Are boxing rules meant to be so vague?

[WarVeteranO01]

Take for example the terms: Effective Aggression & Ring Generalship. Those terms are left basically open to what each judge believes them to be. Perfect example is Canelo vs Lara (a match I scored a Draw DONT DEBATE ME) there were 6 rds where Canelo was effective with his aggression and I felt thats why Lara moved so much because the shots were bothering him (making Canelo the Ring General), than the other 6 rds Lara moved because it threw Canelo off his game plan and helped Lara get off first (making Lara the Ring General) but we all know how the judges seen it...

Point is, in a perfect world boxing rules should be set in stone not vaguely stated and left to be defined by unlike minded officials... Unity & clarity amongst judges would be great.

[Russian Crushin]

You mean judging criteria. Those are beyond vague and actually matter maybe 3%. There's a criteria that isnt vague tho, effective punches landed. But when your fighter is getting out beat up, its always nice to talk about how cute his footwork was or how well he ran and didnt get KO'd. And if they get a robbery win, you have something to fall back on

[mike1010011]

Take for example the terms: Effective Aggression & Ring Generalship. Those terms are left basically open to what each judge believes them to be. Perfect example is Canelo vs Lara (a match I scored a Draw DONT DEBATE ME) there were 6 rds where Canelo was effective with his aggression and I felt thats why Lara moved so much because the shots were bothering him (making Canelo the Ring General), than the other 6 rds Lara moved because it threw Canelo off his game plan and helped Lara get off first (making Lara the Ring General) but we all know how the judges seen it...

Point is, in a perfect world boxing rules should be set in stone not vaguely stated and left to be defined by unlike minded officials... Unity & clarity amongst judges would be great.

I think that if they ended up making it specific,the rules would either favor boxers,or brawlers. Why would you be a slick boxer,if the rules favor a guy who is swinging for the fences the whole round. And vice versa,why would you be an infighting brawler,if the rules favor the mobile stick and move fighters. But your right,making the rules clearer would help us get more accurate decisions, and avoid robberies.

[WarVeteranO01]

You mean judging criteria. Those are beyond vague and actually matter maybe 3%. There's a criteria that isnt vague tho, effective punches landed. But when your fighter is getting out beat up, its always nice to talk about how cute his footwork was or how well he ran and didnt get KO'd. And if they get a robbery win, you have something to fall back on

OK I will agree the criteria maybe there but I still think its left open to what style the judge prefers or what style he/she believes is boxing. Somewhere down boxing history, maybe around the Ray Leonard era people began to think boxing was about foot speed and shoe shining than the Julio Cesar Chavez era came around and it was all about aggression and pressure fighting. Which leaves us presently with a lot of split decisions.

[Weebler I]

I'm not sure if judging criteria is meant to be vague, but they're an open door for corruption.