Unless you're blind of course you separate them. They are two different human beings. When scoring a fight it's just not healthy at all to create(!) a rooting interest. It creates biasness and makes one less objective.
I agree with what you say but if the judges had immediate access to punch stats on a round by round basis, they would score fights much more in a similar fashion... Landing more still is the most important criteria, although punches that have more effect are obviously a notch above. The effectiveness of the aggression will always be subjective and most often quite personal but it actually should play a lesser role in scoring fights compared to effective and precise punches landed.
It's four things that need to be considered. Clean effective punching is one of four things, not to be elevated above the other three but rather considered in equal measure. Those are the official rules as they have stood for a long time now. Of course, what Tommy is discussing is an overhaul - a revolutionary approach of some sort to replace these rules. If you throw around terms like "the point of..." or "the object of the game", you're talking about the official rules as they stand, as they were established. Hypothetical future rule changes are one thing, but the object of the game, in the present sense, is the object according to the existing rules. Which award points on a ten-point-must round-by-round system using FOUR criteria. Not one big one and three little ones. Four equal criteria. It's not "ring generalship in relation to landing clean effective punches". It's not "effective aggression in relation to landing clean effective punches". They aren't qualified as such. Each stands on its own as a separate but equal criteria, each important but uninfluenced by each other. Clean effective punching has its place, but it isn't the whole enchilada. Whether you think it ought to be or not, doesn't make it official.
Being the aggressor and / or controlling the ring / tempo, should always be secondary criterias to determine the winner of a round when the most important one is fairly equal between the boxers.
Says who? You? That's great that you have an opinion but the people who ESTABLISHED THE RULES didn't feel that way. :deal All four criteria are on the same - and PRIMARY - tier. Clean effective punching isn't the "big one". It's one of four. The rest aren't "fallback" options. Under the current Unified Rules, they HAVE to be considered in equal measure.
I remember some time ago on an episode of Friday Night Fights, Teddy Atlas used this electronic device known as a flow meter, illustrating the fighter he felt was winning the round, adding, with this, commentary for why. He noted agression in his commentary as something that should potentially increase the fighter's flow, specifically in times where both fighters are not landing or throwing. I definitely agree with Teddy. Additionally, I agree, as Teddy suggested, that such an electronic meter should be implemented during other bouts, especially championship bouts, where people from the boxing commision may overlook, if not record, judges flow meters, and ask questions regarding their decisions for the flow of a particular round. I know boxing will never be an objective sport (and really, other sports lack absolute objectivity as well: for instance, misjuged penalties in Football or Basketball); but, I would like to think that there may be some revisions to increase objectivity of boxing - - one being the instant replay, which hopefully evolves from what it is now, and second this flow meter or some sort of check and balance for judging so that decisions like Holyfield v Lewis or Malignaggi v Diaz occur less.
What you are saying is no different to my interpretation. A factor such as Ring Generalship is entirely subjective, how are YOU judging that? Ring Generalship in itself is just two nice sounding words, it means nothing until its applied. How are you applying it? I told you how I am. Since we're refrencing this fight there is no way on earth Valuev won by that criteria on a round by round basis. Of the 4 categories I'd give him half mark for aggression.
You're right but as TFFP was saying, pretty much all criterias go hand in hand, except for aggression or applying pressure. You land cleanly and more often normally adds up to better ring generalship and better defence anyways...
Right but if you've already awarded Fighter A a quarter-point (we'll say that acing all four criteria add up to a total possible single-integer 1 point per round) for clean effective punching, you need to view the other criteria without regard to that first one. In other words, clear your mind of that quarter-point you've already awarded, don't let it influence your judgment of overall generalship (minus clean effective punching, which you've already judged them on), effective aggression (minus clean effective punching, which you've already judged them on - and I think this is where people are getting tripped up, feeling that there's no such thing as effective aggression without punches being landed), and defense (minus clean effective punching, which you've already judged them on...not that it applies as much here, but we'll even subtract counter-punching and fighting out of a clinch). You've got to deconstruct the entire round and put all its events for each fighter into four piles. If something fits better in one pile than another, put it in that pile...but DO NOT put it in two separate piles. A place for everything and everything in its place. When you're done mentally sorting, examine the piles. If Fighter A has a bigger "clean effective punching" pile, give him 1 quarter-point and Fighter B zero. If Fighter B has a bigger "ring generalship" pile, give him 1 quarter point and Figher A zero. Whoever has the closest to a full point wins the round. Of course, you run into the obstacle of one guy having better ring generalship and defense (half a point) versus one guy having better clean effective punching and effective aggression (half a point) - a dead heat! So how do you split them? You almost have to "favor" one criteria at that point, or give an even round. I'm not defending the existing rules as perfect, just trying to clarify for people who may not understand exactly what they are. :deal
This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected
Actually, simply looking for a particular thing from fighters is having a bias. Liking aggression means you're biased towards aggressive fighters. Liking good ring generalship means you're biased to the guy holding ring centre.
It's a matter of simply being honest with yourself. Plenty of people in the world are capable of it. Cassius Clay, one of the most egotistical sportsmen the world has ever known, admitted on at least one occasion "I lost that fight fair and square" even after receiving a nod from the judges. He couldn't possibly be any more biased in his own favor, yet somehow he makes this leap, even when he doesn't have to. Ditto Ray Leonard and many others... Bias as a fan and objectivity as a judge (official or armchair) can exist in harmony. You just need to be the type of person who's capable of complete self-honesty. :deal