I've heard a lot of differing opinions on how to score a fight from these boards, writers, fighters themselves, and commentators. I've heard Kellerman say he judges a round based on who he'd rather be. I've seen plenty of people give a guy credit for simply coming forward and throwing punches. I've seen people say that body shots don't count or that head shots count more than body shots. I've seen people say you can't win a fight by running. Of course there is four defined scoring criteria that judges are supposed to go by: Clean, effective punching Effective aggression Defense Ring generalship Many of you know these four criteria, but how do you define each? I'd love to hear different takes on this. I believe these different interpretations are the primary reason viewers are so divided on some decisions.
Me personally, I use the four criteria and I factor time in as well. I actually score all 4 criteria each round (so, who was the ring general in the round, who had better defense, etc.) If a fighter takes 3 of em, he wins the round. Clean, effective punching - I weigh who is landing more meaningful shots, and who is landing more. If a punch backs the other guy up, it is safe to say it was very effective. For the most part, judges do an ok job in this department. Body punchers often IMO get credit for shots that were blocked. Effective Aggression This ALWAYS gets f*cked up by judges and fans. As an example, Canelos aggression against Lara was embarassingly bad and despite what some were saying he did NOT cut off the ring and missed wildly. An effective aggressor can trap a runner on the ropes or corner him and get off a few before the guy escapes. If we are using that fight as an example I would say Canelo was the aggressor, and Lara was effective... there was usually no winner in that category. Defense By far the least credited criteria. Guys like Whittaker get called boring and say "that isn't boxing" so a guy like Chavez gets favored because he throws a lot of punches, thereby making a given round a 10-9 for Chavez because he gets labelled the effective aggressor and that somehow negates the defense principle. They may as well not even have this category based on the way I've seen fights scored. Ring Generalship One of the most obvious. You can watch a fight and just see who is mastering the movement and controlling the distance... you can call it imposing their will or style on the other fighter but basically it goes to the guy who is making the other guy have to adjust. Floyd is a great example, as he is probably the best at it. He starts slow usually, but when he adjusts, he controls the distance and pace of the fight like no one else. I try to factor in how long each guy was effective at the criteria too as I don't let late round flurries steal a round (unless nothing really happened in the round prior to that)
Here's how I break it down; Clean, effective punching - The most important criteria. All the other categories pretty much flow from this one. A clean, effective punch is when the front part of the glove lands on a scoring area. A scoring area consists of the front and side of the head, as well as the front and side of the torso. Blocked and partially blocked shots are not scoring punches. Defense - If you're displaying good defense, you're limiting your opponent's clean, effective punching. Defense consist of avoiding, blocking, parrying, deflecting, and rolling punches. Defense also consists of using footwork to avoid punches. Ring Generalship - This is a hard one to score. It's basically, who is in control of the fight. You have to really pay attention to this one. Sometimes a guy can be going backwards, and be against the ropes, and still be in control. If a guy is trapping another fighter, or forcing the action to stay in the middle of the ring, he's usually the ring general. However, if a guy is being backed into the ropes rather than being trapped , and is defending and countering effectively, that's also ring generalship. Effective aggression - This one gets a little dicey. It's generally accepted that using forward movement to get yourself in a position to land scoring shots is effective aggression. Feinting can also be effective aggression. Some will also argue that baiting is a form of effective aggression as well. For example, look at the Mayweather vs. Hatton fight. In the 10th round, Mayweather retreats to the ropes. The action is planned. Hatton predictably follows, and unleashes a big left hook. Mayweather sees it coming and counters with his own left hook that sends Hatton head first into the turnbuckle. That act of retreating to bait Hatton into throwing that punch can also be construed as effective aggression. When I'm scoring a fight, I mainly score off of clean, effective punching. If you display the other 3 criteria, you're probably going to score the more telling blows.
Stylez, you raise some really good points. I like your comment in regards to feinting but I disagree about clean effective punching being the most important. Ring Generalship is by far the most important. If you are controlling the distance you will nearly ALWAYS land the more effective punches and be better defensively. As an extreme example, if I a kickboxer is in a fight with a boxer, he can use his legs to keep the boxer well out of his preferred striking range... forcing the boxer to do things he isn't good at, or at least comfortable with
I think you're saying pretty much what I'm saying, but in a different way. Let's say one guy lands 10 scoring blows, and his opponent lands 1. Let's also say that no one is knocked down or visibly hurt. The guy who lands the 10 shots is going to win the round every time. Now of course, his ring generalship, defense, and effective aggression are going to be what leads him to land all of those shots while barely getting hit himself.
I see what you're saying. Like you said, I guesswe both just explain it dirfferently. Now the real question is: What f*cking criteria do some of these sh*t judges base their scores on?..ha ha.. just kiddin, we already know they base them on dollar bills.
Clean effective punching is the ONLY thing that matters. I don't understand why people give points for defense. You have a defense to PREVENT your opponent from scoring points... Not for racking up points. If the Patriots overturn the ball at their own 20 yd like 15x in one game and the defense stops every TD/Field Goal attempt, do they get points for it? No. You only get points when you complete the main objective of the game. Which is landing CLEAN EFFECTIVE punches on your opponent in boxing... If you have a good defense it will speak in form of your opponent not landing any clean effective punches. Ring General ship is the same way, if you have a great Ring Generalship and defense 99% of the time that guy is winning the fight on my scorecard. But that's because most the time when they are doing these two things better, they end up making their opponent not land any CLEAN, EFFECTIVE PUNCHES, which results in their opponent losing the round. Effective aggression - I only grade with this when a round had less than 10 punches landed by each fighter and none were that significant. Example Fighter A lands 5 jabs and 3 power shots Fighter B lands 2 jabs and 2 powershots but moved forward, fighter B gets the round. I only do this because in order for the sport to exist someone DOES need to move forward and you put the burden of making the fight on one guy. But I only resort to this when the round is close with no real significant blows landed.
That's true to some degree. Let's say two guys do about the same amount of damage in a round. Now let's also say that one fighter throwing a bunch of punches while, the other guy is picking his shots and defending well. At the end of the round the one fighter lands 13 of 100 shots, while the other fighter lands 13 of 20 shots. Remember, both guys have done similar damage with their connected punches. Who wins the round? This is where the other criteria really comes into play. There's a lot of truth to this I don't think you should get credit for simply moving forward. That gives an unfair advantage to the bigger, stronger guy. If you're moving forward, but are simply following a guy around the ring and not trapping him or putting yourself in a position to land good shots, then your forward movement means nothing.
Clean, effective punching Heads being snapped back, the sound of the thud, how it effects the other fighter. Partially blocked or grazing punches don't fall in this category. Effective aggression Aggression that is physically and mentally wearing your opponent down. Defense Making your opponent miss (not 4 feet away), effectively blocking punches. Keeping them off balance and confused. Ring generalship Making the other guy fight your fight. Controlling range and the pace of the fight.
Clean effective punching should be the main thing you are scoring a round by the other three categories are to be used only if you think it is a very close round based on Clean effective punching.
The rounds are 3 mins. Score per minute using everyones criteria above. 1st minute boxer A is the better. 2nd minute boxer B is better. 3rd minute boxer A is better, he gets the round
I think scoring a boxing match is a lot like predicting the NCAA Tournament. Most of the experts are terrible at it. Granted, you need some foundation because a completely ignorant layperson watching a match will probably pick the guy who throws more punches. But after you've watched 5-10 matches, you should be able to pick the guy who you think won. I know that sounds simplified, but in reality it should be pretty easy. Clearly won Closely won Even Closely lost Clearly lost
