Revising Methods Of Scoring

Ok that makes sense:good

 

:deal Then it becomes a case of what is more important to the judge and wee saw in the Froch fight that many judges don't value defense

 

With aggression you are trying to win. With defense you are trying to 'not lose'. Can you win with nothing but defense? No.

 

In principle, basing scoring on defence betrays what boxing is really about. But even if you decided to reward defence, it would be practically impossible to administer. It's relatively easy to tell how much damage A did to B: you can ask how many punches they landed, how hard those punches were, how clean those punches were etc. But with defence, what are the criteria? How many shots you avoid? How much you avoid them?? And is ducking 5 shots better than landing 5 shots?! There are a lot of hard questions to answer.

 

I don't think there is really one right way to score a fight. There are plenty of wrong ways but i think everyone scores fights differently depending on what they like or what one fighter done well.

Also what if one fighter lands a clean flurry in the first half of the round then covers up and runs the rest? Percent of punches landed is easily flawed. It would be a good way of scoring if the two fighters didn't know it was being scored that way.

 

I think this is just making the Pro's too much like the am's, you see this happening all the time in the am's one guy lands a few gets on the back foot, covers up and frustrates the other guy. The am's don't consider the other side of boxing they just take in the amount of punches landed. Punches landed in a fight is a big factor but other stuff has to be considered.

 

Clear yes. It's the only objective way. Boxing is a sport where legal punches lead to a victory, therefore punches and punches only should be the deciding factor.

In my view, problem is not with extremely low output, close fights, because in little action, the fighter who was able to land the more meaningful blows (or a single blow vs. 0), you can get write down a winner quite easily. If there's absolutely no punching action or same amount of meaningful shots landed, you have a draw.

The problem is with the more action packed close fights with a clash of styles: workrate vs. efficiency. Kelly Pavlik vs. Jermain Taylor II is the classical example of such a fight and it was hard to score. On one hand you have Taylor landing the cleaner, biggers shots (altogether more power punches) with a significantly higher connect %, whereas Pavlik, behind the busy jab, landing many more punches overall with lower %. In some rounds it was a headache to come up with a clear winner, in others, you could still decide what to prefer, number of punches or clean, effective punches.

In my view, the two recently debated fights, Haye-Valuev and Froch-Dirrell weren't that hard to score and there was a clear winner in each fight, because in both fights, there was a clear edge in overall punches landed AND meaningful punches landed for the same fighter (Dirrell, Haye), whereas in Pavlik-Taylor, Kelly had the numbers and Taylor had the clean blows on his side.

I believe you gotta go with the punches, and punches only, and look for clean effective punching in close rounds. Workrate comes to play when the busy fighter has a clear edge in total punches over the more effective opponent, the classic example of that is Calzaghe-Kessler. The example of meaningful punches being victorious over number of punches is Hopkins vs. Wright.

 

Ultra hypothetical question:

Imagine Hatton v Mayweather 2.

In the first round Hatton came out swinging for 30 seconds and Mayweather - as usual - blocks all shots with his shoulder roll.

For the rest of the first round - with Hatton scared of getting check hooked into the corner again is on the back foot and Mayweather controls the fight by feignting shots and backing him up - WITHOUT THROWING ANY PUNCHES.

Then finally rounds 2 through to 12 they sit in the middle of the ring for cup of tea wait for the judges call.

Who wins?

 

Punch stats in themselves tell you nothing. When looking at those four criteria, it's worth considering what they mean:

Clean punching

The shots should land cleanly, with the result being that it might stop the opponent throwing, or snap their head back, or stun them or knock them out. Basically, you mark on the quality of the shots landed and the effect it has on the opponent.

Effective aggression

How you take the fight to your opponent. If your aggression is stopping the other fighter from mounting their own attacks, landing clean effective punches, or by-passing their defence - that is effective aggression.

Ring generalship

A fighter controls the ring, generally by taking centre of the ring and making the opponent respond to their strategy. Basically, they control the pace of the fight and the other fighter responds to that.

Defence

How well a fighter uses movement (body, foot and head) to avoid attacks.

 

Mayweather, through ring generalship and, weirdly enough, effective aggression. Even without throwing the punches, if he's coming forwards and making Hatton react to his aggression - then it's effective aggression.

Hatton is losing because he's allowing himself to be controlled by Mayweather's tactics and has landed nothing, so his effectiveness is zero. But let's be clear, the referee could probably disqualify both fighters for unwillingness to engage.

 

Let's consult the "box".

Clean Effective Punching
Hatton - 0 (all shots blocked)
Mayweather - 0 (didn't throw)

Effective aggression
Hatton - 0 (Hatton ineffective during his initial flurry, then fighting scared)
Mayweather - 1 (backing Hatton up with feints)

Ring generalship
Hatton - 0 (constantly reacting and positioning himself according to Floyd's plan)
Mayweather - 1 (making Hatton react and dictating the ring position of both)

Defense
Hatton - 0 (didn't have any punches to dodge, so you can't credit him wit a point for defense)
Mayweather - 1 (picked off Hatton's early shots).

Of a possible 4 points for each opponent, the final tally is 3-0 in Floyd's favor. Without even landing a punch.

These are the OFFICIAL rules.