Rewarding ineffective aggression over clean punching, ring generalship and defense?

Who needs the stats when we have wannabe boxing judges with agenda and pixelated internet stream. :nut

 

The fight took place in PA,

Adamek is from Poland

Steve is from......PA,

atsch

 

if the round is even, aggression should be the tiebreaker.

if there's no aggressor, there wouldn't be a fight...and the aggressor puts himself more at risk.

 

Talking boxing with people who do this is pointless. They just don't get it.

 

Exactly.

 

if that's not a "criteria" (there's probly a better word) into who gets the round in an even round then it should be because it makes sense.

if fighters don't get rewarded for putting themselves at risk in pressing the fight, then what's the point. all boxers should just train and go into the ring with the mindset to counter, it's safer.

 

Wrong. It's simply what you prefer.

If a fan prefers fighters who throw uppercuts, they shouldn't award close frames to whoever happens to be throwing more uppercuts.

It doesn't make sense. It's NONSENSE.

Uh, there are quite often match-ups between two counter-punchers. They're no less valid or appreciable than slugfests between two face-first brawlers.

 

in a round where both fighters didn't land a punch, one was moving back and trying to counter and the other was attacking. who would you give the round?

 

Harold Lederman has lost the ****ing plot and just gives rounds to whoever is coming forward, even if they're missing their own shots and being smashed in the face repeatedly.

 

Defense is a criteria; and so is ring generalship. Look to those as a means of "tie-breaking"