I break the round up in half. Whoever i feel won the first 1.30 then i see what the other one is like then i try compare who was more impressive in each half. I'm half way through Witter Vs Kotelnik (cheers Kos) and round 5 the first half goes to Kotelnik and the second went to Witter. The overall round went to Witter as he was much better in the second half than Kotelnik was in the first part. I would like to hear how you all score a fight as mine can be hard to split them sometimes and was thinking of changing although i have tried and i always go back to splitting it in 2.
The effects of punches landed and defence. Its all well an good if you fire over 50 jabs per round, but if most of them are glancing blows which do minimal damage, they are not significant.
What a conicidence. I always split rounds up into two as well. I get pissed off when broadcasts of old fights don't have the timer in the corner .
I know what you mean im always looking down for the 1.30 mark to start over again I think its a pretty good way for scoring most fights but the very close rounds can be a **** to score that way.
I split the round into 6 sections each contaning 15 sub-sections. I then score each 2 second long sub-section, discard the upper and lower ten percentile and derive the median average score.
I do three if i think i need to watch it again. I thought i was a in the minority in splitting rounds up :think
Cracking stuff good Sir. I don't see how you can fail to score a fight incorrectly with this formula.
Yep, and to think my thread in the General Forum "Why Jeff Lacy beat Joe Calzaghe by 456.67 points to 345.74" wasn't very well recieved......:nut