Do you feel most people cant properly score a boxing match?

yes. absolutely. undoubtedly.

 

Yeah casuals can't score it but you can get differences of opinion between people who know their stuff.

It's all somewhat subjective. If fighter A lands 50 clear punches and dominates 2 minutes 50 seconds of the round but fighter B lands a massive straight right, wobbles fighter A and breaks their nose, you can make an argument for either man winning the round.

 

Pay me enough and I'll score however you want. Adelaide Byrd.

 

Never mind the casuals. Many judges don't appear to know how to score a fight. Proof of that is when one judge scores it wide for one fighter, another scores it wide for the other guy and the third judge has it even, or close enough to it. This isn't anywhere near as unusual an occurrence as it should be.

 

Roger Mayweather said it best.

 

Most people suck at scoring fights because they award too many points for nonsense like "controlling the fight" and ineffective jabs.

Fights where there's an aggressor who lands harder shots but is made to look awful are still generally going to be scored for the aggressor (see Teo against Sandor Martin and Jamaine Ortiz).

 

Whilst it is generally frowned upon to have 10-10 rounds and most folks avoid it, it's not actually forbidden in the 10 points must system - and there have been judges scored cards that have 10-10 rounds because the judge felt it was so even they could not be separated.

It's rare but not unheard of.

Personally, I think for really close rounds it probably should be used more often, as it's probably where bias comes in more often than not.

What I personally try and do to minimise bias is when I get a round that could be a swing 10-10 round, I will try and alternate between both fighters to balance it out - but that does not always work given there might be an odd number of even/swing rounds.

 

What's ironic there is in rounds 1 and 2, Usyk was catching or parrying most of Fury's jabs - it wasn't until midway through round 3 that Fury started properly timing and catching Usyk cleanly. Usyk was coming forward to work Fury's midsection, with some decent over the top headshots, but he was NOT neglecting his defense which was pretty effective for those first 2 rounds.

 

Yes, I firmly believe most people can't score properly.

My position is that the vast majority of scorers allow their biases to guide how they score fights.

 

So do you think Fury himself hadn’t declined at all in that time? Because most people think Fury has generally looked worse with each performance post Wilder 2…

Or do you just think Usyk was so much better at that time that it was a given he would stop Fury? Despite the fact that he had only won 1 of 4 bouts by stoppage against top rated heavyweights….

I love Usyk, my favorite fighter of the last decade easily…. But come on bro..

 

I think bias rears it's ugly head at some point even for the best of us scoring as fans. So much is done subjectively that it's rare everyone will agree. You watch a fight and depending on your bias you either saw a defensive masterclass or a guy refusing to engage. Different fight one sees effective aggression while the other sees punches hitting mostly gloves. I think the guys that do it best don't have a dog in the fight because it's far too easy to give "your guy" any close rounds because his style is already favorable to you. Crowd reaction fools the less initiated and a ton can't understand that the previous rounds work doesn't carry over into the next rounds' scoring. When you take liberties you can bend the fight however you wish to present it even if sometimes it's to silly extremes.

** and for the love of God, every fight is NOT a robbery guys. There's a such thing as close, competitive bouts.