Are judges placing too much emphasis on aggression?

In short, yes.

It's nothing new either. Ineffective aggression gets far too much credit. With some judges you just need to be walking forward to score points.

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

Nope, judges just prefer aggression over non-aggression....pretty simple huh?

 

oh oh someone's mad, can't handle the truth? Pac won, slowmo and realtime... Go to lala land if you want all boxers were counter punchers, and good luck with that, you could just imagine fist flying around...

 

I think you should go watch Dragonball Z, you seem to be basing your scoring on the same principles.
My nephew watches it all the time, im sure you 2 are at about the same age.

Actually i will be nice and tell you that i dont give a crap what style a boxer uses as long as they HIT CLEANLY, thats what i score.
Flailing punches on gloves and air i do not score.
If everybody scored like you wed have a sport full of human windmills you numbnut.

 

Yes. Way too much emphasiz on INEFFECTIVE aggression. I watch fights with casual fans of the sport and I see how they are swayed by the ineffective aggression but when you are what is supposed to be a proffesional boxing judge you can or should be able to tell the difference between effective and ineffective aggression.

 

For you boxing newbies or you fans of the human windmill style i will just recap the 4 basic scoring criteria for boxing.

Clean Punching, Effective Aggression, Ring Generalship, Defense.

INEFFECTIVE aggression is NOT part of the scoring system.
Flailing your hands around 100 times per round hitting air and gloves = INNEFFECTIVE aggression.

It honest to god is not THAT complicated.

Now go watch Pac vs Marquez 3 again and notice how Marquez DOMINATED all 4 scoring criterias EASILY, and Pac only did better on the 1 thing you should not be scoring, INNEFFECTIVE aggression.

This concludes the lesson, now hopefully some judges learned from it and we will see less robberies.

 

with flailing punches and hitting air made marquez look like quasimodo after the fight, i don't know how marquez would look after he gets hit solid... Can we say ogrish?

 

You do know that a single random punch can cause swelling right? facial marking says absolutely nothing about the course of a fight.

If this is your only arguement this will be my last reply to you because you are obviously ******ed and some newly made troll account.

 

You are accidentaly agreeing with us...

 

hail to the all mighty keyboard judges, they think they know all... If pac was doing ineffective aggression, marquez would not have swollen that much... You could say marquez punches was ineffective, pac was never hurt, pac looked fresh aside from the cut... Counter punchers should stop their opponents on their tracks to be effective... The other guy would just hit you back if you could not hurt him, thats the story of pac jmm 3...

 

I think the biggest problem is that the judges have the worst seats in the house.

 

I rather judges made the mistake of over-empathising aggression than the other way around. Scoring is never going to be totally accurate but rather mistake ineffective aggression than not giving enough credit to effective aggression.

 

if pac was throwing punches at random, could we say that jmm got "randomized"? Mad bro?

 

You can be as aggressive as you like but if your opponents makes you miss most of your shots you will lose the rounds. Hopkins made Taylor miss a lot of shots but he dint throw enough himself. Judges saw the aggression.