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

defense is more on self preservation. scoring is for effectiveness in punch landed. when both players have not landed a good punch then it goes to other criteria until it becomes a warning from the ref when the players fail to fight (there is no warning for failure to defend,lol) which often becomes biased or corrupted since there is no 10-10 score..

 

I am sure it has been said already but essentially clean punching is the primary way of scoring fights. Ring generalship, effective aggression, and defense cannot be compartmentalized as scoring criteria on their own. They are only factors that affect one's ability to land cleanly.

 

Boxing is about who can inflict the most damage, with a knockout the ultimate goal. If this doesn't occur then you measure the damage caused by a mix of shots landed and the perceived impact of these shots. What you suggest would change the accepted definition of boxing. You're a maverick, MVC.

Out of interest, when scoring a fight, do you use the accepted criteria for scoring or your own?

 

Absolutely, that was what I immediately thought, just not that deeply.:thumbsup

 

I agree- I was using an extreme example (within boxing) of preceding events not mattering in the face of one which supersedes said event- in this case it was the stoppage.

It was an example, not to show equivalency or similarity between a knockdown and knockout, but to illustrate that events in boxing ought to supersede each other to allow it to simply be a competition. Hence a knockdown ought to mean you win the round even in the face of previously being "dominated" in the round.

 

Most championships in any sport are won on defense. Boxing is no exception, just ask Floyd.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G928A using Tapatalk

 

No. Boxing is won on offense. Rounds are won on punches scored not punches blocked. Defense is only a means of negating and setting up offense. Floyd does that with counters.

 

The hell is this nonsense? Fighting is fighting and the best victories are where a fightet makes his opponent succumb to his will or stops him from continuing the fight. Damage is what counts the most. The aim of good defence should be to put you in a better position to do more damage to the opponent I.e counter punching.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

 

Slipping punches should be considered more or equal scoring to landing a good effective punch?

And judging should take place post fight?

Hahahahahahahahahahha

Live judging is flawed but your ideas would essentially suck all of the excitement out of boxing

Ladies and gentlemen please check the PBC Website in 5 days for the result of this fight

 

A touchdown gets more points than a field goal
A try gets more points than a penalty
A 1-0 win gets more points than a 0-0 draw

This is sport, when all is said and done if risk pays off that should get the biggest reward

Slip and avoid all the punches you want but only as a means to an end, and that is to land clean telling punches

Jesus it's so simple.....it is the essence of sport

 

MVC, that is some dedication. I take it you don't score many fights then due to time constraints?

Live scoring does have it's draw backs. So much can be missed and i often find judging to be lazy i.e. automatically scoring a 10-8 for a round with a kd in. Scoring for aggression in a close round when the aggression isn't effective. However, were as your suggestion of a panel decide post fight would be more accurate, the time taken to decide would take away the atmosphere and exciting from the fight. How long after would the score be announced? 30 minutes? 1 hour? The next day?

Going by your criteria i can understand why you rate Mayweather so highly.

 

In football, a win gets 3 points and a draw only 1 point. That rule was created to encourage teams to try to look for a win.

In every single sport the rules try to encourage offense.

 

Solid post, agreed