Do you know how to score a fight?

who's this aimed at?

 

Haye clearly won, and I'm missing something because I've very rarely seen people on here saying Valuev won

 

because some people like to reward fighters for punching thin air. Just like how some like to reward fighters for punching shoulders, gloves and arms.

boxing does not need to be as subjective as it currently is. It's disgraceful that a judges preference is considered acceptable in justifying scoring. The only two things that should matter are number of punches landed and quality of punches. Nothing else should matter. You score the round to the guy who lands more, with the exception being if the guy who landed less scored the cleaner punches. In this case you can make a case for the other guy and have to use your judgement. Doesn't matter if he does it by running, standing to to toe, in the center of the ring or against the ropes. If it's very close, just score it 10-10 and move the **** on. There are more rounds ffs. Not enough 10-10 rounds being scored. No clear winner and you get bull**** justifications like "ring generalship", "aggressiveness" **** all that. It means nothing. Ring generalship is the most bull**** phrase in boxing.

 

If fights were scored correctly Haye would have been fighting Holyfield instead of Valuev.

A good if perhaps oversimplified way I like to think of scoring fights is 'which fighter would I have preferred to have been during that round?'

 

Haye won that fight by majority decision remember. There was a clown judge who scored it a draw. Should never be allowed to judge again tbh, and I was supporting Valuev too.

 

Even though he did almost nothing he still did more than Valuev.

You can't just score on perceived aggression, if he was throwing 60-70 shots per round then there's potentially an argument - albeit a weak one, to score rounds to that particular fighter.

I maintain to this day that Hopkins beat Joe Calzaghe. Sure, he threw less, and landed less according to the Compubox stats, but did JC really land a telling blow all fight?

I don't think so, and considering he was dropped and hit with several sneaky counters in most of the rounds I think Hopkins deserved the decision.

I think that Holyfield did as good a job on SNV as Haye did. Was absolutely gutted that he didn't get the decision.

 

That was fight that came to mind when I read this thread. I usually agree with the consensus verdict, but I scored that fight by 1–3 points to Hopkins, whereas others seemed to think Calzaghe won almost every round. Most of Calzaghe's voluminous output was blocked, and in scoring I tend to treat blocked punches almost like missed ones.

 

I agree.

Look at Floyd Mayweather fights.

Quite often he blocks more shots than he slips, and occasionally has a low output.... but you generally find yourself scoring pretty much every round to him when you're watching his fights.

His output was almost non-existent against Baldomir and Oscar, yet one fight was a 12-0 shutout, painfully boring I might add, whilst the other was a relatively clear, 8-4 type victory.

Other times, Ricky Hatton threw plenty of shots, not as many as he usually does, but was generally hitting thin air and the judges cards were pretty accurate at the time of the stoppage.

 

Hopkins-Calzaghe was just a plain horrible fight. Two guys who knew what they were doing in their own different ways. Hopkins did land 'some' clean blows, including the knockdown, but not nearly enough of them given the way he fought that fight. In fact, Calzaghe was landing as many straight lefts down the pipe as Hopkins in the second half of the fight at a time when Hopkins was also crying out for oxygen. Hopkins should also have been done for holding fairly early on but for a rather lenient Cortez. A fighter carrying cleaner heavier shots isn't usually the one looking to tie things up everytime a proper fight shows signs of opening up.

Edit:

:deal

 

People who score Hopkins-Calzaghe in Hopkins favour are only watching one fighter.

Hopkins landed a lot of clean right hands, but Calzaghe landed a lot more clean straight lefts.

 

in the state of boxing thread i put that scoring should be changed in some way i dont know how though. its too open to corruption and intepretation.

every other fight seems to have disputed scoring eventually people will get sick of this although it doesnt seem to be anytime soon as it keeps happening. some judges should really be made to explain there actions.

a less complicated simplified system perhaps instead of 4 categories, should just be offense and defense scored??

 

I scored the fight 114-113, watched it twice since and only other score i can see is 115-112.

 

I think this depends. If a fighter is trying to hit the opponents chin though he is being unsuccessful and is hitting the other guys shoulder, then it's good defensive work. However, if the fighter is targeting the chest, arms, shoulders or wherever, then I'd consider those good, scoring shots. They might not be to the head or body but they can be part of a strategy, so I'd have to hesitation in considering them to be good shots.