Do you guys give rounds for ring control?

[jmrf4435]

If punches landed are equal...Seems to be a huge divide in scoring in this regard.

Some one can outfox and outbox their opponent without coming forward and controlling ring.


But, I think it's harder to be the come forward fighter, It's easier to hit someone that comes forward obviously.

froch-dirrell omg

[boliodogs]

If the punches landed are even in number and quality then I consider the round even although judges are no longer allowed to score a round even which I think is really stupid. If I am forced to score an even round for one boxer or the other I will give the round to the attacker who was coming forward and making the fight. If both men are attacking and neither is retreating and the punches landed come out even then I guess I have to flip a coin or something. If a round is even it should be scored even. It was scored even for at least a hundred years before they got the stupid idea to outlaw scoring rounds even. It's one of the reasons we get so many fuked up score cards these days. If judges can't score even rounds as even rounds then they tend to give all the even rounds to the boxer they like the most.

[Mr Objecitivity]

If both boxers land the same amount of total punches, then I establish who landed the more effective punches. As in, which boxer landed the most punches which actually had the most effect on the opponent. A light tapping jab to the face that doesn't snap the head back would be a scoring blow, even though it isn't an effective punch. However, a powerful jab which snaps the opponent's head back is also a scoring blow but is an effective punch at the same time. Therefore, this punch warrants extra credit.

So by effective punches, I mean the following things should happen (in order of most effective to least effective):

1) Punches that causes a knockout.

2) Punches that causes a knockdown.

3) Punches that causes the opponent to be temporarily visible stunned / shaken whilst they're still standing
where they show temporarily loss of balance.

4) Punches that reduces an opponent's effectiveness. Such as their offensive intensity. Or causes them to show
signs of discomfort / pain. Or causes them to become tired and so forth so on.

5) Punches that inflicts visible damage such as cuts, swelling and etc.

5) Punches that visibly snaps the opponent's body / head in the direction of the punch or shakes the opponent's body / head.


If any punches do the above things, then they will be considered 'effective punches' according to my definition. However, any punches that don't do the above things may still be considered scoring punches but also 'ineffective punches'. Thus, effective punches warrant more credit than ineffective punches if total punches landed are equal.

If both boxers are also even in total punches landed and effective punches landed, then the next criteria I use is effective aggression and ring generalship. Such as which boxer is being more aggressive for effective aggression and which boxer has better control over the center of the ring (who spends more time closer to the center of the ring).

If both boxers are equally aggressive and have even ring generalship, then the final criteria I use is which boxer had the better defense. This means, which boxer landed more of his punches at a higher percentage and which boxer made the opponent miss more.

If two boxers are even in all of those departments (extremely rare and unlikely), then I score this round a draw.

I agree with boliodogs that the new ruling of not allowing a round to be scored evenly is silly and wrong. It's an unreasonable rule which makes little sense.

[TonyGe]

The rule was brought in so there would be a definitive winner. Ironically it is causing as much controvery. Boxing is based on subjective scoring. That can lead to surprising results for the viewers and the losing fighter.