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

Problem with that is, you're already leaning to one fighter or the other before a punch has been thrown. And there is a big, big difference between aggression and moving forward.

Arthur Abraham always moves forward, but he's not always aggressive. Froch often moves backward, but is usually aggressive. It is about establishing the distance that each fighter can be the most effective. Whether it be up close or at the end of a jab.

 

This content is protected

but if the fighter that's backing up or countering clearly landed more, then he should be awarded the round.

i'm not proposing that that the more aggressive fighter get's the round even though he clearly got outlanded.

 

lederman giving credit to the fighter risking it and pushing to make it a fight is the right thing to do.

btw..is there a rule that says he can't?

 

Fair enough, but the burden of having to clearly outland your opponent (as opposed to simply landing a mixture of better/more) should not fall on one fighter and not the other. It makes it all too easy to favor a certain style. It's like giving someone a head start in a round.

I like aggressive fighters because they generally make for more exciting and action packed fights. But I try not to let it enter into my scoring when I watch a fight.

 

in a close round, you should.

 

Not really if the aggressive fighter is in a close round he isn't being effective with it. the counter puncher is being more effective with his ring generalship and defence.

 

No I should not. If aggression isn't effective what grounds do I have to use it to score a round? Because I feel like it?

Effective should be the key word, not aggression. If it is effective, it'll be factored in. If it isn't effective, it bears no more weight than any other scoring facet, or lack of.

 

What I have learned from this thread.
To score a fight, one must look at the following.

- Punches landed (including but not limited to grazes and near misses)
- Aggression

 

how can you say or judge (since it's subjective) that the fighter is ineffective with his aggression if the round is close??

if a fighter is ineffective with his aggression, then he should have clearly lost the round.

 

Wrong.

 

if a fighter was ineffective with his aggression, then he would have clearly lost that round.

all i'm simply saying is that the fighter that pushed to make the fight in that round should get the round if the round was even or very close. agression be it effective or not should be the tie-breaker.

 

explains why you haven't been so hot in your scoring.

 

Not if the other fighter displayed better ring generalship and/or, defense which are also scoring criteria. Aggression holds no more sway than either of those. Why, unless it is convenient, would I value it more than them?

Now, if you were to say all 3 of the other scoring facets were equal, then I could see aggression solely being the difference in a round. But otherwise? Nah.

 

Should have stood with the 303 posts.

 

Oh boy! I have been insulted!
I believe the correct response on these forums is to insult your vcash?

Your pitiful vcash correctly represents your boxing knowledge!