Is it fair to score fights for runners?

If the runner Lands the better blows more frequently they win

What defines "running anyway"

 

He hasn't got the Linfords for that.

 

Running away like some big breasted slut in a horror movie. It's insulting and I don't like it.

Nah, not really, I don't have many problems with it.

 

He's from Massachusetts. Settle down.

 

It's fine either way, as long as it's consistent (and it generally isn't consistent).

 

I hear you. It’s a good thing that that we can score ‘em how we like at home.

 

In the West like England and Murica they love runners but others like latin america like mexico or Honduras they hate it.It’s not machismo enough! People that run should be given a pt deduction.I would say you can run for 8 to 9 rounds continuing to do so its a DQ.Because people spent their hard earned cash working hard and guy runs and takes an easy pay day!!

 

Runner ?????
Using this reference shows that you know very little about boxing.
Distance control is an important boxing skill.
Outside. inside, side to side.
In and out.
You control the fight.

 

It’s an interesting post, I have wondered the same but after reading the comments I agree with those that say it would be unfair not to award them the round if they’re doing more damage. It’s just not going to win them fans and that’s mostly their problem. But it is also boxing’s problem. As I’ve got older I have appreciated more boxers which take the centre of the ring and use more subtle and skilled evasion than hit and run. If I were a judge I would probably have a slight bias towards the aggressor but it would be boring if we were all the same, as long as we respect fans and judges are all allowed to have their own preferences.

 

As fair as scoring it for plodders.

 

Nobody was saying the Duncan/Parker/Ginobili San Antonio Spurs ought to be stripped of their championships or barred from the playoffs or anything just because they were boring as hell and the NBA's ratings were down. If a given athlete's/fighter's/team's style hurts their sport temporarily, it shouldn't mean altogether changing the rules in a targeted annililation that style, as that robs us of seeing talented athletes figure out new styles to effectively counter it.

 

Scoring for aggression, albeit effective or not, sounds like it was borne out of early boxing history, being an incentive to make a fight more likely exciting.

When the likes of Corbett, Johnson etc. came along - guys who actually boxed in a fashion that lent itself to hitting whilst not getting hit - they were labelled as Fancy Dans or Cowards at worst.

The more blood lusty crowds wanted to see two men go for it, punch for punch, like Rock ‘em, Sock ‘em robots.

Jack Johnson lost a decision to Marvin Hart. Per many written accounts, Johnson beat the **** out of the more “aggressive” Hart, copping little or no damage in return. By fights end, Hart’s face was a pulped mess - Johnson’s face, conversely unmarked.

Johnson countered Hart to death upon every ineffectual rush he made at Johnson.

However, the ref gave the fight to Hart based on aggression, claiming there would’ve been no fight if not for Harts proactive (yet failed) attempts to get at Johnson.

This may not be the most pure example of the old school perspective on scoring - since the decision was considered dodgy even back then - the decision loss removing Johnson’s steadily built leverage (unbeaten run) to finally get Jeffries to fight him.

Shortly after the Hart fight, the Big Marn, Jeff, retired in 1905. Nice timing, but 5 years later,...not so much.

 

Well if they are landing punches and the other bloke isnt then yeah because they are the only one landing scoring blows.

Clinching though I can't stand though and I wish refs would doc points in the first couple of rounds to cut it out but they rarely do.

Particularly when they just cuddle without throwing any blows.

 

I don't care about "running", unless the runner isn't firing shots. If a runner still has a high volume of punches thrown (IE he's busy), movement is perfectly acceptable.