Tweet
You often see people talking about which fighter was more damaged after the fight, and using this as an indicator as to who won the fight.
You also hear people saying that a harder punch scores more than a lighter punch. Often saying things like 'this isn't tag' etc.
Boxing scoring is based on four factors; Ring Generalship, Defence, Clean Punching and Effective Aggression.
Ring generalship is essentially; who is controlling the pace and dictating the fight.
Defence is; the use of movement and blocking/parrying to avoid offence.
Clean Punching is; the punches that land on scoring parts of the body/face, with the scoring part of the glove.
Effective Aggression is; the moments in which a fighter shows aggression, which lead to clean punches as a result.
So, why isn't 'damage' or 'weight of punch' a determining factor in boxing?
Well, there are a few reasons.
First of all, I would suggest that 'damage' and 'weight of punch' are rewarded in themselves. If you cause damage to your opponent and land with harder punches, you are more likely to stop the opponent or weaken him to the point that the fight becomes easier for yourself. If you are a soft puncher and do not inflict much damage with your punches, you're making life harder for yourself; you will have to go longer into the fight, risking getting damaged/stopped yourself.
Secondly, boxing is scored on a 12 rounds system. Two boxers could inflict zero damage on one another for 10 rounds, with 'boxer A' winning all 10 rounds. The last 2 rounds 'boxer B' comes back and really hurts 'boxer A'. At the end of the fight, 'boxer A' took a lot more damage/hard punches, but he still won based on scoring. This makes the concept a bit redundant.
Thirdly, damage and weight of punches are hardly quantifiable. Yes, it might be obvious in some instances, but there are many instances where it would be impossible to tell in any given situation whether one boxer is punching harder, or doing more damage.
P.S. I don't know why I've wrote this - I got bored and thought I'd post something on here for a change, and this is a subject that always grates on me; when people think they're boxing analysts and don't understand scoring.
You also hear people saying that a harder punch scores more than a lighter punch. Often saying things like 'this isn't tag' etc.
Boxing scoring is based on four factors; Ring Generalship, Defence, Clean Punching and Effective Aggression.
Ring generalship is essentially; who is controlling the pace and dictating the fight.
Defence is; the use of movement and blocking/parrying to avoid offence.
Clean Punching is; the punches that land on scoring parts of the body/face, with the scoring part of the glove.
Effective Aggression is; the moments in which a fighter shows aggression, which lead to clean punches as a result.
So, why isn't 'damage' or 'weight of punch' a determining factor in boxing?
Well, there are a few reasons.
First of all, I would suggest that 'damage' and 'weight of punch' are rewarded in themselves. If you cause damage to your opponent and land with harder punches, you are more likely to stop the opponent or weaken him to the point that the fight becomes easier for yourself. If you are a soft puncher and do not inflict much damage with your punches, you're making life harder for yourself; you will have to go longer into the fight, risking getting damaged/stopped yourself.
Secondly, boxing is scored on a 12 rounds system. Two boxers could inflict zero damage on one another for 10 rounds, with 'boxer A' winning all 10 rounds. The last 2 rounds 'boxer B' comes back and really hurts 'boxer A'. At the end of the fight, 'boxer A' took a lot more damage/hard punches, but he still won based on scoring. This makes the concept a bit redundant.
Thirdly, damage and weight of punches are hardly quantifiable. Yes, it might be obvious in some instances, but there are many instances where it would be impossible to tell in any given situation whether one boxer is punching harder, or doing more damage.
P.S. I don't know why I've wrote this - I got bored and thought I'd post something on here for a change, and this is a subject that always grates on me; when people think they're boxing analysts and don't understand scoring.
Comment