how do people score fights here?

innefective agression and activity.

but i prefer to score based on
defense
ring generalship
effective agression
clean and hard punching

A good read http://coxscorner.tripod.com/scoring.htm

 

The info in this case is incomplete, at least for me.
How much more punches were landed by boxer A, how much better were the best punches scored by boxer B, how many good punches were there and how did boxer A react to those punches?

I have on occasion written down scenarios in threads with the use of "boxer A/B/C" designations wich actually were real life scenarios just to see if people picked up on it. Usually one does but it some cases nobody does and the reactions are pretty interesting.
This gives me the idea to revisit some of these threads and replace the dedications with the actual names to show some peoples clear bias towards some events.

 

I do take into account if the four judging criteria but it's kind of a subconscious Thing. I generally can just feel myself who won the round, kind of like an instinct from watching so many fights over the years

 

If boxer A lands 20 jabs but gets hurt in the rd from some great counters I score for damage done usually.

 

There's clean shots coming back and than there's clean shots what do damage.

If boxer B is hurt in the rd even though he threw more jabs I don't see how he can come away from that round with a 10-9

 

too many variables you did not include in the round, so we have no idea how the round played out

 

Who was going forward, who was going backward is the one of the most important things not there. In your scenario it would be the most important thing to help determine who shots are more significant in an otherwise equally significant looking ordeal.

 

Who I'd rather be at the end of the round
Stevensons 7 straight left hands > Bikas 11 landed punches

 

The art of boxing is to hurt and not be hurt. Not to hit and not be hit.

So I look for whoever landed the best shots. If a fighter is stunned I find it really hard to give him that round.

 

First who landed the most punches with emphasis on power punches.

If the first is not clear I look at who the aggressor is.

I do not take defense or ring generalship into account at all. I personally regard those two criteria as redundant. Defense and ring generalship will show themselves in the punch stats

Ring generalship I'm especially against because it assumes one can get into the head of the fighters.

As a southpaw my classic example is letting a fighter take the outside angle and chosen to take the inside angle instead. I beat him badly but gurus who read about southpaws on the Internet tell me that I should have taken the outside angle.

Who the **** us anyone to know what a fighter is trying to do. Effective ring generalship will shoe in the punch stats.

 

Depends on how effective those punches were. Did they stun him or were they just better shots. Where was the aggressive guy landing. Too many variables to give an answer to that

 

in crayon