I hope this makes sense as a question. I'm looking for what (if anything) has changed in the average judge over time. If I time traveled and kidnapped three judges one from the 1920s, one from the 1950s and the last one from the 1980s and forced them to watch a boxing match, would they all be looking for the same things a judge from 2026 would be? If not, what would be different and what was the cause of this change in judging preference?
I think judges or referees(who were often scoring) would have appreciated defensive fighters less because it would be contrary to what was seen as trying to win. When judging started the idea of winning fights much less titles by decision was controversial. They were solving the problem of what would have otherwise been an unresolved contest. Most fights were 10 rounds(or less) and it wasn't realistic for stoppages to happen a lot of the time but that was what fighters were supposed to doing. No one's showing up to a 4 rounder to see fighters dance. And I think this is reflected in the number of draws you see which probably do not come anywhere close to meeting the modern definition of a "draw". You also see many citations on box rec for fighters getting DQ'd for "not trying". Something that almost never happens today. Were yesterday's fighters just a chaotic melodramatic bunch or do those words mean something else. At the start you didn't have a formal judging system much less one everyone agreed on. But points weren't generally deducted for KD's. So that changes quite a bit.
I’d say the two things that may have changed in judging in my lifetime are: 1) The ‘champion’s edge’ — you needed to pretty much dominate the champ or stop him to win the title if you go back to the 1970s or farther. Champs mostly got the benefit of the doubt on close rounds and retained by decision based on the ‘you have to take the title’ unwritten rule. Today most people think a challenger barely edging the champ should get the decision and win the championship but that wasn’t how people looked at it back in the day. 2) Aggression was more rewarded in previous generations — judges favored the guy who ‘made the fight’ and more often sided with the guy coming forward even if he wasn’t particularly effective at it.
I believe you would see the older era judges lean towards aggression, who is making the fight. They would more likely penalize the fighter who is clinching. Body punching would possibly be more respected back in the day. A more modern judge might favor the elusive fighter who stay behind their jab. They may use their legs more to avoid exchanges. Fighting the amateur style, flurrying at the end of the rounds. The fans would boo the amateur style boxer out of the ring anytime before 1960. Today he would not only get praise for outclassing his opponent he could even win the decision.