Defense is the most important thing in scoring boxing, what is the second ?

What is the point of having this criteria and any level of weighting when the people scoring don't have to actually justify how they saw it.

It's useless unless scorecards actually have scored categories for each. In theory how a fight should be scored makes sense, but we have no actual proof they are being scored this way.

Like getting a report card for all your classes and you get one single grade: C

Math
Science
English
etc.

Makes no damn sense.

 

I find ring generalship easy to score but most dont really have a grasp of what it is. Whoever is in control of the fight. Look at lara vs canelo. Both lara and canelo started out boxing. After giving up 3 rounds canelo down 3-0 was forced to adjust or be content on being outboxed. Lara forced canelo to be more aggressive. He was in control. That is ring generalship. Many dont understand this.

 

I thought it was dick size.

 

A good example of ring generalship is SRL vs Hagler. With SRL showing great ring generalship.

Also Tank Davis showed good ring generalship against Romero.

That being said I think clean punching is the most important for winning a fight.

Second is ring generalship tied in with defense. I don’t score defense as a single item.

 

Wilder wouldn’t have gotten ktfo twice if he had defense.

 

lol@MVC trying to polish Floyd up again

 

I've always sort of found defense in scoring to be redundant

If a guy has clean effective punching and effective aggression it means the other guy didnt have defense and vice versa

I just go by whoever landed the better, cleaner, and more damaging punches

Sometimes a guy with less damaging punches can so severely out land the guy with the quality but I feel I more often than not score the quality over quantity unless the disparity is massive and the quantity guy tends to be the ring general

 

Running, Clinching, intimate hugging..

 

Yup, the way I see it. Defense scores by not allowing the opponent to score on offense.

 

What I don't understand is why it matters who the ring general is. If Canelo had to start pressuring Lara because he was outboxing him in the center of the ring why does Lara get credit for that? Let's do a hypothetical using this fight as an example. Lets say Lara won those first 3 rounds. He was the better boxer. Canelo was forced to adjust and now Canelo is pressuring on the front foot. That makes Lara the ring general, But Canelo is now landing more punches. Who wins the round, the guy landing more or the ring general? Does Canelo not get credit for adjusting? One of the criteria's for what makes a good boxer great is the ability to adjust. So Is Lara getting points for ring generalship, or is Canelo getting credit for adjusting?

 

You can defend for the entire 12 rounds but if the other guy is landing shots and you aren't, you will lose.

 

Bwahahaha the one thing in life they r dedicated too

 

Whoever lands the most punches is winning.

 

It doesn't matter who the ring general is, in fact that is not a facet of how judges score fights. All this ring general manship, effective aggression non of that is in the criteria for judges at ringside.
The rule for scoring is attack, defence and all them been equal style.
It's not very often a fight has to be judged on style except when attacks and defensive prowess are inseperable from each opponent. Which isn't very often.
That's the rules.