How do you judge a fight?

I think it was Teddy Atlas whom I heard talk about this. He sounded kinda heartbroken about it, but also had come to accept it(which is a given as he has spent his entire life in the sport).
He actually said what you did. Imagine something like this happening in any major league sport in the U.S!
FFS, congress would likely step in

But boxing? Nah. All good fam.
Oh, you've sparred a few times, mind refereeing an amateur bout? Oh, you've refereed a few amateur bouts, mind doing some judging? How about a pro bout? Hey, we have this title fight we´d like you to judge. Hey man, how about some nice dinner before tomorrows big night? That? Oh, that is Lucille, she is real nice

And I ain´t even kidding. This how it works. You can start your way from literally nothing in boxing and work to the top. All the while receiving little actual education and guidance. A single ****ing seminar on ones duties does not ****ing cut it. (which is kinda how they do it here)

I would sue the **** out of everyone if I found out my opponents promoter pulled this ****. Hell, if I had money, I would make sure to find out just to go all out. No matter if the case is actually winnable. This **** has to be heard.

 

Clean effective punching above all. If a guy is the ring general he probably is landing the clean effective punches. If hes the effective aggressor hes probably landing the clean effective punches. If a guys d is good and the others isn't that's reflected by clean effective punching

I sort of use the other 3 when punching is about dead even

I used to cut the round to thirds but now I do a running tally of whose winning as it goes on

 

Making someone miss repeatedly can be enough for me to give them the round especially when it’s against someone who is throwing more volume, it’s better to evade a 100 shots and throw nothing imo

 

Scoring ring generalship seems very redundant to me. If you are the ring general then the fight is going how you want it so you're landing more punches right? It seems like a scapegoat some people use to make it seem like their preferred fighter won. For example if you have a slick mover against a pressure fighter and that pressure fighter is effectively cutting off the ring and forcing the mover to exchange more than they want to then people give points to the pressure fighter. But what if the mover is landing the better scoring shots during these exchanges? The pressure fighter shouldn't be winning the round just because he's forcing the mover to exchange shots.

 

I agree.

A lot of fighters fight really well while backing up or with their backs against the ropes, for example. The mover can actually be the ring general if that's the way he wants the fight to go. I credit the guy coming forward by default when the mover isn't throwing/landing anything, but I'm not gonna give a guy credit for coming forward and throwing punches if he's getting countered, out-landed, etc. by the "stick-and-move" fighter.

 

If they are too close to call I call it even. Sometimes the punches are so fast that you can't tell for sure if a punch actually landed, in that case I rewind and watch in slow motion. You can't always get it right on fight night in a close one , it takes another viewing.

 

Basically I judge a fight based on who the commentator tells me is winning because I have no idea about boxing and just want eddie hearn to shut up and take my money

 

If a fighter has a strange name I know he is winning and or about to get robbed on the cards.

 

That's what I tend to do, often times fighters will take the first 2 mins off and go hard in the last minute so that the immediate impression of that round was that the fighter who was the aggressor in the last minute dominated.

 

I pre fill the score card for the money fighter and hope for a knockout.