How does one score fights, in general?

I tend to give rounds to the fighter who lands the most significant blows , ie if Fighter A taps Fighter B with pitter patter punches, although landing which arent doing much and Fighter B lands a couple of cracking rights or uppercuts or something which rocks fighter A then although Fighter A technically landed more I give the round to fighter B .

 

I score the main 4 criterion in this order:

solid punching
ring generalship
effective aggression
defence



Punches landed have to be first, the harder the better of course. I like the fighter that controls the tempo next. When it comes to the other two, the guy trying to be offensive scores more because a defensive strategy easier to implement than an offensive one (if the latter combines the 'not be hit' element especially). It's the same in most sport: try being a winger in football, then play full back- the latter is much easier. Same if you're playing attacking table tennis compared to defensive, again the latter is far easier...and so on and so on. The attacker risks far more and should be rewarded more often (again, only if it's effective).


Aggression by itself is no good of course, but if two fighters have landed the same amount of punches in a round and each punch of simliar strength, then the guy forcing it and trying something different will be rewarded on my card. That's why Norton beat Ali (3rd), Tiberi beat Toney. In these very close fights, the fella that risked more won in my book.


You may now ask why then did you score Leonard over Hagler? Well, I thought the solid punching was fairly even, but I felt Leonard controlled the 'tempo' and initiated most of the exchanges. Hagler's aggression wasn't particularly impressive either and Leonard's defence was, but the rounds were Leonard was too defensive and basically 'running' without landing much were the ones he lost.

 

Whoever I like better is the winner.

 

I am an IABA(Irish Amature Boxing Association) judge and score (when not on computer) on effective punches landed. By that I mean solid, LEGAL punches. The solid is the difficult part, it can be hard to tell just how hard a punch is and different judges have different criteria. The biggest error, however, is in scoring of punches that dont land at all, or land incorrectly(slaps etc.) or land outside the target area(back of head, kidneys) or are administered while fouling(holding, pulling head down etc).
For the pros i use similar criteria except that I factor in the power of the punches. I score ring generalship over agression and defence when calling close rounds.

 

Usually I like.....

The most clean punches landed
The most effective punches
Ring generalship
Defence

A good example is the srl hagler fight were ray edged 3 of my 4 main categories & marvin took 1 (the most effective punches)

Thats why I scored the fight to leonard.

The fight the other night with calzaghe & kessler had some close rds & calzaghe edged them for exactly the same reasons as above in the srl hagler fight.

However.... If fighter A is landing slightly more but not by a lot but is still taking the rd then boom gets rocked by a big punch or 2 from fighter B & is noticably hurt & retreats with only survival in mind rather than try land some blows then I give the rd to fighter B.

:good

 

Oh yeah, Fighter B wins that round for definite.

 

In my Corbett book, I note that during March 1889, the Olympic Club published a set of rules that would govern its amateur contests in the future. I think those rules have some valuable pointers.

The referee would decide bouts only when the two judges disagreed. Bouts would be 4 three-minute rounds, but an extra round could be fought if thought necessary to render a decision. The points for decisions would be based upon direct clean hits with the knuckles and for defensive moves such as guarding, slipping, ducking, counter-hitting or getting away, but points would also be subtracted for clinching to avoid punishment. When the points were otherwise equal, the man who did most of the leading was to be given the edge. Disqualification could result from clinching, hugging, butting, wrestling, striking foul blows, flicking or hitting with the open glove, or hitting with the inside or butt of the hand or wrist or elbow.

 

Ask yourself, "who would you rather have been in that round?". That's it.

 

Ring generalship for me is dictating the pace of the fight, the periods of action, the type of action(in-fighting, jab-and-move etc.) Forcing the opponent to fight in a way he doesn't want to or at a time he doesn't want to or in an area he doesn't like(ropes, centre of ring). Defence is the obvious blocking, slipping, ducking, moving, side-stepping, smothering, clinching and rolling

 

Within moderation, and this is where the problems begin, it should be quality over quantity - clean punching is an example of successfully manoeuvring your opponent.

Counter-wise, you can successfully manoeuvre your opponent, yet not land cleanly; drag someone into the trenches, but not really punish them.

Work rate counts for a lot as while it may not be efficient, it will be effective in stopping the opponent having the last say in exchanges.

Scoring preferences greatly differ around the globe, the Americans like aggression, the Europeans are indecisive.

The biggest flaw with scoring today is the tendency to give the round to the fighter who flurries in the last half minute or ten seconds. Often, quiet rounds just need a little liveliness to sway the judges without them having really looked at who has been making the other play to their tune.

Scoring should primarily be based on ring generalship. Punches may land clean but the real question is, "did that disrupt their game?".

It's not a popular example to bring up, but it's Ted Spoons opinion that R. Leonard defeated Hagler via making him lose the boxing match that he made it.

Fights were there is no quarter given, ala Corrales/Castillo I, should then be based on volume and significant blows, another balance which calls for your preference.

Fights will always be scored differently because of preference and angles of view where some punches appear to miss or be blocked. The important point is to analyse everyone of those 3 minutes, last minute flurries do not always deserve the nod - each round is not a race, but a session.

 

with a piece of paper and a writing stick.