Do you priortize effective aggression?

You barely score fights, stop contradicting yourself please.

 

There are 4 criteria, but 3 of them are essentially decided by the 4th: clean punches.

What makes aggression effective? By clean punches landing.
What makes defense effective? Clean punches not landing.
What makes ring generalship effective? By putting someone in position to land clean punches.

In terms of a "tie-breaker" criteria, I think ring generalship is a far more fair one because a fighter can be controlling the geography of the fight going forwards or backwards. If you know one fighter wants to stay off the ropes and is there most of the round with a roughly equal number of punches landed, you can give it to the guy pressing. If the opposite happens and the pressure fighter is following the other guy around the ring, then it's the other way around.

In reality anyone giving the aggressor an edge is just adding to the rules and making up their own criteria.

 

Those that scored Eubank winning more rounds than he did against Groves were assuming effective aggresssion

 

Effective aggression is very important, who is making the fight? Just like Golovkin was the one making the fight against El Pollo, El Pollo's wing punches did not do it, in the rematch El Pollo will use his pecker to peck Golovkin to the testicles! Hopkins pretty much said it........................

 

Superb post, ring generalship is definitely underrated in regards to scoring the fight, mainly because I don't think many even understand what in means. A lot seem to mistake being the aggressor as being the better ring general which isn't true just like being the better defensive fighter doesn't make you the better ring general. It's about who is dictating how the fight is fought, the pace, where it's being fought in the ring, on the ropes or in the centre.

 

I would say 50%of my criteria is EFFECTIVE aggression

25% goes to defense
The remainder 25 goes to ring generalship.

 

Headgear doesnt even make a difference apart from preventing cuts. I think a shirt actually takes a fair bit of the STING off whipping body shots.

 

Yes.

 

You forgot clean punches.

 

This post hits the nail on the head.

 

yes, but marginally.

my reasoning is that without someone advancing, theres no fight.

 

I'm a licensed Judge.

from your post Defence is first and I don't agree with that.

I got by clean punches first. then effective aggression. ring generalship next and defence is last case to not score the round 10-10. lots of judges just pick one of those and that's why they sometimes have 10-10.

the way most people score on here is they pick a favourite fighter, and if they feel in one of the 4 categories their fighter did better they score the round for them. Scoring only effective agression is what Harold Letterman does and that's why he has pacquiao nearly shutting out Bradley.

 

Yeah but you also score hair and short styles.

 

no but i score humour, you get zero.


s'why you go back on ignore.