know I would.

[Shadoww702]

All of this **** he was saying yesterday, and then the Rigo fight happened... It was PICTURE PERFECT timing... Lol absolutely hilarious.

Either guys landing anything really and Rigo winning the fight based off of Ring generalship & defense.

EXACTLY the dude is not consistent at ALL! I can’t tell WTF he’s judging??? The better boxer? The better puncher??? He flip fkn FLOPS! I’ve seen him score rounds.

He one time told me he scores guys who land more. And that’s IT! What his fkn rounds?? He waits until he sees the compubox and their is his scorecard.

He completely ignores Defense. Terrible connect rate! Dudes could miss a 1,000 punches a round but if he scores even one more punch landed BINGO he won.

I’ve never seen a joker this bad and then try and LIE to my face. I’ve seen him score fights 12-0 but don’t want to look like a BYRD and erases a few rounds and “gifts” it to the other guy. He’s even said it before.

Boxer “A” clearly won all these rounds. Boxer “B” it was very close... So maybe I’ll give him that round.

He’s a C@ckold

[Shadoww702]

Where is option #3??

#3 Compubox Only

The one you always use???

[KingHippo]

To your first paragraph...my point was to say that saying that your card is usually close to at least one judge...I mean of course it would be man...that doesn't take a lot to be usually close to just 1 judge.

Oh yeah? Then why did the majority of the boxing public (including you) cry robbery on fights were non of the judges gave the nod to the allegedly robbed fighter ie. Kovalev vs Ward 1, or when the cards show a much closer fight than the public's opinion, like in the case of Canelo vs GGG 1 where only one judge gave it to GGG and by one round?

The problem again sometimes with those types of fights, or 'close' fights...is when some fans, or judges, shade all of those types of fights to their guy...maybe it is coincidence...maybe they really see them that way...but it seems more likely that they are just trying to score the fight for their guy.

Of course, like agressive fighters, who you obviously value more and are personally invested like GGG with sub par defense. Ignoring or simply being unable to see all the good things the other side is doing such as slipping punches and showing elite level upper movement and evasive footwork like Canelo does.

On the 2nd part...my point is to say that defense is not even that easy to define...a guy who throws a lot of punches could in a way have great defense, if his volume negates his opponent from even attempting to score on him.

Similarly, someone could view a high volume puncher missing a lot, and say that his opponent showed better defense as he avoided more punches.

Good defense is usually very easy to notice when you know what you're looking at and don't only care about who's better at bashing the other fighter's face in.

Defense is definitely important!!! But only because if you have good defense, you aren't allowing your opponent to score on you..that's why it is important...we aren't supposed to actively score it....great post here below:

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.

No, the purpose of the sport is to show clean punching, defense, ring generalship, and effective aggression. Defense is never judged alone, but can and should be a differentiating factor in close rounds.

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.

In this case, boxer B showed superior defense, and boxer A showed ineffective aggression. Fighters A was able to show that he was a superior boxer in one particular skill set. There is not a single effective aggressor that will not be able to land a single punch on an opponent. It never happened and it never will, so stop bringing ridiculous hypotheticals to prove your your point.