Is it fair to score fights for runners?

I paid my money and expected to watch a fun fight but that marathon runner made the world title bout become a garbage fight. He deserved to lose the fight and I'm not gonna watch him in the ring with anybody anymore.

 

I will always score for the guy that lands the more or better punches. I don't care if they run. Even if I don't enjoy watching.

There's a lot of performances where a guy makes the other miss a lot and people think he's doing good and give him points for defense. i disagree with that. If your opponent throws 1000 punches and lands 2, and you throw 2 and land 1, all other things being equal (e.g., the power of said punches), you've lost the fight.

The fact that your opponent missed all those punches means nothing if he landed more than you.

 

I have no problem with fighters using movement to set traps and counters or to expose a weakness in their opponents poor footwork, it's often a sound strategy. But movement alone doesn't win fights, just as someone coming forward not throwing and missing punches doesn't win fights either. I'd say I see more of the latter than the former too many get rewarded for just throwing and missing while moving forward and being rewarded for ineffective aggression.

In the end it's punches landed that counts whether you are moving backwards or forwards. One shouldn't be rewarded for either unless you land punches to go with it.

 

Quite often they don't actually get scored in their favour anyways.

Ortiz lost to Lopez, Dirrell lost to Froch, Arbil lost to Rios.

If you're quick enough to hit and not get hit, and your advantage is enough you don't have to take any risks then fair play to you, but if the decision goes against you what generally seems to happen is people don't really care that much because of how negative the performance was.

There's initial uproar now about the result, but with how negative Ortiz fought I bet it gets forgotten about soon enough.

I don't necessarily think it's fair, but also I watch boxing to get entertained so I don't mind if the more entertaining fighter gets the W.

 

That is the way to score a fight.

Round by Round who is landing the majority of clean and effective punches.

If one guy is going backwards but out landing the opponent who is coming forward in that round then he wins the round. End of story.

 

Naoufel Ben Rabeh vs. Juan Urango back in June 2006 is a classic example. I haven't watched the fight since, but at the time I thought Rabeh did enough going backwards landing punches consistently to win the fight.

I'd have to watch it again to see if I have the same opinion.

 

Interesting that during the FOTC, Don Dunphy stated that Ali’s periodic breaking of the action (via clinching) was going to “hurt” him in the scoring.

The problem with that was - how would a judge exactly calculate and quantity demerit points for a semi allowed practice such as clinching.

As I see it, the responsibility for regulating and possibly penalising for excessive clinching is ALL on the ref.

If the ref. didn’t instruct any points deductions in that regard it isn’t up to the judges to make their own decisions, arbitrarily, as to whether any points deductions (or the effective like) should be applied.

Don’t get me wrong, I hate excessive clinching and Ali took it to the nth degree in the Frazier rematch without a single point being taken away.

It wasn’t conventional evasion, Ali was physically preventing Frazier from launching punches in close - which isn’t pure boxing per se.

 

If they land more than opponent its ok, but I hate this style. Doing 3 circles in the ring without throwing a punch, **** that.

 

Nah I disagree with this. When I watched Galahad Vs Warrington I had no qualms scoring in favour of Warrington when Galahad tried full on spoiling every single exchange.

**** that.

 

Neither fighter landed clean, effective punches, though... and that is just one criteria of scoring a fight, anyway.

If you run away like a ***** while the other guy is angrily stalking you and landing indentical punch output, you risk making the stalker appear as if he is the ring general.

 

If the runner lands the same number of punches they should lose. That is aggression. If they land more, they should win, that is boxing scoring.

 

That's why I had the fight a draw, neither were effective in landing clean punches. Personally I'm not sure either Ortiz or Teo proved one was the ring general though with how clearly frustrated Teo was at times with Ortiz it could be argued it was Ortiz imposing his style of fight on Teo rather than the other way round. But in the end even if that was the case Ortiz just didn't land enough especially in the last few rounds to warrant him winning even if you thought he was dictating where the fight was fought.

As for the second part, I agree that's the risk, but that shouldn't be that way. Yes it can be looked as the aggressor being the ring general and him making his opponent be overly defensive but on the flip side you could look at it as a defensive boxer being the ring general making the aggressive boxer ineffective with his aggression by utilising constant movement. But usually it's the former that tends to be rewarded for simply coming forward and so any fighter choosing to fight like Ortiz did, really is taking a huge risk and rolling the dice and hoping the judges see it differently to most other judges.

 

Nothing wrong with hitting and moving and getting the W, especially if you don't have big power, and it definitely leaves them more susceptible to being screwed over though IMO as very few running ttype fighters have the privilege of being the A - side in bigger fights.

 

That's it effective punching. Now we've all seen guys just run for their lives and I believe we all despise that.