A discussion on scoring (part 1: defense, ring generalship, and effective aggression)

Thats why you can't just say boxer, A beat boxer, B, Cause two guys pushing a butten on opposite sides of the ring when sometimes they can't even see if the punch landed . Just wacth James Toney vs Carl the truth Williams. When Herold L , said I gave that round to James Toney but I can't see whose landing punches cause they are so close and on the ropes blocking my view. If he can't see sometimes what makes you think the other 3 Clowns and the ones pressing that dam button can see.

The best view is the Cameras and even some biased fans who swear punches landed wen they didn't and even we can't see if a punch landed with the Cameras we are like that landed then the Replay and we say oh he never landed that punch and we use Gifts to prove punches landed and didn't land and we still argue if they landed. LOL

And most of us are to Drunk or High or both LOL. To see or care at the time of the fight, to pay attention to whose winning the fight anyway.

We only Boo the outcome at the end of the fight cause are favorite fighter lost when most of us were at a party or having a party anyway and paying attention to the guest or the ladies, if single anyway and Drunk or High or Both. Or attending the Barbecue or making tacos eating or pissing in the Bathroom or outside or pissing outside LOL Anyway

Then we argue on here after the fight and then we all say I HAVE TO WATCH THE FIGHT AGAIN TO SEE WHO REALLY WON IT .

Then we change are tune by saying i could see that it was a Draw the fight was closer than i thought.

But last Night when the fight was live you had it 116- 112 and the Judges had it 114-115 114-114 and 115-115 and the other judge had it 116-112, LOL and you would say 116-112 is right and the next day say you have it 116-115 or 116-114 but you could see a Draw. LOL TRUE STORY TO . And that's what happens on this, Boxing Board

But you have like the band of the hand that will say crazy stuff like i had it 116-110 or something crazy like that
then will go on about Steroids LOL the other fighter was on and how the judges are racist and the Ref was paid off making thread after thread .

So asking that question wont solve a dam thing unfortunately. But great question to make people question and think about how they score rounds and what is the right and logical way to score rounds and what are the rules of scoring a fight in boxing,great job.

 

^^ This!

 

This is not basketball, and most commentators/judges would not necessarily score it a draw. If the aggression of one fighter is not effective and the defense on the other is effective but there's no offense coming back at all, you then have to look at ring generalship. This comes before defense in the scoring criteria. A round is rarely if ever scored on defense alone because generally you can still make the case that one guy was in control. This is often where it becomes a matter of preference.

 

I means you cannot have a 10-10 even round. I means you must score at a minimum 10-9 for every round their must be a winner.

 

It means the winner of the round must get 10 points unless there is a point deduction.
In case of even rounds both fighters are to be awarded 10 points.


If a fighter drops his opponent to the canvas no matter how light the kd was or how poorly he did in the rest of the round he will get the full 10 points

 

10 point must scoring means they dont want even rounds. 10-9 is the standard. dont over think , its not complicated

 

Fighter B - he made the opponent miss through using his defensive skills and therefore I think was the better boxer in that round since both didn't land

A lot of people seem to think boxing = punching, whereas defence is a huge part of it as well

Edit: I put fighter A by accident

 

If the fight is close then the fighter who presses the action should be given more points than the one who keeps running, dancing, or holding. Any fighter who comes to fight should be supported.

 

But their not suppose to do that HBO does that allot .

You can't give either fighter the round cause both fighters didn't land punches only clean punches count. so the round is 10/10 cause no punches were landed .

I just wacthed a fight were both fighters were doing nothing, not landing. Just jabing at air and throwing and missing and one was boxing and the other was using pressure aggression and even the commentators had that round a Draw, cause even they said both fighters are doing nothing not landing any clean effective punches.

But HBO Herold Leterman would give that round to the aggressor cause he favors that boxing styles over the counter punching movment boxers. But he is wrong to do that.

You can't score a round on just a style alone, cause we have different types of fighting styles being taught.

You can't favor one style over the other cause one guy is throwing and the other is making him miss thats part of boxing. The objective is hit and don't get hit, but you still have to hit the other fighter even if you make him miss you can't just not throw a punch, or not land yourself and win the round

Because aggressive pressure fighters use defense to, by bobbing and weaving just look at Tyson he uses defense but in a different way then Ali, who uses his legs and head movement. Cause both guys were taught different boxing styles, cause of their body types and God gifted talents. But Ali or Tyson can't win the round not landing punches no matter if Ali is jabing at air and missing and dancing around making the Tyson miss. Or if Tyson was bobbing and weaving using constant pressure throwing punches but missing like crazy, but he was missing to. Boxing is not scored that way.

Aggressive pressure boxing style is not superior to allusive counter punching style cause you like the aggressive pressure boxing style over the moving counter punching style. You can't just give him the round cause you favor that style cause you think it's better or vice versa.

And this is what some fans do when scoring fights.

You have to score a fight on whose controlling the fight using their style to their advantage and making their style work and wining with it.

Example Chavez vs Whitaker
Whitaker controlling the fight using his style to his advantage and making his style work and wining with it. This is effective counter punching movement style of boxing. hit and move and make the other fighter miss boxing style .

This content is protected

Example Chavez vs camacho
Chavez controlling the fight using his style to his advantage and making his style work and wining with it. This is effective aggressive pressure and defensive head movement but constant attaching pressure boxing style.

This content is protected

Notice Chavez fighting against two fighters using almost the same style but losing to one, but beating the other and we all know Whitaker won that fight easy.

Because he was not using effective aggressiveness against Whitaker.

Because Whitaker was using effective counter punching elusive movement and making Chavez miss by controlling the fight and landing the cleaner effective punches, winning it with his style.

But against Camacho Chávez was using effective aggressiveness and controlling the fight landing the cleaner effective punches in the fight and winning it with his style.

Thats how you score a fight.

 

Depends really, so I went option 4. Let's say for example Fighter B is the bigger guy and usually walks people down but Fighter A has negated that and forced him onto the back foot. Then I would lean toward Fighter A for his ring generalship being the mitigating factor. But if Fighter A is a pressure fighter and B normally on the back foot, then yeah it depends if he is flat out running for his life or not I guess. A 10-10 round wouldn't be a disgrace either I guess

Really cool topic

 

I'm sorry but

But that's not how you score a fight. Hypothetically even if neither guy lands a single punch, that does not automatically make the round a draw. If that were the case, the only scoring criteria would be clean punching, but it's not -- ring generalship and defense are both scoring criteria. Therefore, in a hypothetical situation where one guy imposes himself on the other guy, the guy in control should get the round, even if zero punches were landed between them. In practice no round is ever actually going to play out this way, but in theory it's possible.

 

That's one way to look at it.

The other way would be fighter A tried to be the aggressor but failed to be effective in this manner, fighter B didn't want to engage and in this regard was effective in implementing his type of fight. Fighter B wins.

Now neither answer is truly correct it's more complicated than that.

I'll also add the term effective aggressor is often over simplified and misunderstood. Just because you are the guy coming forward doesn't mean you are the more effective aggressor. You can actually be more effective by not being the one coming forward. Look at Canelo, when forced to be the role of the aggressor like in the fights with Lara and Trout he is less effective offensively, he is more effective when sitting back and letting an opponent come to him like in the Angulo fight and even the GGG fight.

Simply giving a fighter the round because he is the one coming forward and supposedly the one making the fight shows a misunderstanding of fighters styles. I wouldn't favour a defensive fighter over the aggressor just because he is being more defensive. Where I may favour one style over the other is if either the aggressor or the defensive fighter is more able to impose their type of fight than their opponent during a fight/round. So if a round is close but most of the round was fought how one fighter prefers to fight, e.g aggressor has opponent on the ropes most of the round or the defensive fighter is able to keep the fight in the centre where he prefers and stunts their opponents aggression more than usual. It's this aspect of ring generalship that sometimes makes me favour one fighter over another whether they are the aggressor or the defensive fighter.