F.W.: "Some people bang on that scoring fights is a subjective science, dependent upon a judges personal preference for aggression and ring generalship or skilful boxing. Well, frankly it shouldnt be. Boxing is the Noble Art of Self Defence, its not about who punches the hardest a sweet science of skill and savvy where boxers battle to land scoring blows through speed and cunning whilst avoiding those of their opponent by evasion, blocking and slipping. Most championship fights go the distance and that is why we have judges. It is imperative that we have consistency. At the rules meeting prior to title fights it is categorically emphasised that points will be awarded for blows that are correctly delivered with the knuckle part of the glove onto the designated target area. There is no mention of either the weight of the blow or which fighter is advancing. Ive little time for fighters who aimlessly trudge forward munching leather, then claim they deserved victory because they forced the fight. Nonsense. Whoever lands more scoring shots, wins the session. Its that simple. Only when an equal number of blows were scored should other factors be considered to avoid the cop-out of shared rounds. Invariably, if a contest last the full distance, the good boxer will invariably beat the good puncher and thats how it should be." Obviously, you need to do more than just advance to deserve to win rounds. But the weight of punches doesn't matter?? That would screw a fighter like Abraham! I think you should give credit both for the weight of punches, and also in a close round give credit to the aggressor. I also don't think it's a "cop-out" to give even rounds. Even rounds or half point rounds would be often fair imo.
There is no mention of either the weight of the blow or which fighter is advancing. Ascoring punch is deemed to be an EFFECTIVE punch landed with the knucle part of the glove, and the weight of the shoulder behind it , on the scoring area . Note the words EFECTIVE and WEIGHT of shoulder . Unles of course the rules have changed
For me, it is that simple also, of course unless there is a knockout. Never understood people saying boxer B landed the heavier shots etc so they deserved the round. Nothing wrong with scoring even rounds, if the round has been close, something judges rarely seem to do. Don't believe all the 'it's subjective' rubbish, just ruins results and gives ridiculous scoring.
Even rounds are the scourge of boxing. Judges are there to judge, not sit on the fence. Unless two fights mirror each other exactly for the whole three minutes, someone has had the edge. And that is subjective. If it were not subjective you would just do what they do in fencing and wire the fighters up and let the computers tell you when there has been a scoring punch...
I agree. I don't see how a power puncher should be favoured when they already have an advantage in power.
I disagree. If there are rounds that could reasonably go either way - (and there often are, imo) - then even rounds are logical. Not sure why you think they are "the scourge of boxing". I'm not sure what people have against fights ending in draws either, in fights where no one was really sure who won.
As for the value of punches, surely some punches DO count for more than others. People can argue against the "weight" of blows being rewarded, but that's wrong imo ... and what about the "accuracy" or "cleanness"/"crispness" of blows. I'd certainly score jabs that land smack on the nose and knock the head back as WORTH MORE than jabs that land sliding across the side of the face or merely lightly kiss the target.
Draws cheat the punter; a judge is paid to 'judge' a winner (of each round). There is nothing wrong with people not liking the decision, there can always be a rematch...
