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

Certainly a boxer should prioritize it but who knows how to score defense. Ring generalship above clean effective punching I don't like. Most seem to judge ring generalship as style. Hell, Dirrell got robbed against Froch because the judges didn't like how he fought. All of the clean punches was from Dirrell in that fight, didn't mean a damn thing to those corrupt and incompetent judges. There was another fighter that would do a lot of boasting in the ring, got docked points for it despite landing more clean punches.

 

I agree with your wobbly legged scenario as that is different from a knockdown.

I agree to with your definition of a knockout but we are discussing knockdowns.

An ****ogy may like a football match where possession and shots on target may be overwhelmingly in one sides favour (these being punches landed etc.) but the other side has one shot on target and scores (a knockdown). Whether the victory is warranted is in itself a different question.

 

In boxing, defense exists because of aggression and not the other way around. The basic, most natural way of boxing, is the slugfest. KO is still the most appreciated form of victory.

 

The only way to score points in a fight is to land punches. Why would you win a round for avoiding punches?

 

If you have a weak chin and get knocked down you're not that good boxer.

Having an iron chin is an important element of boxing defense.

Your logic would reward fighters with pathetic china chins

 

To be fair, that is absurd. I have seen boxers dominate a round, get knocked down and then lose the round 10-8. It is lazy judging which happens far too much these days.

It is as bad as scoring a round 10-9 for someone just because they walked forward more in a round. That is aggression, but it is not effective aggression.

 

I don't think you can compare the two as the criteria for determining who wins a round and whether to stop a fight or not are different.

Who wins a round is based on what happened in that three minute round. Stopping a fight (in the Froch v Taylor example) is based on whether you think Taylor is capable of defending himself in that particular moment.

 

I think you missed ****Bandits point. Whilst you don't necessarily get directly awarded points for good defence, you do get indirectly awarded for it because a good defense means that you receive less clean punches. However, you still need to land your own shots to win a round.

It is like i said earlier, good defense, ring generalship and effective aggression all lead to you landing more of your own clean punches and evading more of your opponents clean punches. These all play a part in the aspect of boxing that should be the ultimate deciding factor in a fight; who landed the most clean punches and done the most damage.

 

Having a good chin, whilst always a plus in a fight, shouldn't factor in scoring. Getting hit on that iron chin shows a lack of defense and it means that your opponent landed a clean punch.

Also, chin is a physical attribute. You don't score points directly to a fighter because he hits harder or is quicker or has better stanima. Yes, these physical attributes will play a part in the fight (i.e. a heavier handed fighter stands more chance of hurting his opponent or a fighter with poor stanima might become less aggressive or have a more leaky defense as the fight wears on), but these attributes are not directly scored for.

 

Iron chin is just as much an element of defense like having good reflexes. Both are heavily genetic. An iron chin fighter could take a punch or two to land his punches, just like a fighter with quick reflexes can take more risks. I don't know why you would value one more over the other.

 

This idiot gets a rise out of trolling this forum.

Obviously if defense took precedent over every other scoring criteria, there wouldn't be people interested in watching it.
Its why the scoring criteria is different in the pros than it is in the amatuers.

Why the hell do you think Olympic boxing is not longer televised in the United States by the networks carrying the Olympics?
Because nobody cares about watching rounds being scored 3 punches to 1.
The advertising dollar no longer sponsors boxing in the Olympics because nobody cares about it.

As far as pro boxing is concerned, most judges will place good value on defense as long as the fighter displaying the good defense, also is displaying an acceptable form of offense.

If judges are not placing value on defense, how do you explain Mayweather getting decisions over Castillo, Delahoya, and Maidana.
Obviously defense is being incorporated in the scoring criteria.

 

I just award the win to whoever's more slick and black.

It's easier for all concerned.

 

Sounds like Olympic karate or something.

Defence is all well and good but it creates for borefests like Floyd and Andre w.

Would you prefer to watch ward v gatti (100% aggression) or Floyd v anyone

I know which way I would go. I ever bother watching any Andre w fights its painful to get through.

 

Defense is kind of redundant in the criteria

If a fighter has no clean effective punching or ineffective aggression that means the other fighter was defensively sound

Probably could cut it to clean effective punching and ring generals hip

Who landed the best or more effective shots and who dictated the fight

Defense and effective aggression are reflected by the other 2 categories

 

Agreed

All categories are very important but at the end of the day, if you do not have an aggressor then you do not have a fight

No aggressor means that a defensive fighter cannot show off his defence, cannot show off his counter punching

So if the aggressor is being effective and landing clean punches then that should be rewarded more so than someone being very defensive and trying to avoid engagement for large parts of the round

If the aggressor is landing little and falling into traps then of course he should not be rewarded

**** just noticed who the OP is lol........clearly a bait post lol