Are punches that land of gloves scoring points?

If it lands on gloves splits guard and hits your noggin then yes that is certainly scored,
If it hits glove and the fist travels around guard and hits your noggin then that is also scored.

 

If you are wearing a condom it’s still sex right? Even though there is something in between you are still hitting the target.

 

Its funny people actually believe the bs about Bivols own guard smashing his face up lol.
That is the most ******ed thing I have ever heard in boxing.

Beterbiev was landing lots of punches on his head, just because he landed at a lower connect % he still landed more power punches ffs

Bivol has never been busted up like that before and Beterbiev was actually looking better than usual after the fight lol

 

I asked about that. Do we know for sure what round / punch the bruising was caused? Lets try to pinpoint exactly when he sustained that cut so we can understand how that happened.

Agreed but Beterbiev wasn't landing many clean shots to the head. Bivol has a very consistent tight guard, given how tight is guard is, it would actually make sense that he was cut by his own glove being pushed back. That said, we need to really pin down when in the fight he sustained that cut and how.

 

A punch that lands on the glove (exactly as defined), is not a point scoring punch period.

The “criteria” otherwise for scoring muddies the waters.

Imo, there are several points of criteria that merely identify the “means” to a more easily identified and aptly scored “end” - that “end” being to land the most and best quality score worthy punches.

For one example, a fighter’s effective defence is immediately and directly rewarded by said fighter avoiding a punch or punches that might’ve been potentially scored against him.

No other interpretation required from the judges.

Likewise, ring generalship and aggression are “means” to the more simplified “end” - to land more and better punches than your opponent.

Why aggression is even mentioned in tandem with “effective” is bemusing.

Why not also say “Effective boxing” or “Effective fighting on the back foot, etc.?

The concept of aggression in its own right is overrated and really means nothing. Punches worthy of being scored, however that is achieved, is what actually matters.

IF Bivol incurred damage via punches that were not subject to technical scoring, then Beterbiev was investing in a “means” that might potentially open him to actual and greater effectiveness - in so far as Artur being more likely to land more clean punches later in the fight that could be legitimately scored.

Marciano used to pound the arms and shoulders, punches not subject to technical scoring - but they ultimately brought down the guard of his opponents - and that’s when Rocky reaped the benefits by being able to more easily land with head and body shots - actual scoring punches.

All just imo, of course.

 

They are not scored directly but they can be contributing factor to scoring for "effective aggression" vs "defense" components at least according the the guidelines.

Majority of fight time is spent in one fighter attacking and the other defending. If attacking sequence leads to clean punches or puts the fighter in a position to score - it is "effective aggression" point for the attacker. If the opponent slips, catches or rides with punches and counters or gets in a position to counter - that sequence is scored for "defense". In those sequences, blocked punches like punches on gloves bear the same weight as feints, measuring jabs, etc.

 

Feints are another good example. You don’t score the feint in its own right - you score the punch that the feint might enable. Thus, no need to complicate an ultimately scoring punch by further qualifying it as an “Effective Feint”. Lol.

 

Feints can swing an otherwise even round, even if it doesn't result in a punch landed, as it's part of Ring Generalship. Case in point, Canelo vs Mayweather. Canelo feinted Mayweather out of his mind so often in rounds 2 and 3 that it gave Canelo Ring Generalship points. The feints were so impactful on their own it was like Canelo was landing punches without even throwing. Floyd was so affected by the feints it was almost like he was hit by a punch each time just on the flinching alone.

 

Yeah but if the feints didn’t lead to Canelo capitalising on same to land actual scoring punches, then it wasn’t “as if” he did land any punches.

Further, if the feints somehow prevented Mayweather from being sufficiently inclined and positioned to land his own punches, then the feints lent themselves to Canelo not being scored against by way of punches landed on him.

It all sorts itself out when one simply focuses in on actual punches landed and the quality of those punches - that’s the end game.

 

I’ll just add that scoring accents can sometimes come down to a mere preference of one style over another - as opposed to being purely based on technical standpoints.

During the FOTC between Frazier and Ali, the announcers commented that individual scoring would come down to or depend on whether you preferred the boxer or the aggressive guy.

That pretty much said it all in so far as style preference being improperly factored into the equation.

 

The judge who scores the clean blow has to see the clean blow land. He can't "think" he saw it land.
Scoring shots are to the front or side of the head or body. Not arms.

 

Effective Aggression IMO IS important, as you need someone to throw first or you won't get any exchanges. Someone has to engage, otherwise the joint gets stinked up!

 

Yes THIS is really a BIG factor IMO, especially in why some fights have seemingly wide swings.

But if the judge favours the aggressive come forward boxer, they will give them ALL the swing rounds when they are really pressing, and I'm guessing that's what happened with the 116-112 score on Saturday - that judge scored to the aggressive front foor fighter.

As I noted on another post, if you have 3 judges and all 3 favour the 'bad mofo' as Tinman put it, then a sweet science 'hit and not be hit' fighter is at a distinct disadvantage