Do you priortize effective aggression?

Defense also includes clean punching, isn't defense even more directly related to clean punching than Effective Aggression?

I mean, if you are displaying solid defense, if you are blocking punches, or slipping punches, then you are directly negating the opponent's ability to land clean punches. It seems to me that defense is more directly related to clean punching than anything.

On the contrary, if you are effectively aggressive, you don't necesarily have to be landing clean punches. You could very well be effectively aggressive without landing clean punches. However you can't showcase good defense while being hit with clean punches. It seems to me that Effective Aggression is more related to Ring Generalship than Clean Punching. If your aggression isn't effective, then chances are you aren't the ring general. If your defense isn't solid, then chances are your opponent is landing clean punches.

 

Truth always hurts.

 

I score clean punches over anything. However only to an extent. For example Imam was landing nicer cleaner right hand counters against Ramirez, but Ramirez would just do far more work. Same as Canelo/GGG, Canelo would land these very clean punches, but GGG would outwork him.

 

You don't need to be aggressive to advance. You could advance patiently in a measured manner. That's not being aggressive. To me, the most important category is clean punching. If a fighter lands more clean, effective punches than his opponent, in most cases he should win the round. It's really only when the number of clean, effective punches are close that the other categories come into play.

With defense, if the number of clean, effective punches are similar, but one guy is more efficient (throws less, lands at a higher percentage) and blocks or slips punches that would otherwise be clean effective punches if not for the high level defense, when that happens it can be enough to swing a round for that fighter. Usually it's very hard to make the determination as to who is the ring general or if the aggressor is effective, and in my view using either of these two categories to determine who wins a round is secondary to clean punching and defense, which is more easily visible and quantifiable. There are of course instances where effective aggression and ring generalship should be consider, but too often I believe these categories are used as a crutch to give rounds to the fighter who's style you prefer in place of clean punching and defense.

 

true

 

The undermining of defense destroys the sport and it shows that many people have zero idea how to score a fight. Pro judges and people who know the sport appreciate defense. Noobs and casuals do not

That's the diff. There's a reason pro judges are where they are... And most others are not responsible for scoring real fights...

If we put some of the people who voted yes in charge of scoring pro fights, there would be no sport left...

Might as well change the name of boxing to brawling and be done with it! Kimbo Slice backyard brawl style!