Round scoring

There is also ring generalship criteria etc.
These connected or not connected punches might be evalued a bit.
Judges maybe better might be replaced by certified and attested software + ofc connected to multiple cameras from different sides and angles.

 

Not sure it quite works like that. I usually favour effective aggresion...you really need to see the round to be able to judge it fairly.

Although saying that i,d like to see more ten ten rounds. Some of them rounds are too close to call...would maybe encourage guys to go out and try to win the round a bit more as well.

 

The contents of the brown paper bags dictates the score in many boxing contests- the action is irrelevant.

 

Scenario 1: Fighter A

Scenario 2: 10-10

Scenario 3: Fighter A

Honestly believe it should be based on how many scoring punches you land, as it should.

Different factors come into play, depending if its quite close fight. Like the heavier punches etc, aggression.

They are all things that swing peoples opinions.

If you have a fighter who's aggressive and quantity but hitting gloves and arms, against a fighter who's pot shotting and scoring quality punches, then I score it to that fighter (the round).

Again if becomes trickier, when you get a fighter who throws 100 punches but lands 10. Then a fighter who throws 20 but lands 10.

In that case more people tend to side with the fighter who's throwed 100 punches and been more aggressive.

Effective aggression for me is being able to land clean punches.

 

I think knowing a round could be even would have the opposite effect.

 

I wouldnt be able to score the rounds based on the information you have given.

There is ring generalship, whether the punches landed flush or were partly deflected. How the punches were landed.

You cant just say 10 body shots or 5 head shots and ask someone to score a round.

If you want tips actually post a fight and ask us to score a round.

 

We here terms like ring generalmanship and effective aggression but these are not specific areas for scoring.
Under the rules theres attack, defence and style. Thats it.
. Now if you want to call effective aggression or ring genermanship style you can but if a judge was asked to give a description of his scoring, then attack, defence and style would be all he'd be able to score
To the OP
Scenario 1. A
Scenario 2. Need more info. *edit* all things been equal then a draw.
Scenario 3. A

 

The only one I confidently choose /agree is scenario 2

 

All else equal I'd go:

1, B
2,10-10 (As long as fighter A didn't look gassed)
3, A

Many may disagree with the first but it sounded like fighter B was eying that punch from the off and I'd prefer effective punches. Maybe if the ratio was closer to 15-20 flicky jabs to that one monster shot I'd go the other way

 

Recently whenever I think about round scoring I can't stop thinking about what rounds I would have given Alvarez in the first fight with Golovkin, even when I was being generous I could only think of 5 he could possibly have any case of claiming.

Scenario 2 is a tricky one but it all boils down to the how they bossed those 90 seconds

 

It’s a fun thread, probably best posting a single round of a fight and seeing how we all score it and why. I do think you need to see the fight rather than describe it before you can score it.

There are other vital factors that can sway the way you score it, such as, is Adam Smith and Macklin commentating? Is it a MTK show? Am I watching it through Adalaide Byrd’s eyes? Is Ian John Lewis reffing it? Etc etc

 

10-9 mayweather

10-9 Persoon

10-9 Bellew R1
10-9 Usyk R5