How much do you factor in sound impact, commentary, or crowds in scoring a fight?

I think it is definitely important, even if the crowds sometimes over exaggerate. It's interesting how badly Lampley screws up when watching a fight ringside. you have to factor in the location of the spectators, even though the commentators always have a monitor that they can refer to.

Alot of the time I turn the commentary off if I'm scoring or rewatching a controversial fight. I feel like alot of former and present announcers on HBO are bias (Foreman, Jones) and really blind my view. Jones was pretty bias towards Rigo last night for example. Foreman was REALLY bias towards this "puncher" even though he was blatantly getting dominated and had no chance of coming back. I can't pin point the fight now that I think of it. Merchant said something like "Does he still have a punchers chance, George? " If someone could help me out with that and let me know which fight I'm thinking of that'd be straight.

Anyways, I just wanted to know what you guys thought.

 

Ideally it should be about 75 percent

 

I think that is definitely a little high. There are some god awful, biased commentators out there. Have any idea about the fight I'm talking about with Foreman commentating?

 

I was being sarcasting -- none of those things should figure into the scoring of a fight, obviously.

 

I just flip a coin usually.

 

They obviously do, though. With some knockouts you can definitely near that CRACK, so it's definitely a great representation of power. Commentators will point out some things you may have missed, or maybe they have it wrong. The crowd matters because they all have different angles to the match.

 

Scoring was maybe a wrong word, you obviously won't change your score because of somebody in the crowd screaming something. I meant your view of a round or sequence in a round.

 

Most of the time I just close my eyes and listen to the fight to pick a winner.

 

I find it more entertaining just watching the fight, and keeping only a rough track of the score from a mixture of my own observations and those of the commentators. In the end the official judges are going to determine the winner anyway.

 

My scoring criteria goes:

1. Ring generalship
2. Defence
3. Crowd reaction
4. Blood
5. Looks of discomfort
6. Commentary
7. Dysentary
8. Cholera
9. Typhoid
10. Clean, effective punches.
11. Unclean, effective punches.
12. Unclean, ineffective punches.
13. Clean, ineffective punches.
14. Punch stat counter.
15. Geiger Counter.
16. Counter-intuition.
17. Promotion
18. Rest
19. Relaxation
20. Monocle-wearing.

Some have periods, and they are denoted by periods. Ends of sentence.

 

I used to watch fights with no sound but it's more fun having the commentary on.

Sometimes watching fights is just about enjoying the event and commentary is a part of that, I'd hope it doesn't influence me too much but if it does there's plenty of people on here to tell me how shite my scorecard is

 

I award points for the stare-down too :rasta

 

I call that the Malignaggi points.

 

Sound impact should the only criteria that you've mentioned that should be taken into account

 

Oftentimes, its the best indication whether a punch even landed, depending on the camera.