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

:roll:

Nowhere is unconditional aggression listed as a valid scoring criteria, nor as the default tiebreaker in the event of "closeness".

A lot of people instinctively reward aggression for its own sake, and they're in the wrong.

If two people each land 10 punches, you don't simply look at who came forward or even who threw more. Throwing more has no relevance. If one guy is charging in, windmilling, throwing 50 to land 10 while the other guy backs up and carefully picks his spots throwing 24 to land 10 - you don't automatically favor the aggressor merely for being the aggressor. You look at other factors. Of the 10 punches each man landed, whose were delivered more crisply? Whose landed cleaner?

Ring generalship and defense are tiebreakers. Effective aggression can be as well, but this is what trips a lot of people up. Like most of the ignorant, you can't differentiate between blind aggression (what Adamek is doing in the GIFs posted earlier, wildly flailing with embarrassing inaccurate flurries) and effective aggression - which encompasses things like cutting the ring off and delivering sharp punches your enemy can't avoid, going to the body to get him to drop his hands, etc.

Accuracy is very important, and inaccuracy (when the byproduct of ineffective aggression) should never be rewarded.

 

boxing is fighting.

 

Everything you said is wrong.

 

Again, not all punches are equal. Judges give more weight to power punches and combinations than jabs. That's why Adamek was winning rounds.

 

Clean punches. Damage. Whether you like boxers stepping forwards as opposed to backwards has **** all to do with effective aggression meaning the best punches landing. That's how it works. Otherwise every counter-puncher would lose, and boxing would become an awkward pushing game.

 

No it is not. Boxing is boxing.

 

Ban the **** then :hey

 

Jabs are worth less than power shots, this isn't the amateurs.

This content is protected

 

Dodong just be making his own rules up :rofl

Personally if a round is even I score it for the fighter with the more stylish trunks.

 

Cotto has won many a close round from me for that.

 

Those trunks vs Margarito in the second fight ensured that he did not lose a round.

 

I award ineffective aggression if the other guy does nothing

I thought Adamek beat Chambers, Chambers made him look bad but to me just didnt do enough

I didnt think Adamek beat Cunningham, in fact i thought Adamek wasnt all that aggressive

he followed Cunningham around stalking but not really throwing and waited for the perfect moment to throw, vs Chambers I remember him being much busier

I usually like to award effective aggression over busy hands, so thats why i gave Lara the Williams fight

but if one guy throws a lot and misses a lot and lands grazing shots but the other guy does nothing i give to the busy guy, thats why i felt Calzaghe beat Hopkins and Froch beat Dirrel

 

Context is everything, though. Is a good hard jab that lands flush on the face and momentarily stops a foe in his tracks really less effective than a power punch that only glances off the opponent and doesn't produce any sort of effect despite connecting in some way?

According to some people, that should be the case, and I personally have a real problem with that attitude.

 

On a side note Adamek has been a disappointment to me lately

his style at heavyweight to the way he carries the weight, he doesnt sit on his punches like he used to, he moves more and throws these little flurries, i know he had to adjust to fight bigger men but i just feel like they are going about it the wrong way