I have wondered this for as long as I have been a boxing fan. Sure I have seen fights and decided in my own mind who I felt won, but is it really that simple? I don't think so. What type of criteria do judges use? Is staying busier what some judges like to see in fighters? How about less punching but better accuracy? Lastly, how does one become a judge in the sport of boxing? Is there an acedemy or school for such a profession?
my criteria: effective aggresion, ring generalship, whos controlling the tempo of the fight, knockdowns, whos winning the exchanges, powerpunches, who is making the other fighter fight their kind of fight, etc
I can see you've been to judge acadamy. I hear Don King's handing out scholarships. You should get a job with HBO.
Good political connections apparently help one to become a judge or referee, at least in some jurisdictions.
Yep, the judges must have been Holyfiled fans for Lewis Holyfiled 1 lol. Or Tyson fans for Tyson Douglas.
I just consider every single aspect there is to the art of boxing, and then just see who is doin' the better of the aspects thst are employed in the fight (you usually dont get a round that has absoultely every type of boxing goin' on in it), i have a lot of respect for defensive mastery though, and quality of punches, effective aggression, ring generalship, just everything. I personally wont give a 10-8 round unless there is a knockdown, and dont give even rounds, it would be more or less impossible for 2 fighters to box a round, and 1 hasnt done somethin' that edges that round in his favour. Sometimes its just immensely difficult to determine who that fighter was in the round
