Rewarding ineffective aggression over clean punching, ring generalship and defense?

Yes, I'm looking at you, Adamek apologists. Following last weekend's robbery, I did a quick research on what the official scoring criteria are:

• Clean punching: “Clean” punches are punches that land on the face/side of the head and the front/side of the torso.
• Effective aggressiveness: A boxer demonstrates this trait when he consistently and successfully moves forward in a controlled manner.
• Ring generalship: The judges favor the fighter who controls the pace and style of the bout.
• Defense: Boxers that skillfully incorporate defensive maneuvers receive credit in this area.

According to

This content is protected

.

Surprisingly, the poll thread on who won the fight was not as one-sided as I anticipated. Same thing for the Chambers fight - a big majority had Chambers ahead, but the contrary views were quiet substantial in number.

According to this bright fella, Cunningham ran all night and that's supposedly not how you win a fight:

Ignoring the fact that lzolnier is a mentally challenged ultra nationalist who has never seen a fight involving non-Poles, you find that that kind of attitude is hardly unique. People tend to mistake pure aggression for an official scoring criteria when it's not. It's quite the contrary - when you can't land **** your opponent is having a tight defense which is why flurries into thing air and on leather count for the recipient, so in this case Cunningham. Every flurry Adamek failed to land (and that's a lot ), should have been another point on the scorecards for Cunningham. Instead, judges were either crooked, incompetent or both and rewarded mere "looking active" over clean punching, ring generalship and defense. Absolutely mind-boggling. That's how an uneducated idiot would score a fight who has never watched boxing before.
If I recall correctly, Adamek landed merely ~15% (!) of his punches on Chambers and got the decision for literally hitting thin air all night.
Also, there's a distinct difference between being on your bicycle and outboxing your opponent on the outside because it's a ****ing brilliant thing to do given your opponent's slow feet and inability to box on the outside. Cunningham imposed HIS style on Adamek, who would have prefered going toe to toe with Steve, but instead Cunningham kept his distance and boxed his ears off. This ain't being on your bicycle, this is having a terrific gameplan. Adamek, who is used to being way faster than your usual fatass Arreola HW contender, moved like a tank compared to Cunningham and yet people (purposely?) mistake it for running. How is Mayweather undefeated to this date when he made a career of potshotting opponents to death on his backfoot?

Why are people too dense to understand that aggression is simply not an official scoring criteria when it's not effective? And Adamek ain't effective. As wasn't Alexander against Kotelnik. Nor DLH and Cotto against Mayweather. How did you guys have Vitali defeating Chisora when big K was on his backfoot getting stalked all night?

 

Agreed. Absolutely spot on analysis. It's obvious that hometown fighters get cheered on a lot more even they're not effective. There's no excuse as to why judges don't seem to be prepared for this.

Go ahead, post the compubox statistic and highlight your cherry picked number that's not indicative of the fight's course at all. :good

Your bull**** agenda to overhype a poor HW Vitali beat to a pulp, to make Vitali's resume actually mean something, is so transparent it's not funny.

 

I created the RBR thread for Huck v Arslan and scored it 117-111 for Arslan. The other robbery Huck was involved in, namely the Lebedev fight, I was ringside for and I'm pretty sure I reported on that.

As for Sturm, I scored his fight against Macklin 116-112 for Mackling I'm pretty sure I was mad at that. Also, you might like

This content is protected

. If you're still sceptic, let me know.