IMO out of the 4 scoring categories, defense should rank #1, prioritized.

Effective aggression and clean punching by far. Its pro boxing. The hurt business.

 

In my opinion none of them should be more focussed on than any of the others. We all know what direction this thread is being pushed so i will say Floyd never won many fights. He won 49 Boxing matches but the guy isnt a fighter he left his oponents outboxed and frustrated but not really beaten up. And i prefer to watch a fight.

 

By that logic, imagine all fighters were to attempt to win fights via their defence- you would have no fights.

The reason boxing is a noble art is because boxers strive mesh the four categories you mention with equal success. Should one significantly outweigh others, you have an unbalanced fighter who sacrifices his honour by running, holding and fouling for example...

 

When you hear pro judges talk about their way of scoring a fight it always comes down to clean punches landed. The object of the sport is to inflict damage with a punch and the other three criteria, effective aggression, defence and ring generalship are just ways of trying to land or evade a clean punch.

 

Do you get paid for the copious amounts of subversive propaganda you spew effortlessly and religiously on this forum?

Jokes aside :good ... I think you ought to rephrase the question. It is a stronger position to hold that defence is the most important aspect of a fight from a boxer's perspective. But from a scoring perspective (i.e. those elements which will shape the scope of a fight) defence ought not to take such an importance.

 

No you dont.

 

I suppose this depends on the definition of "extremely good round" but lets take an "extremely good round" as a good Mayweather round, for the purpose of example. I.e. potshotting, countering, evasiveness (including running). All skillful stuff.

I would argue that a knockdown would supersede all of the above. Even if it were to happen in the dying moments of a round. You cannot allow the history to define the present in the context of a fight. Take Froch Taylor for example. The referee had to stop the fight regardless of previous proceedings for at that very moment it was deemed that Taylor was out on his feet.

That same precedent dictates that a knockdown (leaving aside the subjectivity involved with how "hard" or "legitimate" that knockdown was) ought to supersede all previous notions of the victim of the said knockdown winning the round...

 

Non of them should ever count (more) than the otheraw. All four are the judges scoring criteria.

Saying that, the fact is still in all of sports, defense WINS championships. In boxing defense shouldn't count more, but it should be the most important..

 

IF the defense is good enough it should stop the opponent landing clean effective shots.


Landing clean effective shots is what we score on, it's boxing.