High Workrate Low Accuracy vs Low Workrate High Accuracy. Who wins the Round?

Sounds to me like the Penalosa-Deleon fight.

High workrate, low accuracy won.

 

I hate when a boxer throws a lot and misses all the time. For me, he's not scoring. He's wasting energy.

I give a round to the boxer who is effectively scoring. If everything is even, maybe I'll give the round to the one more active but not all the time. Defense is a part of scoring.

 

High workrate low accuracy can steal rounds from low workrate high accuracy. Oscar stole a good number of rounds from void by throwing 70 punches to Void's 30, but Void was outboxing his AZZ the whole time.

 

This. But if the more accurate guy didn't land any effective punches, then I'll still give it to the guy with the higher workrate.

For example....

I thought that....

Khoren Gevor beat Felix Sturm
Delvin Rodriguez beat Rafal Jackiewicz
Affif Belghecham beat Darren Barker
Calzaghe beat Hopkins

but I also thought that

Thomas Mashaba beat Cristobal Cruz
Mayweather dominated De La Hoya
Martinez nicked it against Williams

 

whoever has landed more clean and more effective shots, taking into account effective agression, defense, and ring generalship.

the percentage doesn't matter, its the total of clean effective punches that does.

 

if he has energy to last more than 12 rounds at a high pace, then its not a waste. Keeping your output high can prevent your opponent from setting.

 

This is a good point and adds another string to the term 'Effective Aggression', which is a separate element to 'Clean, Hard Punching'.

Swarming an opponent (with high workrate, low accuracy) can keep him busy 'Defending', whilst you're landing a few yourself. Low output from the opponent could be interpreted as them having been prevented from getting too many of their own shots off. So it's not cut and dried.

Swarming can also give the impression that one Fighter is the Ring General by forcing the pace of the fight.

 

the way these poll results are showing, if Fighter A threw 40 punches and landed 20 good ones, and fighter B threw 100 punches and landed 20 good ones, they would give the round to fighter A just cause he's less active and more accurate. But both landed 20 good punches.

 

Well said!:good

 

a punch count isn't enough information to score a fight.

 

ONE of the FOUR criterion that boxing is scored on is Clean, effective punching. Not "high volume of punches that miss."

That being said, there are 3 other factors to consider when judging a round. Look up boxing scoring system for more information.

 

"Throwing less punches than your opponent" is not one of the four criterion last time I checked.

 

If your any kind of a fighter your going to bust threw there workrate, and weak punches, and BUST THEM IN THE DAMN MOUTH!
I get tired of this **** honestly....You got people say Paul Williams, and Calzaghe SLAP. Well, if all they do is slap then a *MAN* would walk right threw these so called slaps, and bust them up! Why not step in when they can't hurt you?
SO, understanding that...That is why Calzaghe beats Hopkins by a wide decision.
As far as Paul Williams vs Martinez though that's what you need to do, and that's why I had it a draw. Martinez didn't nearly throw as much, but he stepped threw the weak punches, and landed SOLID punches, and showed everyone how it was done.

If your were referring to Pac vs Mayweather though it's not going to be the case really. Pac has a high workrate, but he's aiming to land HARD punches while throwing a lot of them. Pac doesn't aim to outwork you for 12 rounds, he aims to hurt somebody, and then finish. He also hits plenty hard enough to hurt any WW (obviously) so either:
A) Pac gets hurt coming in
B) Mayweather gets hurt by Pac

Noway is this fight a boxing match...

 

Has anyone heard of scoring points for aggression and making the fight? I guess not.

 

well said man.