There always seems to be a range of opinions about which way rounds go, quite often they end up with the home or money fighter. I've put a poll up for an example of a close round, purposely haven't named fighters as its easy to become biased. boxer A throws more punches and marginally outlands boxer B. boxer B probably lands the best punches of the round Who do you score the round too?
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
Amount of clean punches landed. However one or two very effective huge punches can shift a round on my score cards.
I've redone it a touch to try help a bit, I favour the cleaner punches myself, but as soon as a round in a specific fight is mentioned people will automatically pick whichever suites their favoured fighter.
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
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.
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