The one and only right way to score a round: Ask yourself this question: Who inflicted more damage on his opponent during the round? Ring generalship, effective agression, clean punching, defence, blah blah blah. In the end the only thing that matters is the question I wrote above.
So with that logic - If you throw one puinch in three minutes that cuts an opponent after say they've landed 30 punches on you - You should win the round cause they're cut? There are four criteria, they are subjective but form a decent enough basis from which to judge a round.
I score on clean effective punching. Total punches landed next. And if nobody is landing a punch I go on aggression by default.
why? if your opponent lands 30 punches on you and hurts you and you manage to create a cut with a punch, he still inflicted more damage to you.
hmm not necesary...... let put for instance Spinks vs Mayorga, it was clearly that Mayo was landing the more damaging power punches but Cory outsmrt him by pot shoting his way to victory, so overall in most rounds Mayorga did the dmg but cory wont the round....
All in all, Spinks was damaging Mayorga more with the accumulation of potshots than the few hard shots that Mayorga was partially landing.
I judge it by clean punches, ring generalship, and defense. You can't judge it on damage alone because not every fighter can damage the other fighter and that would mean that fighter would have no chance to win because he can't hurt the other guy.
Not true at all. Often the weaker puncher can land more shots and therefore cause more damage than the harder puncher who is barely landing anything. by the way i almost always score the fight like the judges do. Exept in clear cut robberies.
I'm not pretending to be an expert but you're already misguided when you "say who inflicted more damage". In a "ten points must system" . . . fights are scored per round on who ever connected more clean punches. Therefore a fighter who connected with 2 damaging punches that busted the opponent's face, lips or nose may still lose that round if the opponent connected with more clean punches even if there's no notable effects. Note that there are a lot of cases where the winning fighter has more marks and welch in the face than the loser. :yep :good
The perfect example for this argument for this question is the Paulie vs Cotto fight. Cotto did the more damage but Paulie was more active and made it a close fight. I believe Cotto won a pretty close fight but his fans think he killed Paulie because of damage. I feel you can't judge a whole fight on damage but it should be included while judging a fight.
Another example is Leonard-Duran 3. To quote Larry Merchant: "Never have I seen Ray Leonard look so bad...while looking so good." Referring to the fact that Leonard won a wide decision but had cuts over both eyes and his lip, while Duran had no major marks.