How does one score fights, in general?

Those are Harold Lederman's and probably Julie Lederman's criteria. But let's just stop for a moment here - What does effective aggressiveness really mean? That you punch clean, right on the money and as often as possible? Should you measure the intensity of the shots ( power punches aside from jabs and total punches)? Should you give strong emphasis to connect rate or total punch output? If you miss a lot, should that mean that your opponent automatically has a great defense? And how can you measure Ring Generalship, is it just a subjective perception or is it that important to make you give 10 to one fighter and 9 to the other? I am just shooting at the air and anyone can answer back along with Robbi and so that we can all "help" Decebal...

 

There are not enough drawn rounds.The early rounds of a big fight are usually very close where the boxers are just feeling each other out,trying to get their timing down etc. - many of these rounds go to the favourite or home town fighter when they should actually be scored 10 - 10. The latter rounds are not usually as close and the better fighter will emerge.

 

This content is protected

 

[GV][/GV]

I agree - I'm the same, I pretty much score rounds for whoever I instinctively/intuitively felt won it. Not the most scientific way, I know, but in reality, you're absorbing everything that happened in the round and letting your subconscious decide the winner, which is still a very accurate way of judging it, I feel.

 

Thats why I thought Castillo dominated Mayweather but then when I learned the rbr system I learned that he beat him in a close fight 115-113 Castillo dominated 7 rounds and Mayweather won narrowly 5 rounds making it a close fight, but if you just watch the fight as a whole you see Castillo whooping his ass like he stole him something.

 

I just score the round for whichever fighter I like better.

 

Clean punching.

 

The bottom line is who's boxing better, and by boxing better I mean who's doing the things that makes boxing what it is by definition.
I think that's a simple way to do it.
I look at the sport as a hit him more than he hits you contest, but also hit him with clean boxing punches. Not blocked street fighter clubbing punches.
Land clean Jabs, right hands, hooks, crosses, and upper cuts. Without being hit with the same, and I'll score that round for you

 

Great post:hi:

 

I think that if I was to oversimplify it I would say, the winner of a round is the guy that takes the least amount of damage. This oversimplification really adresses everything that the rest of you have mentioned.

 

Clean punching is my main concern when scoring a fight.

For example: Fighter A is hitting Fighter B with nice clean shots for the majority of the round. Fighter B catches Fighter A with 2 impressive shots that look really powerful. IMO, Fighter A wins the round.

I also score jabs differently than I do powershots. Powershots are more important to me and are usually scored higher, so even if a fighter has been jabbing the head of a another fighter all round long, a few good powershots will win the other fighter the round.

All things being equal, I'll look at who is controling the fighter.

 

I don't agree with you here. We all know power shot is just a term for anything other than a jab. A fighter with a good jab can hurt his opponent a lot with it and I've seen plenty of fights where one fighter does more damage with his jab than his opponent does with his "power shots"

 

So if that's how the bottom line in da scoring business and is that simple, how come a classy boxer takes some "jabs" from a bully, street fighter clubbin & slammin puncher and loses the fight on the cards? I won't mention names but anyone can make out and whateva crosses your mind... I believe people like to see guys getting hit hard, shoulders, back of da head, plenty of blood and balls and pick the stronger guy to win... Oh, and I'm speakin 2 Illstate, so keep ur replies to urselves if you please.