Most people dont know how to score a fight.

In that case, lets not have judges, and just have default even rounds. After all anyone CAN score every round even if you want; but that doesn't mean you SHOULD...

 

How can you see a case for either fighter? You must know when you think one guys edged it. Thats the whole point of judging the fight, splitting the rounds where perhaps a layman or uneducated person on boxing could not. A chimp could quite possibly learn to judge rounds that are one sided, thats not really what we need judges for.

 

Some rounds are 'close but clear' and some 'could go either way.' I'm saying it's those which 'could go either way' that should be scored even.

There are plenty of 'could go either way' rounds which will split the judges on the night, and split discussions here on ESB. Take a classic 'quality versus quantity' round. People who like quantity see it one way; people who like quality see it the other way. The round, and maybe the fight, gets decided by the preferences of the judges. Get two 'quality' guys and one guy wins, get two 'quantity' guys and it goes the other way.

Is that really the ideal system? Wouldn't it be better to acknowledge that there can be legitimate differences of opinion and score more rounds even on that basis?

 

Quality v Quantity are just buzzwords, if the judges are doing their job according to the guidelines for scoring its not really a factor. There shouldn't be a tendency towards either, any favoring over one of the other should only be in context after having considered it against the scoring crietia. I know interpreting the guidelines is subjective at times and thats where your theory comes in but thats what being a top level judge is all about, being free from bias and keeping the following in mind at all times and applying it to the bout in question:

- Clean effective punching
-Effective aggressiveness
- Ring generalship
- Defense

We just have so many particularly in British boxing that are either corrupt/incompetent or have no idea what they're doing and can't even score obvious rounds correctly based on the above criteria so asking them to score an actual close round where it may be a case of discerning between occasional clean punching and some effective but less eye catching aggression is impossible. That doesn't mean it can't be done, there are many that can and have and we need to improve standards and weed out corruption (wishful thinking) rather than overhauling the system. I think you're probably sat there scratching your head about decisions like all of us but possibly scratching the surface in the wrong area if you're thinking its the system thats wrong rather than the age old problems that are likely still a cancer on the sport.

 

Effective aggression.... Ring Generalship... they are not throw away, cliche, buzz words?

If not, can you please explain both concepts, as no one else to my knowledge, in the history of boxing, has managed to effectively explain both of them, as anything than throw away cliche buzz words.

 

As I said they're subjective, but only in the sense it takes somebody knowledgable to interpret and apply them in context.

Quantity and Quality means absolutely nothing, it says nothing about the quality of the so called 'quantity' and the amount of so called quality. It's just a lazy cliche used to support stylistic preferences that should never be a factor.

Effective aggression needs no explaining so I'm unsurprised nobody has come up with a definition thats any more succinct - its up to the judges to interpret how effective it is.

Ring generalship is more tricky, I interpret it to mean controlling the flow and pace of a fight and a lot of factors contribute to that most of them in my opinion stem from footwork. But really I think if a judge is good at interpreting the other 3 criteria ring generalship is unimportant to consider, its a pretty rare occurance where you could display better defence, clean punching and aggression and not be in control of other factors and for this reason I rarely think of it in my first viewing of a fight. Perhaps a mistake, but not so much of one as not considering the criteria and going on gut feelings and styles, and failing to distinguish between fighters in very close rounds.

 

Combat effectiveness, Ring generalship, defense and clean punching are all pertinent factors, TBooze. And should be in everyone's criteria in scoring a fight. If you don't use them to judge fights then all we would need is an official punch stat numbers.

Usually i give the round to the fighter i would rather be at that rounds end. I think rounds in which fighters are impossible to separate are extremely rare if you use that criteria. I try and do my best to not score even rounds, but having said that you also have to keep that option open.

 

Good job explaining ring generalship, T. See i think it's a significant factor in fights. To me it's a subtle quality that gets overlooked, but like you said it's basically who's controlling the pace and direction of the fight. If you ever see a fight and you wonder why there's an impression you get that one fighter is winning, but they're both landing about the same, to me that is because of ring generalship. Joe Calzaghe had brillient ring generalship, so does Hopkins and Ward as well. They're controlling the action even if they're not putting on beatdowns.

You make a good point as well, in that some factors like Ring generalship doesn't need to considered because other factors are more clear, for example clean punching. That is much more obvious so if a fighter is landing more clean punches then ring generalship isn't considered because that fighter is probabily gonna win that round anyway. As long as the judge knows whats making it easier for that fighter to land clean punches is ring generalship, so they can be inextricably bound. A good example is Mayweather beating Oscar on ring generalship AND clean punching, but the clean punching mainly as a result of him being an excellent ring general.

 

Before you accuse others of writing poorly (especially when your original criticism was about the ownership of my opinion and, therefore, unrelated), you might want to avoid mistakes like:

vein = vain
feces = faeces

But hey, keep going, we don't discriminate in here: idiots are just as welcome.

 

I never score even rounds, not even in Barrera-Morales I

 

I think the misspelling of a word or two, is not necessarily evidence of poorly written work.

My point as you have shown was written with such clarity, that you still knew what I meant despite spelling errors, a skill perhaps you need to develop. Especially with so many idiots on the board.

But for you dftaylor, I will proof read my posts for you!

 

engleesh teachers would dissagree.

 

I guess you're one of the majority that doesn't know how to score a fight then. atsch