IMO out of the 4 scoring categories, defense should rank #1, prioritized.

Hit and not get hit. Offensive effectiveness should rank #1. Ring generalship #2 and defensive effectiveness #3. You can't win a fight without offense.

 

atsch :nut

So...let's say a boxer doesn't throw a single punch in the round but blocked most of them despite taking his share of good punches during the round...you're saying to me that the defensive boxer takes the round?!?!!!!! :huh at this point, boxers won't throw punches anymore in case the opponent block his shots....it doesn't make sense.

 

Slipping a punch should be equal to landing one if not worth more. That's my point.

The fact is, people undermine defense in scoring.

Judges and the public don't give any credit to defensive fighters.

 

I've never ever agreed with a knockout being the round winning factor if no point deductions or other knockdowns/knockout takes place.

I will never agree with it.

And it's a bad ****ogy, its much much different to a football example.

 

yep, if you go 12 rounds, landing 12 out of 24 trown, slipping and blocking 400 punches and taking a mere 150 you're the clear winner. :yep

 

Defense is no scoring category. Scoring you know like in scoring punches.

 

Because clean punches landed is a scoring criteria in judging a fight. Showing good reflexes means that you evaded a punch. Showing a good chin means that you got hit by a punch.

A good chin helps in a fight, but to see a guy take punch after punch with now effect, and then to score the round to that guy because he showed an iron chin, would be ludicrous.

 

This

 

1. Clean punching
2. Effective aggression
3. Defense
4. Ring generalship

 

1. Defense
2. Ring Generalship
3. Clean Punching
4. Effective Aggression

For me.

 

No:roll:

 

What you say is right. The fact that one guy has landed more effective punches means he has been the effective aggressor with the better defense and ring generalship. This has been belted out, argued over and evolved by boxing authorities for decades to the criteria we have today. Now this dude mcv thinks it should all be changed like he has only just thought about it.

 

If that were the case then fighters would be a lot more economical with their output as they would fear missing a punch and losing out in the judges eyes.

As i and others have said, landing clean shots should be the defining factor in scoring a round as this is the end product, so to speak. The others (defense, ring generalship and effective aggression) are the means to the end. This doesn't lessen the importance of them as with bad defense, ring generalship and ineffective aggression, you will probably lose the fight. However, you would lose the fight from the direct consequence of landing less shots and doing less damage to your opponent than they landed and inflicted on you.

It is like with soccer; passing is an integral part of the game. It would be incredibly hard to win without it. However, you don't get directly credited/scored for it in the final outcome. It is a means to an end with the main deciding factor being shots scored.

 

I think we need a scoring criteria that would award iron chin fighters more.

 

Haha, isn't that what toughman competitions are? Two guys smashing each other until one fall.