Why is scoring an evenly fought round with an even score a bad thing?

Doing it when you'd otherwise have to really force yourself to split them isn't necessarily bad...it's becoming lazy and making a habit of it that's frowned upon.

True "can't pick" 10-10 rounds should be more of a blue moon type thing, than something that appears on every other scorecard..

It is (or should be) pretty rare that a round is that unsplittable as to cause someone to tear their hair out in frustration...

 

I find that it should come down to what you personally look for most when scoring. If no one lands noticeably more, or lands harder, or controls the action, then I judge on who was looking to make the fight. At it's core, this is a fight. Who was more aggressive?

 

I don't think it's bad to score a round even. I wish judges would feel brave enough to do it more. What I hate is, when a round is really even, the judges give it to one or the other guy based on something stupid and subjective like "ring generalship."

"Ring generalship" is almost impossible to measure in rational or sensible way.

 

No. There are 4 clear criterions for judging a fight. Sure, they are more or less subjective, but so be it.

 

The scoring of a professional prize fight is based on four basic criteria: clean punching, effective aggressiveness, ring generalship, and defense.

There is no absolute rule as to how those criteria should be used, but most experts will tell you should prioritize each of them in that order (i.e.: effective aggressiveness is irrelevant if you punch your opponent harder/cleaner/more often).

 

I have seen too many absurd instances where a fighter got the decision only because he was moving forward all night, even though he sucked up punishment and landed little in return. I think verdicts like this are wrong.

 

The problem is, how do you measure "effective aggressiveness?" That's a very subjective issue. A second problem is, how do you measure "ring generalship?"

I like relying on "clean punching" and "defense," because these scoring areas are objective, and frequently easily perceivable to viewers. Also, making these two categories most important puts the fighters in the position of having to show -- by striving -- that they have the skill and ability to achieve superiority in these areas by outfighting or outboxing their opponent.

 

Yeah, but the thing is that in 95% of the rounds, only clean punching will be useful because one of the fighter's blows will be ''better''.

Here are definitions I found :

Clean Punching

A clean punch is one that lands on a scoring area (face or side of head, not including the back of the head; the front and sides of the torso) with the knuckle portion of the glove. In amateur boxing, the scoring portion of the glove is white. Though a professional glove lacks such markings, the scoring portion of the glove is basically the same.
Clean punches will land flush, not glancing or partially blocked by one's opponent. "Slapping" or "backhanding" is not allowed.


Effective Aggressiveness

Effective aggression is demonstrated when a fighter presses forward, and in doing so, scores more clean punches, or more damaging blows, than his opponent. If a boxer is a particularly hard puncher, even blows that are not landed particularly clean, but obviously affect his opponent, are given scoring weight.

Ring Generalship

The ability to control the pace and style of a fight is ring generalship. For instance, a high volume-punching brawler will attempt to force a "stick and move" boxer into a slugfest. Conversely, the pure boxer will attempt to slow the pace of the fight by keeping his opponent at the end of his jab and use angles and feints in order to set up his heavier punches.
It is imperative that professional judges comprehend each fighter's respective style in order to understand who is controlling the action and demonstrating superior ring generalship.

Defense

Probably the most ignored, if not maligned, of the four judging criteria is defense. There have been boxers who were such defensive wizards, such as Willie Pep, or Pernell Whitaker, that it was virtually impossible for judges not to recognize their skill. It is said that Pep once won a round against Jackie Graves in 1946 without landing a single punch. In truth, the featherweight Pep landed a few jabs during that round, but such a story is remarkable only because it is so rare, as defense is so poorly appreciated.
Defense is the ability to avoid punshment. A boxer with greater reach than his opponent may stay on the outside and use his footwork to avoid punches--a style often frowned on by judges. One might stay inside and slip punches. Another option is to block an opponent's punches with one's gloves, arms and shoulders, or the highly skilled fighter may choose to use a combination of defensive techniques, depending on the situation.

 

I've seen it done b4 where the fighter who got knocked down or deducted ends up doing much better than his opponent for that round. it ends up being a 9-9 piece

 

Well, if we couple the old truism that A is never equal to A with the notion that equality is a qualitative impossibility, then we really allow ourselves to get into the submerged quagmire of impossibility. The objective vs the subjective is nothing more than a false dichotomy; an artificial schism that madres sought to objectify for their own ends! Personally, I never score even rounds. Willful volition? Vanity? Correctness? Nay high-bred culture; hybrid culture! How do you take yours? Over easy or sunny side up?!