Scoring aggression in boxing...

Because you won't win that way. Also the referee won't allow it. One or both fighters will have to try to land punches however imo you shouldn't be awarded for ineffective aggression unless the opponent is not trying to land punches.

#

They will be awarded if they are effective. Sounds fair to me.

A counter puncher is also taking a risk btw.

 

Yes. This. "Its easy to make a guy miss if you aren't trying to land any punches yourself." Some people award points to fighters for how many shots they can make their opponent miss, not how many they personally landed. Their calculus goes "He landed 2 but he dodged 5." Dodging punches is viewed as a positive while missing punches is viewed as a negative. "He only landed 2 out of 7, sloppy?"

People love how accurate Mayweather's punching is. That's one of the criteria they choose to give him rounds for, but who cares how many punches you miss if you land the same and do similar damage? If a fighter only lands 10 percent of his punches and the other lands 100 percent, but their connects are the same, shouldn't they be even? To award a round to the more accurate fighter is to penalize swarmers and volume punchers while rewarding outside counter punchers. Marciano had shitty technique but he was effective. He used to throw punches in bunches and the punches that didn't land would maybe set up one that would. He was losing a lot of the fights we know him for on points before he knocked his opponents out. It's a different mindset, the KO artist from the point scorer.

 

Agression should be awarded,the annoying thing is when a fighter is head first into the jab or 1-2 all night,not landing himself and is awarded for it.tex cobb would be an atg by that reconing

 

Im all for aggression.and a fighter running all night isnt what you u want to pay money to see.but if a fighter runs forward not landing,how can you win a boxing match without landing any leather ?
I loved hagler,and as much as id love to call hagler leonard for him,i seriously cant see how theres any argument for it not being a leonard win.hagler may havd hurt leonard more,he might of had rounds were leonard was in trouble,but scoring it round by round,leonard won by at least 2 rounds and thats being subjective.
As theres no argument hearns won the 2nd leonard fight.and no matter were your judging it from unless you cant see the fight there is zero argument.
Yet certain fighters will be classed as not so good if they list a fight on paper,or even lost a razor thin decision.best thing is to trust your eyes instead of bert sugars or hbo etc

 

If the fighter coming forward forces the opponent to constantly be on the defensive, never able to reset when he wants to, unable to plant his feet and forced to throw his punches off the backfoot, therefore taking away a lot of their pop, and also making him expend energy and gradually getting tired... then these are signs that the aggression is effective. It's not about landing clean effective punches which is it's own category.

 

I see your point , but how does one score a fight were fighter (A) throws 800 punches and lands 150, fighter (B) throws 500 punches and lands 200 punches? In my opinion the defensive skill needs to be scored above the offensive aggression.

This thread opens up an interesting perspective on judging and scoring fights. You can see how people feel differently about what to look for and what to score. Judging can't be easy. We as fans have the luxury of replay and rewind, something that judges don't have.

 

This makes sense, but if you use chess as an example, well then your theory holds no water at all. I would argue that boxing is more like chess than tennis. You can set traps, you can opt to be defensive and offensive, lay in wait for your opponent to make a mistake, use their aggression against them or wait to see their plan of attack and then decide how to approach. Boxers can do the same thing. The toughest chess players to beat are the defensive minded ones. They just play smart and wait for you to make a mistake and BAM... your queen is gone, then you're in check mate.

 

Yeah, but it's when they are not getting worked that they deserve to be judged winning.
If the guy who is retreating and stalling is landing nothing too, the aggressor should win by default.

 

All things being equal in a round, I believe the person who lands the more damaging punches should win. Judges need to be taught what that means. There is a big difference between rolling with a right hand and taking one as you step in. The guy on the back foot has it a bit easier to land clean, damaging punches as his opponent comes in.If you are going to go chasing a guy to the ropes and you take a pasting doing it, you have a bad game plan, or it all you can do. It's on you to work on the inside and make your way back into the round. Since you are on your inside the punch output is going to increase anyway. If you are throwing more punches but landing equal numbers I tend to prefer the more efficent guy.

Just my 2 cents

 

I totally get your point, but what if one fighter isn't a power puncher? He outlands his opponent 3-1 and gets rocked with a shot, does he lose the round? If he does lose the round because he got rocked, is that a fair assessment of how well he did in the round? What if one fighter has a weak chin or his opponent has a great chin or his opponent has above average power? Is it really fair to give the round to the guy that just hit harder or has a better chin?

 

U mean Provodnikov?

To me boxing is price fighting and best fighter probably has great boxing skills as well, but maybe not the best. Power, chin, speed, gut and toughness are attributes that are more or less needed if you become the best.

So yes, Ruslan should be awarded if he is able to absorb 30-40 slap shots a round and still is able to hurt (possibly rock) his opponent with his 10 punches a round.