Do you priortize effective aggression?

Clean punching for me. If a round is very close for clean punching, then I’ll probably go with the aggressor.

 

According to Steve Weisfeld, most judges just count punches landed.

 

Imagine if judges start prioritising defence. "Why did you give the fight to that guy, he got beat up and didn't throw anything?"......"Yeah, but oh man, he showed some great defense"... .

 

It's a contest to inflict damage. Aggression is primary to that purpose. You aren't just defending yourself from another person. You are trying to actively beat, dominate, and stop them. The most effective defense is to run away from danger, but this is not allowed under the rules of boxing, which dictate that both parties must attempt to defeat each other. This isn't about achieving a moral victory, an intellectual victory, or even achieving a stalemate. It's about physically overpowering your opponent and rendering him incapable of continuing the fight.

 

Effective? Yes. The whole idea there is to make it a fight. But you have to land and be able to control your opponent and the fight.

 

I just go by total damage inflicted.

If "effective aggression" leads to damage, then I do.

 

Effective? Yes. The whole idea there is to make it a fight. But you have to land and be able to control your opponent and the fight.

 

Depends if you want to play safe or take risks. Peter Fury would say no.

 

Nope, I score on all four categories, but I place a slight emphasis on defense because of the lvl of difficulty it requires to execute

Prioritizing effective aggression is one of the main reasons why defensive boxing is becoming more and more obsolete

 

Like said above...as o.long as it's effective.

Too often guys get rounds just for throwing, when not much is landing clean etc...

Harold Ledderman, as long as your coming forward and throwing, it's your round, and that **** drives me crazy, personally...

 

Ask people to score Parker vs Hughie Fury as its a good test of that.

Parker was the only man trying to make a fight, trying to engage. Hughie refusing for the entire fight to engage running backwards, not throwing anything at all other than a range finder jab that was so soft it was not scoring.

Based on the effective aggression, ring generalmanship and more clean punches landed on target Parker won it 118-112. I consider all 4 in my scoring of every round.

However if you listen to some idiotic biased British youtube channels (the private school boy who has a beard to make himself look older, with the private school boy brother for one), then they will tell you Hughie won. Hughie won because he had the better "defence". And by "defence" they mean running away all night, only putting out a very weak jab.

What Hughie does is not boxing, and its not what anyone wants to ever watch. If these "fans" think thats good boxing, then they are liars, they are lying to themselves and to everyone else. If judges reward what Hughie tried to do then the sport will just completely die off, as there is no market for watching two men run away and circling off from each other for 45 minutes.

 

In a close fight Effective aggression should always be a priority...