What are you scoring in fights/boxing matches?

[Marchegiano]

Boxing is about posture.

[Boxing_1013]

I had Tony Harrison winning until he got KOed by Charlo.

I didn't score that fight but watching it casually at the bar I felt the same way in fight 2

[Boxing_1013]

It's honestly not surprising...but still sad...that 7 people on a boxing forum have no idea how to score a fight lol

[Citizen Koba]

Are all punches equal ?

Does speed > accuracy ?

If a person lands only 3 punches (and scores a flash knockdown) while his opponent lands 20 punches, how do you score that round ?

This is absolutely where both the skill and subjectivity creep into scoring boxing... how many solid headsnapping jabs is worth one stankyleg uppercut for instance, or if a monster cross lands on the jaw of some dude with an iron chin and he doesn't even blink does it count more or less than the partly deflected halfassed hook that sends a china-chinned guy stumbling...?

We all got our own ways of judging, and if we're honest about the way humans work likely we're gonna see fights differently depending on who our favourites are, what styles we prefer and so on... all we can do is try to stick to some consistent guidelines and do our best to be objective.

[cork]

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.

I honestly didn't read everything but I wanted to make this statement and kept it simple.

At the end of the round who you would rather be?

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.

[Lomadeaux]

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.

[Marchegiano]

Everyone becoming condescending ****s I'll join.

In all honesty I don't score like anyone here is suggesting. I try to figure out what the judge's bias will be. If you have a judge who likes power shots and you know it then give a little favor to power shots when all else is equal. That's about it. If you don't know the judges then you're wasting your time guessing and you're just going to end up upset your criteria doesn't mean much to the judges who judged the fights.

Most fights can be understood if you give up what you claim judging criteria is. I say posture gives away the most because it's what you're looking at most of the fight.

Where all else is equal or close to it is well within judges rights to score for things like aggressiveness or general ship....which is why they do it. If you're constantly upset with the judges it's you who needs to gain a better understanding.


What's more relevant, speed or accuracy? It doesn't ****ing matter what you think, it matters what the judge thinks. If the judge says speed then you're just an ******* thumping a criteria while you hardly understand it actual implementation.

[4truth]

If you are truly doing everything described in option 2, it follows that you will accomplish that which is described in option 1.

[Boxing_1013]

I honestly didn't read everything but I wanted to make this statement and kept it simple.

At the end of the round who you would rather be?

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.

Yes well said...it's simple enough isn't it...or like the late Harold Lederman would say...you are scoring damage...who did more damage in that round...that can still be subjective.

But to actively score things like ring generalship/defense/eff aggression...it's just silly really

[Boxing_1013]

Everyone becoming condescending ****s I'll join.

In all honesty I don't score like anyone here is suggesting. I try to figure out what the judge's bias will be. If you have a judge who likes power shots and you know it then give a little favor to power shots when all else is equal. That's about it. If you don't know the judges then you're wasting your time guessing and you're just going to end up upset your criteria doesn't mean much to the judges who judged the fights.

Most fights can be understood if you give up what you claim judging criteria is. I say posture gives away the most because it's what you're looking at most of the fight.

Where all else is equal or close to it is well within judges rights to score for things like aggressiveness or general ship....which is why they do it. If you're constantly upset with the judges it's you who needs to gain a better understanding.


What's more relevant, speed or accuracy? It doesn't ****ing matter what you think, it matters what the judge thinks. If the judge says speed then you're just an ******* thumping a criteria while you hardly understand it actual implementation.

Terrible post...that type of logic just invites robberies/bad cards/bad decisions...and excuses away corruption and bad cards as OK.

All you score in a round is who is landing the better punches...that can still be subjective as far who did more damage in the round...but that's all it is...for people on a boxing forum to not know that...especially a lot of people who seem to live eat and breathe boxing...I mean it's sad.