"Fighter A ran all night!" - 1st off, he probably didn't; 2nd, even if he did, it doesn't mean B won

Wrong the 10 point must system says as much. Ring generalship.

 

It's called hustle, dude. It's the opposite of being a lazy goldbricker. Land your one featherfist tap at 100% accuracy and feel good about yourself for the rest of the round. But I'll be scoring the fight for the guy who threw sixty punches even if he only landed 2. Accuracy means **** all. It's how many times you connect, and how hard you connect. If you can land one in five or one in ten it amounts to the same thing, one punch landed.

It doesn't say anywhere in the rule books that you lose points for trying. "Oh, no, I don't want my efficiency level to drop below 40%. I'd better stick to pot shotting and only throw when it's a sure thing."

Besides, your contention that the guy with the higher connect rate is scoring more sharply is belied by fighters like Tim Bradley, Floyd Mayweather, and Pernell Whitaker who can't crack an egg. People come out of fights against that crew without a mark on them. It wasn't Provodnikov who went to the hospital with a concussion.

You say that high volume punching is a negative but I disagree. If you are throwing a lot, you are a)giving your opponent more to deal with and consequently are that much safer from getting thrown back at and b)many fighters have a great gas tank and can do that all night. It's called swarming and it's just as good a style as boxing from the outside.

 

I agree in most fights, but I'm curious. Are there cases where it's so extreme, that is, a fighter is "running" so much, that you think they might deserve to lose a round? Perhaps where they're not considering engaging at all?

Additionally, sometimes I feel like things have occasionally gone too far to the other extreme. That a fighter is "winning rounds" just because he's evading so effectively, even though he's not actually landing much of anything himself. I thought Saunders' latest fight had a couple rounds like that.

 

This has turned into a useful discussion.

Look, I'll state it upfront: I like sluggers and swarmers and guys that can blast.

IB says I am being prejudiced by applying my preferences as scoring criteria. And, to be fair, to a certain extent he is right. But let's not forget what makes boxing, boxing. It's at it's heart, a celebration of violence. Its a confrontation between two men to see who is the better.

What happens when you get the confrontation taken out of it?

Oh, yeah.

We get these fine fights:

Nelson / De Leon.
Wlad / Fury
Rigo / Agbeko
Taylor / Spinks

Guys, at the end of the day, people pay to watch a fight. If we wanted to watch lawn bowls or chess, we would do that. These stinkeroos are the product of negative fighting and there are many more besides these. Why should boxers that don't want to engage, BE REWARDED? Seriously? That's what will kill the sport.

Don't believe me? I double dare you to watch all 4 these fights back to back and then come tell us all how much you enjoyed them. I'll watch Duran / Moore, Hagler / Hearns, Golovkin / Jacobs, Wlad / Joshua.

The guy taking the risk and pressing the action ought to be rewarded, all other things being equal.

 

If a fighter is obviously going backwards, avoiding combat, while his opponent is obviously going forward seeking combat and there are no punches landed the aggressive fighter gets the round. It's not a fallacy. Defense can be praised but not scored.

 

Lara-Canelo is a good example.

I watched that fight with a few friends. We all thought Lara won and clearly outboxed Canelo, but he did give off the image of "running". I think it's a double-edged sword to be honest. If you master that style, it's extremely effective and makes your opponent look like an idiot. However, it will also likely negatively impact you on the scorecards because you look like you're afraid. I don't think there is a way to fix that or properly address it. It is what it is.

 

I think people automatically identity "aggression" with "forward movement"; and those aren't mutually inclusive concepts. Ali spent a lot of time on the backfoot, but initiated much of the action that took place in the ring-especially in his first reign. If a fighter on the backfoot initiates the action that takes place, through jabbing or feinting, they're the aggressor. If they do so effectively and keep their opponent from throwing or landing anything substantial, then the aggression is effective. Simple as that.

 

These are the rules as I understood them:

When scoring each round, judges are to refer to the Scoring Criteria outlined in the ABC’s Regulatory Guidelines:8

“…. Judges are to score each round using the following scoring criteria:

1. 1. Clean punching (power versus quantity).
   2. This content is protected
   3. Ring generalship.
   4. Defense.”

[...]

It also states:

“Determination should not be mistaken for aggressiveness when one boxer continuously moves forward boring in on the opponent regardless of the number of punches being received. If an attack is not effective, the boxer cannot receive credit for it.

This content is protected

The boxer must score punches while blocking and avoiding the opponents counter punching. An aggressive boxer who continues boring in and getting hit from every angle should not be awarded points based on aggressiveness.”10 (Professional Boxing Judges, Chapter V – Scoring The Bout).

https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/a...ow-professional-boxing-s-scoring-system-works

Seems to me that there is a definite and unarguable bias towards aggression in the rules themselves. The rules clearly favour an aggressive fighter that makes the fight. The rules even go so far as to caution the scorer from weighing aggression too heavily in scoring if the aggressor is getting panel beaten by counter punches.

But that's not what we're talking about here.

What we're talking about is whether aggression should be rated at all, if all things are equal.

With respect, I think the rules clearly state that it is.

 

@IntentionalButt

Fighter A lands 7 jabs, none of them snapping Fighter B's head back. Fighter B is the aggressor, throws and misses tons, and lands only 2 punches, but they're both power shots. Fighter A's head doesn't snap back, but you know they're flush power shots from the sound. Neither guy feels any ill effects. Who do you score the round to?