Revising Methods Of Scoring

Ok, one change to the original question:

Hatton manages to land one punch.

Basically what i'm trying to get at is how much empahsis is placed on punches landed.

With your answer, assume either jab or power punch.

 

Easy enough to adjust:

Clean Effective Punching
Hatton - 1 (landed one more shot than Floyd)
Mayweather - 0 (didn't throw)

Effective aggression
Hatton - 0 (Hatton ineffective during his initial flurry, then fighting scared)
Mayweather - 1 (backing Hatton up with feints)

Ring generalship
Hatton - 0 (constantly reacting and positioning himself according to Floyd's plan)
Mayweather - 1 (making Hatton react and dictating the ring position of both)

Defense
Hatton - 0 (didn't have any punches to dodge, so you can't credit him wit a point for defense)
Mayweather - 1 (picked off Hatton's early shots).

Of a possible 4 points for each opponent, the final tally is 3-1 in Floyd's favor. Without even landing a punch.

 

Great post Butt. It seems it all boils down to the men and women judging the bout. It is awfully hard to tell whether certain shots land flush or hit leather, etc. What one judge sees or computes, doesn't necessarily reflect what another judge saw. I can respect that.....we're all human. Unfortunately the same goes for styles and tactics. It seems some judges just won't reward certain tactics or don't recognize their efficacy, and that comes down to a preference. That I do not respect. They are supposed to be impartial, and when they do that it means they are anything but. I have seen many ideas on how to rectify the problem, such as more judges ringside and a combined card that officially awards the round based on a consensus of the sitting judges. They seem like usable ideas. I like the idea of bumping up the amount of judges and spreading them out so as to have every angle covered by someone. That and curtail the idea of preference of style when scoring. Have a uniform philosophy, if not judgment when scoring a fight.

 

Here's excerpts from a chapter on the subject from Jack Dempsey's book "Championship Fighting - Explosive Punching and Aggressive Defense":

25. How to Watch a Fight
Before you sit down to watch the fight, decide which boxer should win or which one you hope will win. That should help to give you a rooting interest. However, do not let that rooting interest cause you to make a mistake that is common to most fans and many officials. Because of their interest in one of the fighters, they watch the scrap only from H-I-S angle. They watch the punches he lands or receives. Their eyes unconsciously see the action as follows: "Brown landed two left jabs to the mouth. Brown was hit by a left hook to the body. Brown landed a right to the cheek. Brown ducked under a left hook, etc." Instead, they should be seeing the action like this: "Brown landed two left jabs to the mouth. Green landed a left hook to the body. Brown landed a right to the cheek. Green missed with a left hook to the head." The big secret of correct fight-watching is this: keep your eyes and your attention focused on both men-not on just one. If you watch from the angle of one fighter, it's almost certain that you'll overestimate his performance without realizing it. You'll unconsciously emphasize the punches he lands and minimize the number and effectiveness of his opponent's blows. Watch both men, even though you strongly favor one of them.

When the action starts-when the gong sends them out of their corners-note the physical appearance of each. Does the appearance of your favorite bear out his pre-fight descriptions, or does his opponent seem more formidable? Note immediately their fighting styles. Are their styles similar or do they contrast sharply? Are both upright boxers, or does either use the semi-crouch or the low bob-weave? Which one is pressing forward-forcing the fight? That's important; for in a close contest the aggressor usually is the winner. However, if the aggressor fails to land his punches and is hit with counterblows, his forcing them is a handicap instead of an advantage. Which one appears to have the superior left jab? Is he using it merely to "paint" with, or is he jabbing solidly enough to snap back his opponent's head and knock him off balance? Is his opponent blocking or slipping those jabs, and is the opponent countering them with jabs, right crosses, or body smashes? Which has the superior left hook? How is he using it? Is he keeping it short enough to be explosive? Is it accurate, or is his opponent bobbing beneath it or stepping inside it? If neither principal is a knockout specialist, the one who is more effective with the left jab and left hook probably will win.

Has each enough confidence in his own punching ability and ruggedness to engage the other in toe-to-toe exchanges? Or, does the lighter puncher shrewdly avoid exchanges by left-jabbing or by footwork or by covering up when the slugger is bombarding him? It's folly for a comparatively light puncher to permit himself to be lured into exchanges with an explosive hitter. However, when the slugger's barrage has ceased, the lighter puncher must begin an immediate attack upon the slugger-before the latter can get set for another bombardment.

If both scrappers are willing to fight it out in exchanges, the bout should be thrilling. Watch the early exchanges closely; for what happens in them may indicate the ultimate winner. Does one appear to be hitting with more speed, accuracy and power in the exchanges than the other? Is he "rocking" his opponent, knocking him sideways or back onto his heels? Is he hurting his opponent not only "upstairs" but also in the body? Has either begun to bleed from the brow, cheek or mouth? Note carefully when either man is hit hard enough to be staggered. There's a big difference between being "rocked" and being "staggered." When a fighter is rocked, he is knocked violently off balance-backward or sideways; but he still has complete mental and physical control when he recovers his balance. When he's staggered, he loses temporary mental and physical control-in varying degrees. Usually his knees sag and he becomes "rubber-legged" as he lurches about the ring. If a fighter is staggered, watch closely to see how badly he is hurt. Can he raise his arms for protection? Can he see his opponent and try to fall into a clinch with him, to give the groggy mind a chance to clear? Make up your mind about the staggered man's condition in a split-second; for his opponent will be after him quickly for "the kill"-for the knockout. Often one solid shot to the chin will floor a staggered fighter for the full count of ten. Others can quickly shake off the effects of a staggering punch, and can regain control soon enough to defend themselves before being nailed again. An experienced boxer will remain down for the count of eight or nine, so that his head will have time to clear before he rises to face his confident opponent. If the floored man fails to regain his feet before the count of ten, he loses the bout on a knockout. Or, if he has been knocked through the ring ropes and he fails to re-enter the ring before the count of ten, he also loses on a kayo. If a staggered and helpless fighter is being battered mercilessly by his opponent, the referee has complete authority to intervene and stop the bout in order to save the groggy man from injury, even though he still is on his feet. The groggy man loses on a technical knockout.

During the fight, watch closely whether either contestant is using rough tactics-thumbing in the eye, heeling an opponent's face with the glovelaces on the palm of his hand, butting with the head, or hitting below the belt. Each of those "tricks" is a foul. Nowhere in the United States can one lose a fight on a single foul; however, in all states he can lose on "disqualification" for repeated fouling. If the referee warns a fighter several times for fouling and the fighter fails to heed the warning, the referee can disqualify him. Usually a single foul is penalized only by the loss of the round in which the foul was perpetrated or by the loss of most points to be shared in that round. However, in most European countries, a bout can be lost on a single foul. In the British Isles, for example, officials are particularly strict about low blows.

HOW IS THE WINNER OF A FIGHT DETERMINED IF THERE IS NO KNOCKOUT OR DISQUALIFICATION? A few localities use three judges. In most areas, the scoring officials are the referee and the two judges. However, where three judges are used, the referee has no vote. Each of the three keeps a score card during the bout. At the end of the fight, each writes the name of his winner on his card. If the three cards agree on the winner-if they agree, for example, that Brown wins over Green-he wins a unanimous decision. If two officials vote for Brown, and the other for Green, Brown wins a split decision. If one calls the bout a "draw" (even), and the other two vote for Brown, he wins a majority decision. However, if the three disagree completely-one voting for Brown, one for a draw, and one for Green-the fight is then declared a draw, and neither wins. How does each ring official determine the winner? Most states belonging to the National Boxing Association use the "point system" of scoring. In Michigan, for example, two fighters can share 10 points in a round on each score card. In the first round, for example, Brown could have a slight advantage and win 6 points to Green's 4. Brown might win the second session by a large margin, 7-3, etc. At the end of the bout, each official totals the points for each fighter. The one receiving the most points is the winner on that particular score card. Only the total on each card counts; not the total of the three cards. Each official then writes down the name of his winner, and the three names decide the decision, as explained above.

Each ring official-in the United States, at least-considers the following factors in deciding which fighter wins a round: (1) Who was forcing the fight? (2) Who was landing the most punches? (3) Was the one receiving the most punches offsetting that disadvantage by landing a few blows that caused more damage than his opponent's many? (4) Who was missing with the most punches? (5) Who was winning in the exchanges? (6) Who was showing the worse effects of battle-face cuts, eye bruises, swollen ears, and fatigue?

Usually, if a fighter is knocked down he loses the round in which the knockdown occurs-but not necessarily. If he is merely caught offbalance and knocked down, it discredits him but little. Moreover, a fighter can suffer a clean knockdown, but give his opponent such a battering during the rest of the session that he will take the round. If a fighter slips to the floor when he misses a punch or when his fast-moving feet skid on a wet spot in one of the corners, the slip is not a knockdown, and it has no bearing on the scoring of the round.

You will add to your pleasure at a fight if you keep your own score sheet and compare it later with the tabulations of the officials. Use a simple round system, so that your scoring will be a pleasure and not a labor, Do not try to write anything on your sheet during a round. Keep your eyes fixed on the fighters. That's important. If you glance away from the ring for an instant, you may miss the knockout punch. Using any kind of blank paper, you can make your own score sheet like the one below. Describe only the highlights of each round in about three lines, written after the round is finished. Make an "X" at the inside edge of the round in which a fighter is floored, and a ")" at the inside edge of a round in which a fighter is cut. When the bout is finished, you'll have a "quick picture" that should be clear and accurate.

 

Ultimately landing punches is 80% of scoring a fight no matter what. That is the point of boxing, you put gloves on your hands and punch people in the head. And vice-versa, you want to stop the incoming punches from landing. So IMO, you can talk all day and night about aggression and backpedalling but if one guy doesn't land any meaningful punches all night he doesn't win, thats it.

'Taking a title' has **** to do with anything. It has no significance in a logical scoring of a fight. What are we saying, the champ effectively starts with a 10-9 advantage? Boxing is scored on the 10 point system round by round, there is no inherent advantage for a champion, thats bull****.

 

I voted no because it would not solve any problems (points scoring is also subjective) and it will change the nature of pro fighting.

 

That was written in 1950, Tommy. I just thought it would be interesting for comparative purposes (and because Dempsey's perspective ought to command a little respect). :conf

Also, those were all listed as "factors to at least consider", not strict criteria. Selective quoting? You're better than that, man. You're guilty of either that or skimming/poor reading comprehension.

 

Good point. Never thought of it like that.

 

Did you see my first post in the thread? The official Unified Rules? "Hit and don't get hit" is NOT the object of the game. It's good advice, but it's not the correct sole basis for scoring a professional match. :deal

 

I can't believe how stupid this is! So first it says to CREATE a rooting interest (read bias) and then it mentions how to not let it affect you! Well then the best is to not create a rooting interest at allatsch Damn what kind of logic is this?

The rest is an interesting read though. Great you posted that.

 

Actually, I think someone would have to be pretty stupid to not be able to separate the two. What he's saying is that you should have a rooting interest to keep you intrigued, that's perfectly healthy - so long as it doesn't turn into bias. You completely missed the point of the distinction.

 

But it pretty much sums up the entire thing. Clean effective punching and defence, obviously.

How much of a ring general are you if you can't land a punch? That means you are not in any positions. The other guy is a general if he can control the ring to the extent he can land his punches and you can't.

Effective aggression speaks for itself, if you aren't hitting its uneffective and suddenly the benefit of being the aggressor is quite small.