How do you score a fight?

those are jokes

 

Teddy Atlas.

Sigh.

Didn't Atlas have BJ Flores losing to Ding?

 

By the same 4 criteria that pro judges are supposed to use to judge a fight:

Effective Aggression, Ring generalship, Clean punching and lastly defense, though that last one is more or less a culmination of how well a fighter does at the other three.

Every fight I watch I draw up two columns and score each round as soon as it's over.

I make a point of resetting each round and thinking of it only in the terms of what happened in the context of the three minutes that just happened and am concsious of fighters who try to steal a round in the last seconds.

Often times I'll sit there and in thirty second intervals make a small mark on who I think won that 30 seconds and then look at where the majority of the 6 marks are in determining who won the round, but I reckon my overarching decision is that it is a pro fight and flush clean shots are probably the main influence on who I think wins a round.

 

The thing thats funny about Atlas is that he's serious. And he will speak to make you believe what he's saying.

 

There's a problem there . . . how do the **** would you reflect defense in your scorecards?

This is a lame justification from nuthuggers when their favorite fighters loses.

If the other guy threw in 100 punches and 60 were blocked . . . would you score the round for the blocker who only threw less punches? . . . (obviously because he is busy blocking and evading punches).

 

I don't think he meant it in that way. But if he did, atsch

 

Perfect fight example was Molitor vs Caballero

 

To me reflecting defense in your scorecards would be if fighter A throws 100 punches and 60 of them are slipped, ducked or dodged by Fighter B, who throws 50 punches but lands enough of them solidly to take the round.

That may be COMPLETELY different from what this guy is saying though.

 

Well that depends on which fighter was putting forth the more effective aggression.

For example - Chris Byrd lands 100 jabs in a round and then gets one David Tua flush left hook at the end of the round.

That's why compubox and counting punches is a flawed approach to scoring - You need to assess the quality and power of the punches.

 

The "effective defense" debate hit a fever pitch with the first eight rounds of Hopkins - Taylor I.

If you didn't believe in ring generalship being equal to aggression, effective or not, you had Bernard losing by a wide margin. If you did, you had him close to even or only down a round or two.

This is where scoring gets subjective. The object of the game is to hit without being hit, so if you aren't throwing at all, the argument can be made that you can't possibly be winning. I see both sides of this one, although somehow, I did have Bernard winning that fight 7-5.

 

Me thinks you are not alone...

 

Accuracy, workrate, ring generalship, power punches landed, and defense.

 

Defense is a part of scoring. Some ppl dont appreciate it.

 

It's the reason I scored the swing rounds for Nate Campbell instead of Funeka last Saturday.

 

I honestly think that judges don't even consider defense when scoring fights. And this goes for most fans too. And i'm guilty of this to some extent.

What i look for first and foremost is who lands the clean, hard, effective punches. Not arm punches but punches where they put a little mustard on em. Those are harder to land. I think most people use this criteria first and foremost and the other three takes a back seat.