How rare is the ability to accurately score a round of boxing?

Well, there are set criteria each judge needs to follow when scoring a fight:

* Effective punching
* Ring generalship
* Effective aggression
* Defense

These can be broken down further into sub-catergories, but those are the 4 main criteria.
Judging will always be subjective, unless all you do is count punches landed, which is a heavily flawed approach.

I personally rarely sit down and score a fight, unless there is a reason for it. That said, I do note the criteria above, in my head, when watching. I'm usually in agreement with the outcome.

But as you say, 'effective punching' though seemingly relatively straightforward, sometimes isn't. Do 5 sharp jabs beat 2 power punches? Do 2 body shots beat a crisp hook to the chin?
It's all context dependent, and therefore subjective.
Apparently, actually becoming a judge doesn't follow a set formula, though the following seems to be the most usual way:
Apply to your local boxing board or athletic commission, and they will have you judge in the amateurs for a set time. (no specific time specified)
One guy I read about online had to judge 25 amateur bouts per evening, and he did this for a few months.
Then, you have to sometimes shadow a professional judge.
There is a training course you have to pass. One such course only lasted 5 hours. It includes a written exam, marked by boxing judges.
It seems that after that, you good to go.
That said, I'm certain that having lots of experience in the game, either as a ref or in some other capacity, will be enormously beneficial in a person actually being able to judge professional contests.

But lastly, I'm certain that many here would qualify as competent judges, just by virtue of having watched boxing for years upon years religiously. Experience counts for a lot, even if a person doesn't have an accredited license.

But ultimately, judging is subjective and sometimes even veteran judges can get it wrong.

 

I use the same approach of following a round and keeping track of who takes the lead and how big a lead, then levelling up if the other boxer scores back enough, then continue on from there, etc., etc.

But, to be honest, I'm not as confident in my abilities of scoring the fights 'live' on first viewing. I'd hate to be a judge.

I'm a big believer in even rounds if in doubt. If it's really close, give them both the round.
I'm a big fan of clean knockouts too.
This sport shouldn't have to rely on judges' decisions in fights where there's room for different views.

 

Subjectivity is often times bias now. Judges should just score it straight up. It's easy to be swayed by the A side, crowd noise, and etc.

 

I was a licensed judge in Tennessee for a year (the licenses are one-year terms). It was a long time ago. I got reminded when it showed up as a ‘which of these are true’ question in confirming my identity online for a state agency haha.

Here’s how it happened: there was a low-level club show at a bar in Nashville. I was well known on the scene by pretty much everyone in boxing around the area because I spent time at gyms, went to a lot of shows, etc.

About an hour beforehand, one of the three assigned judges called in sick. The commissioner made a few quick calls from the site and couldn’t find anyone who could get there. The guy who was refereeing the card suggested me to the commissioner, who semi-knew me from the scene. The commissioner asked the other judges if they had objections, and also the promoter and managers. No one did.

He took me over to the side and we sat down and he quizzed me for about 15 minutes. I knew the four criteria and how to apply them and explained. He asked me some procedural questions — if the ref calls a knockdown and you think it’s a slip, how do you handle that (you have to score it as a knockdown; although that doesn’t automatically mean the guy credited with knocking the guy down wins the round or wins it 10-8, it weighs in his favor regardless of the judge’s opinion) — same thing if a point is deducted and the judge disagrees with the ref (if a point is deducted by the ref, it’s mandatory that the judge deduct the point), etc.

He said, ‘You’re more than qualified.’ He took out a license and filled it in, signed it and took out a receipt book and asked me to sign it — I said, ‘I’m not sure I want to pay for this but I’m happy to judge.’ He said the promoter had agreed to pay the fee (I want to say it was $50 or $100) so the show could go on, he would collect but I get the receipt in case anyone ever asks me to produce it.

Also told me do not let anyone influence my scoring, now I’m licensed and I’m to score it as I see it; report it directly to him if anyone tried to influence me (no one did).

That was it. I think there were 6 or 8 fights that night and I judged them all. He told me I was now on the rotation and if needed I would get a call, or I could call if I wanted to judge a particular show. (I never judged again but kept the license for some time.)

At the end of the night I got the standard fare, which I think was $100 for the show, in cash from the promoter ... who thanked me for saving his show.

 

Nowadays the problem usually isn't if someone can judge a fight properly, but rather if someone can avoid getting bribed beforehand.

 

I agree. Some people seem to have an aversion to scoring even rounds and basically flip a coin to determine a winner, in my view this diminishes the value of rounds that actually do have clear winners.