And to win on points you typically give the round to the guy who did the most physical damage. It's kind of an unwritten rule in professional boxing that the guy who stuns his opponent wins the round.
If one guy happens to ever be put in serious trouble, sure, that does and should influence scores. What if neither is noticeably stunned? Or both are, repeatedly? Most rounds of boxing - probably well in excess of 90% don't contain an "oh ****, he's on Queeeer St. now!" moment. So you fall back on the 4 pillars. Which nobody seems to understand.
being aggressive isn't a substitute for ACTUALLY damaging your opponent. You don't get "effort points".
...if Russell Westbrook is ball hogging and has a bad shooting night with 3 makes on 20 chucks, the stats and scoreboard will only reflect him getting 6-9 (give or take free throws) pts. Boxing should be no different. Only effectiveness should be rewarded.
Thank you!!!!!!! Yeah, he's defense was great. He was slipping and able to avoid most of the upstair shots, but he was getting nailed to the body - and usually in 3,4 shot combinations. Maybe if he threw more, it'd offset that offensive work by Canelo like Lara did in the earlier rounds, but he wasn't doing enough offensively once the fight moved on.
I saw it and scored it the exact same way. An argument could be made it was a draw, but he didn't lose to Lara. Lara's accuracy was still on point late but his output dropped precipitously. I personally think Trout did better than Lara, without the KD I would have had Trout winning the match 7-5, and I gave him the round he was knocked down in.
I agree that Lara was running and not just boxing defensively. It makes me sick to my stomach, since it's the antithesis of everything I believe boxing to be about. But I still had Lara winning. Canelo was just too clueless and ineffective. He needs to learn how to cut off a ring and trap people in corners. Khan was making him look basic too, before that crumple punch. Whoever said that Lara didn't show ring generalship should look again. He was in the driver's seat for 36 minutes, even though he was in reverse. Canelo would just follow him around the ring like a lost puppy dog. Canelo never forced Lara to go anywhere. He didn't dictate the slow ass pace. That was Lara. He didn't set any traps. If you dictate the pace and style of the fight and where it takes place then you are showing ring generalship. I could see people giving the fight to Lara just based on that. I would call Lara's style passive dominance. He does almost nothing to make people afraid to engage him, and yet they are.
You don't have to score them all equally. I'd put effective aggression ahead of defense or ring generalship. Sometimes I do wonder about the criteria people use. I've seen fights where the winner went to the hospital and the loser didn't have a mark on him. Think Tim Bradley or Chris Algieri vs Provodnikov. Just touching a guy shouldn't be enough to win. This isn't tag and not all punches are created equal, but a lot of the time they'll be scored that way. I've scored the the Leonard vs Hagler fight both ways. Hagler was trying to hurt Leonard and knock him out while Leonard was trying to win points. Somtimes, the judging criteria is being purposefully exploited, like Leonard did with those meaningless flurries at the end of rounds. It makes me long for the days of finish fights. Back then, if a guy couldn't crack an egg he couldn't be a champion.
I don't expect every fight to be Gatti vs Ward I. I just hope every fight will be. My feelings wouldn't be hurt if they made a few rule changes to push things in that direction, say more penalized clinching or stalling?
Clinching ought to be punished harshly, yes, along with rabbit punches, low blows, anything illegal. Having a "boring" style predicated on low-output, defense-emphasizing point-scoring isn't and shouldn't be illegal.
Ring generalship seems to be more about style and body language nowadays. Dirrel/Froch was one of those fights. That's not how I view things.