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

Generally I favor the latter (Low Workrate High Accuracy Wins) - as, IMO, most should when scoring...but there has to be a statute of limitations. It's a case-by-case judgment call, really.

 

usually based on who is landing the better, cleaner shots.


There are times I disagree with people like those saying Cotto might have won a late around against Pac or that Taylor won the last against wright. Just moving around and not throwing **** doesnt give you the round

I usually give it to the most cleanest punches. Though if it is a very big difference in output like Calzaghe v hopkins then I had to give it to calzaghe because hops just did too little.

 

See Toney-Jirov for a PERFECT example of this.

Toney won that fight for me clearly.

 

Exactly, I hate fighters who try to counter all night, high work rate will always win in my book. You can't sit back and catch 50 pitty pats, land one solid blow and win the round.

 

Judge A would give it to the agressive, workrate guy.


Judge B would give it to the tactical, economical high connect% guy.


Judge C would see it a draw.


The three judges score thus tallied would be a draw.

 

Clean punching always wins in my opinion.

 

In my opinion, a better question to present would be:

Fighter A is a high output fighter, he throws 80 punches in the round, but he only manages to land 5 clean hard and effective blows.

Fighter B is a lower output fighter, he throws 30 punches but still manages to land the same 5 clean hard and effective blows.

For the sake of the situation, consider that both land their 5 punches with the same effectiveness and power.

Fighter A is obviously the less skilled and talented fighter, but he is relentless and applies nonstop pressure, and with that manages to land 5 good shots.

Fighter B is obviously the more skilled fighter, and uses his defense to avoid almost all of his opponent's punches, but still takes 5. He uses his better boxing ability to land at a much higher percentage, but his low workrate keeps him at the same 5 good punches landed.

Now in this situation, who wins the round? I know everyone will be tempted to call this 10-10, but say you have to give one guy the edge. Nothing separates them but their output and connect percentage. They both land the same number of effective blows, and the punches are of the same effectiveness (unlike in the original question in which one fighter lands no effective punches). Who wins?

 

Now you're asking the correct question.
In a perfect world anyone watching should score this a 10-10 round.

If I had to give it to someone I would probably give it to the volume guy because it's very hard to throw 80 punches a round and not look like you're
the one controlling the pace and flow of the fight. Remember there's also Effective Aggression and Ring Generalship to score on.

 

it all depends to the judges.^^^

 

Taylor-Hopkins 1 is an even better example than either Toney-Jirov or Calzaghe-Hopkins. Taylor landed one solitary clean punch all night, Hopkins had him visibly hurt from clean combinations in each of the last 3 rounds, yet most people scored the fight to Taylor.

I always score for the guy who lands more clean, effective punches. Flurrying against air and forearms does not equate to scoring shots.

 

atsch Can you tell me where he said that in this statement?


Quote:
Originally Posted by StreetsofRAGE

This content is protected

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.

 

I favour low Work Rate with High accuracy. No one likes to see a guy throw a 100 punches and only land 15, just shows the boxers lack of skill to land on his opponent effectively.

 

I can see why so many people on this forum are so **** at scoring fights and always crying robbery when there isn't one.

If fighter A lands 30 out of 100 punches, and fighter B lands 20 out of 40, then fighter B doesn't win the round because he is more accurate.

good thing judges know better.

 

No one is saying that. But when fighter B throughout the whole fight proves to be not only the accurate puncher, but a more controlled fighter in the ring this could easily swing rounds where fighter A is throwing so many punches but missing.

Also take into consideration that if 70 of fighter A punches or missing, he isn't doing himself any favours with the judges, also if 70 of those punches or blocked each round this will work in favour of fighter B by showing his defence which is just as important as a boxers offence when determining the better fighter in that ring.

 

As said before throwing 100 punches can work even if they are not clean and effective. It forces the other guy to constantly block and spent all their energy in defence. Look at Hopkins he barely threw anything vs calzaghe yet was exhausted and needed rests.