What are you scoring in fights/boxing matches?

[TheUptownKid]

Good question. I don’t like ineffective aggression and I will actually give a round to the other fighter if one fights throws and misses a ton. I like clean punches and dictating space / tenpo

[Blond Beast]

Eye Witnesses are unreliable.

[Boxing_1013]

I’ll never get over how ****ing ****** people are on Internet forums.

Once again, I could be arguing with a 20 year old.. so this **** is on me.

Like how do you not realize that you are the one who looks dumb here...it's embarrassing for you really.

You tried to be rude/snarky to people in some posts on here...and you were shown to be wrong, quite clearly...instead of eating your words, you want to just double and triple down...you have no humility, decency or honor...but I guess it's easy to act like that on the internet, so have at it buddy.

You should change that avatar pic btw...makes you look pretty suspect.

[Boxing_1013]

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.

Dude I really wish you could write better/more clearly..it's embarrassing trying to decipher what a grown man means...I don't know if English is your 2nd language or something, but it hardly makes sense.

And what are you even talking about lol...punch count is fun to look at, as it helps to tell a general story...but obviously you have to factor in the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of certain punches as well...read the thread poll again if you have any questions about what you are supposed to score in a round/fight.

Not sure if you have just been scoring punches landed or something...but yeah you have to factor in how effective or not a punch is as well...this can be subjective, and two reasonable people can differ as to who they feel wins a round judging by this criteria alone...which again, is the only criteria there is...scoring punches, rd by rd, and seeing who lands the better shots overall in the round.

You're just another person on here who wants to think he is special and wants to think he sees all these hidden things in a boxing match...to the uninitiated, you may be able to fool a few of them as having some type of special knowledge.

To others like you on here, you may be able to form some sort of friendship because they, like you, want to pretend they are special too, and that you guys alone can see all these hidden things in a fight.

But to anyone with any boxing knowledge, and any humility, they know that you're a fraud really...sorry for the harsh language...but can't think of a better word at this time.

If it makes you feel any better, I don't think you're trying to defraud people intentionally...it's rather that you have ego/self-esteem issues so you end up trying to build yourself up as some sort of boxing guru, when again, to anyone with any knowledge of the sport, and any humility, you're just a try-to-hard 'clown.'

But yeah, most fights are not hard to score...and buddy all you score are the punches and their effectiveness...that's all boxing is buddy...to actively score anything else, is not only ******, but also an open invitation to bad cards/robberies...and even worse, it helps to encourage and explain away bad cards/robberies.

I'm sure you feel Smith-Ryder was a good decision? Never seen any robberies or bad before have you? lol

[Boxing_1013]

- -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.

Thanks man, good post...for the record, I like punch stat data, but only as a backup to what I've seen in the ring...I think it can help tell a story...but there have also been times (Horn-Pac comes to mind) where I feel the numbers are way off from what I've seen, so I wouldn't cite those numbers to back up my case/point if I were talking about that fight.

Also I've seen rounds, as we all have, where a guy gets outlanded, but can be in the round or even very likely win it, because he lands the better shots...so yes just tallying up punches landed is obviously not the way to score fights...but I do like the info compubox and others provide there...generally I find it helpful.

But as you said, sometimes that data in the hands of the wrong people can be detrimental as well.

[Boxing_1013]

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...

Defense obviously matters...but you could argue that a guy who doesn't hardly allow his opponent to throw shots has better defense than a guy who avoids more punches...the first guy isn't even allowing you to try to score..the 2nd guy isn't allowing you to score...scoring how much you like how a guy avoids a punch is grade A fan-boy BS and no one should be doing that or applauding it.

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.

Yeah, if it was the right decision, I assume Rigo was landing the better/cleaner shots in the fight, and maybe more of them...that's all any good judge scores.

How did you score Lara-Hurd?

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.

How do you guys think you're winning this 'debate'...you both look like a couple of clowns lol.

Yeah if either of you guys look better/ are better than me (in any possible way), you are doing great...so I hope the best for you guys.

A guy talking about looks, with the profile picture you have, is really funny though...you look a little sweet to me so I guess you are used to fantasizing about what guys look like.

[Boxing_1013]

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

yeah never said the bolded portions...why don't you cite those quotes from me...I'm about to just block you...you provide no value to any discussion.

Again, sometimes offense can be the best defense...missing punches could be seen as good defense as unless he is getting countered, that fighter could be nullifying his opponent from scoring, or even trying to score...it's subjective...and no active credit is given to defense.

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.

[Boxing_1013]

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?



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.



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.



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.



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.

- I didn't 'cry' anything...I don't really care...boxing is corrupt, it is what it is...the hometown/A-side fighter gets the cards/results he needs...to pretend otherwise is not a credible position imho and I just can't really take it seriously...fair to debate about which fights constitute bad decisions/robberies...but to argue they don't happen is foolish.

--- Again, good defense is subjective...you may like a guy who slips punches better...I may like a guy who outworks his opponent and uses his offense as his defense in a way...you seem to want to find ways to get Canelo extra points in rounds...that's cool I guess man, I really don't care.

-- No I just score the action in a round...Lara and Floyd very often win or won clear rounds imho because they landed better/more punches in the round...that's all you score...you and some others lately seem to want to actively score other fantasy stuff because Canelo needed it in those 2 fights with GGG...I mean whatever if that's what you really want/need to do, go for it..seems exhausting for you but if it's that important for you that's cool.

----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.

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

----- 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.

[Boxing_1013]

I drives me crazy when people say they give defense credit. No matter how good you avoid punches you should not be rewarded for not throwing any.

That's why you're not a judge.

Not many of you know how to score a fight. Not many of you know anything about boxing. Those who do are pleasant to discuss the sport with.

You will forever be the clown who backed himself into this corner...and then instead of just having some humility and admitting he was wrong and a bit arrogant...he doubled and tripled down, and tried to get even nastier, to deflect I guess...chief clown Lomadeaux.

Until you have a good response to this post I don't have any interest in anything you have to say really...this same post will be all I post to you until you get a little humility.

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.

[Lomadeaux]

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?



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.



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.



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.



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.

Good post. The dude is obviously a kid. You have to leave him alone.