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

2012-12-22
223 Steve Cunningham 203 25-4-0
Sands Casino Resort, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA W SD 12 12
referee: Gary Rosato | judge: Debra Barnes 115-113 | judge: Tom Miller 113-115 | judge: Dave Greer 116-112
IBF North American heavyweight title (supervisor: Daryl Peoples)
IBF eliminator for #2-spot

I think it was pretty effective aggression. Stop crying.

 

Wow.. Do people really not know how to score a round? Some concerning arguments here, even after being proved not in the official scoring criteria they refuse to acknowledge they're scoring wrong and based on what they want to see... Harold has always pissed me off with his scoring for the aggressor only..

--"From my vantage point in the back, I scored it 115-113 for Adamek,"; said Lederman.

"He would throw one right hand and start running again. He never put two right hands together the entire fight, he just wouldn't sustain an attack. He was circling and circling and circling. He landed an occasional really good right hand -- a real scoring punch -- and then was on his horse again. I just don't think you can win that way. When you stop and you fire a hard right hand, jump on a guy, try to hurt him, try to get him out of there. He didn't do it." -- :verysad

 

- Clean Effective punching

- EFFECTIVE AGGRESSION

- Ring generalship

- Defense


That's how I score fights and how fights should be scored. If a man lands 1 clean punch the entire round and the other lands 0 yet is consistently coming forward you score the round for the guy who landed the clean punch. Only win one stage is even do you move down the list.

 

Ohhhhh TKO6! I thought he meant that you lot were saying that you score the fight based on cuts. Yeah that has no relevance whatsoever with this conversation.

 

If someone is trying to pummel another fighter on the ropes and is unsuccessful in doing so, then the other fighter should be rewarded for defense, which is one of the four main scoring criteria.

In one gif, Ademek landed on scoring blow out of four thrown. That's not enough to overcome the multitude of clean, hard jabs that he absorbed in the two and a half minutes that elapsed prior to that sequence but it does give him the slight edge in that sequence

In the other gif, Cunningham avoids most of the punches that Ademek throws outright and rolls with the rest, and then knocks him off balance with a clean counter punch. That gives USS the edge in that sequence, since that was the only clean punch landed in the exchange and because it was the most effective punch in that sequence.

USS landed clean hard jabs throughout the fight, dictated the terms of engagement by maneuvering out of harm's way more often than not, connected more than his foe in spite of the fact that he threw more punches. He won in most of the categories that are used to score fights, yet he didn't get any credit for it from two judges.

That's where the robbery is...:deal

 

yea but look at "state of cunningham face"...i tho you score fight on cuts...whats your problem here....Adamek was looking better after this fight

 

according to you IB and other "tko6" idiots
http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=422560

 

Now in that case, I scored the fight for Calzaghe. It wasn't effective aggression either though. Although Hopkins did the better work when he did work, he didn't do enough of it.

That's the thing though, there is no formula. It has to be evaluated on a fight by fight, round by round basis. If people go into fights with their mind partially made up based on preference or expectation, I think they're doing the sport a disservice.

 

again and not specifically commenting on a certain fight.......if the round is even or very close, the aggressor be it effective or not, should get the round.

lederman seem to judge a round that way and he's right.