Scoring aggression in boxing...

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by TinFoilHat, Feb 22, 2017.


  1. BCS8

    BCS8 VIP Member

    60,030
    80,047
    Aug 21, 2012
    Yup agree with this and also agree that clean, hard shots trump nothing glancing blows.

    It's why Hopkins / Calzaghe was hard to score. Calzaghe clearly landed a lot more punches, but Hopkins was the guy doing the damage.
     
    pincai likes this.
  2. Gneus7

    Gneus7 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,277
    495
    Mar 29, 2007
    I score primarily on number of punches landed, quality of punches landed, and effectiveness/quality of defense.

    I only really score aggression if the other guy is trying to avoid engaging. If neither guy is landing but one of them is at least attempting to land whilst the other is just trying to run and hold then I will score for the aggressor/against the other fighter.

    If one guy is being aggressive and pressuring his opponent while the other is boxing on the back foot, drawing their opponent on to create oppenings and throwing counter punches then I will just score based on the effectiveness of each their chosen tactics. If they are equally effective, even round.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2017
  3. Gneus7

    Gneus7 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,277
    495
    Mar 29, 2007
    This is what good defensive fighters do.

    The same can be said for aggression.
     
  4. shadow111

    shadow111 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    22,953
    9,799
    Aug 1, 2012
    Because all things aren't equal in boxing. Fighters capabilities, dimensions and athleticisim determine what their style is. Whether they are brawlers or counter punchers. Whether they choose to take that risk to be aggressive depends on who they are. If Brandon Bam Bam Rios tried to fight like Floyd Mayweather, he wouldn't win rounds. It just wouldn't work. He's got to be that brawler because that's his best chance to win a round.

    So it's too complex of a calculation to just say the aggressor is the one taking the risk. Was Mike Tyson taking a risk by coming forward and being aggressive, or was his opponent taking a bigger risk by trying to outbox and counter punch him. Ever seen Tyson - Bonecrusher Smith?? Neither Tyson or Smith were able to land any really big punches the entire fight. It was generally seen as one of Tyson's more boring fights, but it was also quite fascinating.

    I think there's got to be visable seperation for someone to win a round. Otherwise it should be scored even. The idea that close rounds should go to the aggressor as a general rule of thumb is wrong, but there are times where if a round is close enough the guy being the aggressor can win the round. Also even rounds can occur when no one lands anything OR when both guys land significant punches and it's too hard to choose. For someone to win a round they need to do something impressive. Either make someone miss impressively like Willie Pepp or land the most memorable punch in a round. Or dominate the round with a piston-like jab, or be the only one to get inside land body punches while the other guy is just throwing a lazy jab the entire round.

    To win a round, you really need to separate yourself from your opponent. There’s not really a list of priorities as to what is more important, whether it’s # of significant / quality punches, whether it’s total number of punches landed, whether it’s parrying punches or making a guy miss, it depends on the individual fight you are watching and how the two fighters match up style-wise. Being the aggressor can be more risky and should be rewarded, but only if it results in something impressive during a round, like quality punches landed, ability to slip jabs with head movement, etc. Something needs to happen that’s impressive for someone to win a round. The aggressor shouldn’t just win close rounds because he’s the aggressor. It’s about there being clear distinct separation between the two fighters in a round. If it’s too close, or you’re not sure, scoring it even should always be considered, because chances are they’ll be other rounds with more separation where you can confidently choose a winner.
     
  5. BCS8

    BCS8 VIP Member

    60,030
    80,047
    Aug 21, 2012
    You make some good points, admittedly.

    But do us a favour, watch this fight and tell us whether rounds should be awarded for aggression and how you scored each round :)

    This content is protected
     
  6. BCS8

    BCS8 VIP Member

    60,030
    80,047
    Aug 21, 2012
    What, nobody volunteering to render an opinion on De Leon / Nelson?

    The first couple of rounds are kinda slow, but the action soon becomes a brutal slugfest that puts Cooper/ Mercer to shame!

    The perfect fight to judge whether aggression ought to be encouraged or not.

    You can trust me :devil-king:
     
  7. OvidsExile

    OvidsExile At a minimum, a huckleberry over your persimmon. Full Member

    34,994
    37,604
    Aug 28, 2012
    You know, I'm with you in scoring aggression for the most part, but there's another dimension to this which is scoring damage. There are guys who can't crack an egg but who box rings around their opponents, like say Pernell Whitaker, Timothy Bradley, Ivan Calderon, or Tommy Loughran. They can hit their opponent a lot more times than they get hit, but does it really hurt them? Should that count, if all it does is keep their opponent at bay? I hear this a lot at the end of fights. One guys face is all messed up, and the other looks like he just went for a jog, but the guy with the messed up face wins the fight. After their fight, Tim Bradley went to the hospital and Provodnikov went to the casino.

    Whitaker is an even better example. He never hurt a fly, but he was obviously one of the most skilled boxers of all time. Does that mean nothing if he doesn't hurt his opponents? If he could never finish them? My recollection of the De La Hoya fight was that Whitaker was making a fool out of Oscar and generally clowning him, doing some crazy accrobatics. He might have touched him a few times with a jab, but no way was he hurting the much larger De La Hoya. Can you give the fight to Whitaker for being as elusive as the wind, recognizing the crazy skills it must take to be that unhittable, to even stand in the ring with someone that much bigger and stronger for ten rounds and not get completely annihilated?

    Or lets take a more recent example, where the skill level was quite a bit lower. Brian Vera outlanded Julio Cesar Chavez Jr quite a lot in their first fight, but he didn't get the decision. It might have been because Chavez Jr. was the star and they had bad judging, or they might have been persuaded that Vera's punches didn't mean anything whereas Chavez Jr.'s punches hurt Vera. But if that's the case, why have that contest at all? A weak fighter would have no path to victory. Then again, if you can't hurt your opponents, maybe you just shouldn't be a boxer to begin with.

    You kind of want to say something for those physical specimens who can take insane levels of punishment and shrug it off like it was nothing, those rare freaks like George Chuvalo or Jake LaMotta who would be undefeated if every fight was 50 rounds long. They might not land anything for the first twenty rounds but when you got tired they'd walk you down in the thirtieth and knock you out. If all fights were to the finish the geography of our sport would be very different.

    Anyway, that was just a thought I had, 'cause I'm watching Francisco Rodriguez vs Katsunari Takayama and at the beginning it looks like Rodriguez is landing harder shots while Takayama is landing more shots. I'm not scoring it, but I wonder how I would, if I did.

    You know, this isn't boxing, but there was a fight in kickboxing fifteen years ago between two heavyweights Ernesto Hoost vs Bob Sapp. Ernesto Hoost was one of the greatest kickboxers ever and Bob Sapp was a clumsy roid head, but he bombed Hoost out in the least skilled display of aggression I've ever seen (worse than Freddie Mills horse****). I mean, he wasn't throwing real punches at one point. Sapp was just swinging his arms like clubs and hammers, it was surreal, but he was just so much bigger than Hoost that the dude was overwhelmed. We want to devolve this sport down to a contest of skills, but so often we ignore the physical dimension of what's happening. We treat one punch like another when they really aren't.

    I mean, you can put me in a cage with a tiger for half an hour and if I walk out of there unscathed that's pretty ****ing impressive on my part, but did I really beat the tiger or did I just survive the tiger? Isn't the tiger the real winner, even though he barely does anything and I'm fighting frantically for my life the whole time? The tiger was never in any actual danger. It's a philosophical question, I guess.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2017
  8. icarus1

    icarus1 Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,574
    47
    Nov 27, 2010
    bottom line is boxing is like a war. the winner ultimately should be the one that inflicts the most damage. defense is only applied for self-preservation and to launch a counter-attack. a very defensive minded boxer cannot win a war because he/she does not inflict damage. cheating is the worst as not only cowardly but destroys the essence of the sport with players as sportsmen. and taking too much undue advantage is tantamount to bullying (like a first world country using nukes against a third world country) and negates the sports rule of fair play which is one reason they set weight classes.
     
  9. Gneus7

    Gneus7 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,277
    495
    Mar 29, 2007
    It can be difficult or even impossible to know who did more damage in a round though.

    I also think that some guys might win rounds because they are simply bigger/more muscular/have a reputation as a bigger puncher. People will put more stock in that guys punches even if neither guys shots really did much damage.
     
  10. Radrook

    Radrook Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,923
    917
    Feb 24, 2017
    This reminds me of this chubby Mexican American fighter who fought Larry Holmés during Larry Holme's comeback attempt. All the guy did was move jab and block while taking a pummeling to the midsection. He lasted the full twelve rounds and after the bell rang he shouted:

    "Ï did I! I did it!!"
     
  11. Radrook

    Radrook Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,923
    917
    Feb 24, 2017
    I saw a fight where all the boxer did during the whole twelve rounds was flee. He even had rope burns on his back as he slide along trying to escape. He wasn't even firing back. Yet he won via a unanimous decision.
    His corner men were smirking as the fight ended and one whispered something in his ear and he smiled broadly. Seems as if the judges were bought. Seen too many of those. Must be frustrating to hear such a decision when you know you won. Ken Norton bawled like a baby when he was robbed against Ali.
     
  12. dangerousity

    dangerousity Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,253
    2,301
    Jan 4, 2005
    I'll get back to you on the rest later but the philosophy stands. The person jumping into the fire is the one taking the risk, no matter what.

    And to answer your question, yes mike Tyson is the one taking the risk by being the aggressor, he literally is walking towards punches and dodging them. It's just so happens he's so good he can walk into the fire and still win. Bone crusher smith was avoiding risk by backing off, it just so happens the gap in their skill was so vast Tyson still kick his ass, if bonecrusher jumped into the fire, he would have got ko'd even sooner, which proves my point further. If bone crusher walks away and Tyson backs away, there is no fight.

    This is as simple as it gets. As a counterpuncher, I hate fighting other counterpuncher, it forces me to initiate forcing me out of my comfort zone and into the firing range. I'm taking the risk. I'd be much more comfortable if he came at me. Now if my natural disposition is to be a come forward fighter, it doesn't change things, I'm still taking more risk, I just happen to be good at it.
     
    BCS8 likes this.
  13. YesMySon

    YesMySon Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,997
    13
    Aug 12, 2015
    aggression doesnt cause damage, punches do.

    some people give rounds to guys for walking forward and missing while getting worked.
     
  14. shadow111

    shadow111 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    22,953
    9,799
    Aug 1, 2012
    When I get a chance I'll sit down and watch the entire fight and generate a scorecard and I'll get back to you. I haven't seen that fight, so thanks for sharing.
     
  15. BCS8

    BCS8 VIP Member

    60,030
    80,047
    Aug 21, 2012
    Oh, man. I can't do this to ya.

    It's a terrible fight with no action. I was being "clever", trying to prove a point.

    Don't do it.