How do we subjectively score a fight(ward v SK GGG v Jacobs)

It's very simple. For most observers,

1. If you favor a style,
2. If only one fighter is star or
3. If you have an interest in a fighter winning (you bet on him, GBP got you this sweet job, you talked up a fighter on ESB for the last month, etc...)

you'll give close or near-close rounds to that fighter.

All the criteria of judging, effective aggression, cleaner more effective punches, defense, ring generalship, all that goes out the window.

Oh yeah. And score a few make up rounds for the other fighter if you're afraid your bias will be too obvious.

 

No sarcasm intended.

 

The fact that you thought Ward got a draw proves you didn't score the fight. To get a draw there would have to be something weird with the scoring. If Ward wins 6 rounds he loses because of the knockdown. If Ward wins 7 he wins the fight.

 

Jacobs beat GGG and Kovalev beat Ward imo.

 

No style preference for me Triple G Jacobs was razor close. Triple G jab and fact he hurt Jacobs several times nipped the fight for me but Jacobs was very game.
Kovalev clearly beat Ward imo. I been over it a million times. He was outlanded, dropped, hit with the harder punchses. His output was way down. Ward spent the first 6 rounds in survival winning maybe the 5th. Also lost the 10th and 12th to me. He fought survival not winning boxing.

 

Does the thread starter mean "How do we objectively score a fight?"

 

I had it a draw as well. 10/10 rounds in a too close to call round.A few of the rounds were very close, I had 1 even, if I rewatch I could have 3 even.

 

I personally count significant punches landed and compare those, favouring punches to the head over those to the body. I'm not a fan of pitty pat "points scoring" punches, but of course, if one guy is landing a bunch of those against one good punch then I'll take the quantity, usually. The cleaner the punch the more it impresses me.

The effect of the punches on the opponent is also important. Take Davey Moore / Duran. Moore was landing some good punches on Duran to zero effct, whereas Duran totally disfigured and dropped Moore.

If all things are equal, I'll take the aggressor in a fight.

If aggression is the same, and one guy is making the other guy miss a lot and look foolish, I'll give more weight to what he is doing.

It's usually pretty obvious who is winning a round and who is not. Sometimes when rewatching a close fight I divide a round into three minutes and score each minute, trying to work out who is actually dominating the fight by time.

If I honestly can't pick I split the very close rounds up evenly between the fighters.

Usually I end up with a result that is in line with majority opinion.

 

Fair enough, I just personally don't think scoring 10/10 rounds is very useful since a judge will never do it.

 

You must have had at least 1 round as even during that fight?

 

It's more useful when re-watching a fight after seeing how the fight has played out. After you have seen how close all the rounds were, you can go back and give 10-10 rounds to rounds that were extremely close, as a way to more accurately assign points. I mean if a fighter dominantes a round and wins it 10-9, but then in another round it's back and forth and one fighter edges it in the final 10 seconds of the round, to have the fight even 19-19 after 2 rounds when one fighter has landed significantly more punches over those 6 minutes, well it would be more accurate for it to be 20-19. (10-9, 10-10) Again this is hard to do when watching it in real-time especially early in a fight because you don't know how many close rounds there will be and how many clear winners to a round there will be. There are certainly fights where you can do what BCS8 is saying about splitting close rounds between fighters, but if there aren't an equal number of equally close rounds it's not that accurate. I do think that if you are scoring a fight real-time, if you give a close round to someone, you should keep that in the back of your mind if there's another close round. If there isn't another close round for the rest of the fight, then I don't see why you can't go back and re-score that close round a 10-10 round before handing in the card. If I'm not mistaken, I believe 10-10 rounds are still common in Europe, certainly on U.K. press ringside scorers, and I think even by many European official judges. (but in the USA the official judges are pretty much told they can’t, though I’m not sure it’s ever actually demanded or enforced) I think this is one of the main things that leads to a lot of controversial scorecards in the USA, and that’s the lack of judges considering 10-10 rounds or being able to score 10-10 rounds when there isn’t an even number of close rounds that you can split between two fighters. If one fighter wins 6 rounds that were toss up rounds, and another fighter dominants the other 6 rounds, that’s why we get controversial scorecards. If US judges particularly considered giving 10-10 rounds, it could produce more accurate cards for fights with a lot of close rounds. There’s two trains of thought here : there are people who think that no matter what there should always be a winner of a round, while I’m of the mind that if it’s too close it should be even. That’s why when I see controversial cards I don’t scream robbery, because I know that almost always it’s simply due to a judges lack scoring 10-10 rounds.

 

I think forcing yourself to give rounds to somebody will only help the guy you're rooting for, or the guy fighting on home soil who has the crowd behind them. I saw plenty of rounds when Kov hit his 5 power punches to 10 of Ward's jabs. That's an even round for me. Because I like Kov more, I could have suggested he hurt Ward more during the rounds so Kov should have the round himself.