Running vs Boxing. How to score it.

Running and clinching to avoid the action is a good way to lose a round, however if the runner and clincher lands more blows and harder blows in the process, I think he wins the round as the other guy did not demonstrate effective aggressiveness, clean punching, and was out landed.


Excessive clinching that prevents any action deserves a warning by the referee, and if it continues, a point should be taken away.

 

I agree. As for the last part, I think referees do not do a good job with this. It's more about making sure they hear "break" than letting fighters really work on the inside. It seems like fighters only get in trouble for clinching if they don't let go during a break.

 

moving is not a foul.

scoring should always be decided on the higher number of blows landed of SUFFICIENT FORCE with the knuckle part of the glove. light shoe shine contact is not a scoring punch.

In rounds where a winner cannot be decided chose the guy who makes the fight. what they used to call "leading off". If that cannot be decided or if that too apears equal chose the fighter with what you consided has the better boxing style.

That is the theory. Often it is decided punches thrown while backpedling cannot score but that should only be the case if the contact is weak.

whilst "leading" is more important in close rounds, points should not be scored depending on the direction a fighter moves. Likewise limits cannot be scored from making the other fellow miss.

A round should only be decided by one hard punch if it was enough to warrant the reaction of a 10-8 scorring. It is bull**** when people say one big punch can eclipse the other man landing unanswered combinations.

 

This will be debated til the end of time. All subjective and all depends on what the judges see and what they like. To me there is no such thing as running. If a man is "running" and not fighting, the man who is fighting should be to blame for not cutting off the ring and taking out the non-combatant. One big punch can and does eclipse unanswered combinations by the rules of the sport. I dont necessarily think it should always be 10-8 but it does by the rules mean that it can be scored even.

 

Oscar wasnt running the first few rounds. He used his superior footwork to get the angles and he was boxing the hell out of Tito for a few rounds. Shook him up with hard shots in a masterful display....later in the fight he semi-ran lol

 

Oscar crossed the line from boxing to running even in the earlier rounds. He wouldnt fight for over 2 minutes and 45 seconds of the round and then land a marginal flurry in the last 10 seconds. That to me that isnt enough to win the round when the other fighter is trying to make the fight and at least throwing punches.

He was ahead through the middle rounds but that fight is a great example of people confusing boxing and running.

The brilliant "boxing" he was doing was greatly exagerrated that night.

 

I may be in the minority of people who appreciate that. I also thought Leonard easily won the decision against Hagler. It wasnt a close fight at all on my scorecard but hey... Boxing aint just about staying in the pocket and blocking (but still technically getting hit and taking damage)... lateral and backwards movement or as some people call it .."running" is a skill necessary for many in boxing

 

Pastrano-Johnson and Young-Foreman. In both cases, the proper winner was the runner. But while running, Willie and Jimmy were also initiating the punching, getting off first with their jabs. This is also what Ali did over the first several rounds against Norton in their second bout. Matches are won by throwing and landing punches, hitting w/out being hit. Harold countered Pastrano very well with body shots prior to clinches halting the action. I gave those instances to Willie by virtue of his initiative, as Johnson wasn't blocking or slipping Pastrano's jabs before countering.

To take the scoring with countering, evasion and/or blocking and deflection should precede the scoring counters.

Effective aggression, ring generalship, clean and/or hard punching and defense [including effective utilization of the clinch] are supposed to factor into the scoring.

Now, this next comparison of examples would entail 30 rounds of viewing, an hour and a half of total action, but Pastrano-Johnson viewed adjacently to Griffith-Archer II might be an interesting exercise here. Why did Willie get awarded the decision, while Joey lost it? [In both cases, I do personally agree with the official verdicts in favor of Pastrano and Griffith, although there are plenty who believed both should have gone the other way.]

For me, Griff was far more proactive on defense than Harold, and confused Joey at a key moment by shifting his left from an upright position down to his waist Hearns style, a mid round surprise Archer clearly didn't know how to adapt to. Emile was fully cognizant that Joey would attempt to dethrone him with that superb rangefinder jab, worked diligently in his efforts to evade it, and used his wits at key moments to throw Archer off with clever generalship unexpected by Joey.

Harold did nothing of the sort against Willie, banking everything on wearing Pastrano down with those hard counter-shots downstairs. Johnson didn't fight a bad fight at all, but Pastrano-Johnson was almost completely predictable. The key question was whether or not Willie had the legs and stamina to weather Harold's body counters, then withstand any late round efforts to turn things around dramatically. At the outset of round 13, Johnson blasted Pastrano with a massive right, making Willie momentarily dance a wild jig, but Pastrano recovered quickly en route to the title.

Griffith succeeded where Johnson failed by confusing and actively defending against his running challenger. He never hurt Joey [although he did bomb Archer with a hellacious right hand under a minute to go in round nine], but he was more proactive in dealing with the pesky Joey, while Harold was almost exclusively reactive with Willie.

Eusebio Pedroza D15 Bernard Taylor drove me nuts. El Alacran swiveled in mid ring like a tank to continually face a constantly running challenger trying to steal a hometown title win in Charlotte like a thief. If I'd been Stan Christodoulou, I might have severely penalized Taylor for his incessant running without punching [and Stan's 147-143 score for the champion was appropriate], but this was hardly neutral turf. If somebody could sit through this snooze fest, the punch stats had to be utterly dismal, and it was all BT's fault. The B.T. Express ran too fast for too long, and the championship distance caught up with him in the final three rounds. Never has a title challenger in a draw deserved a rematch less than Taylor.

 

Anubis with a nice explanation and good examples.

The four points of scoring are what judges are instructed to follow, as noted: Clean/effective punching, defense, effective aggression and ring generalship.

In a case like the first couple of rounds of Leonard-Hagler, cited by the OP, Hagler's aggression was not effective (he was basically following Leonard around the ring), his punching was not effective, he may have avoided some of Leonard's punches but he got hit with more than he himself landed -- if Leonard throws five and lands two, I'd give him the exchange over Hagler throwing zero.

Ring generalship is, basically, dictating the terms of the fight. If someone moves and the other fellow cuts him off, gets him on the ropes or forces him to exchange, the aggressor is dictating terms and demonstrating generalship. Leonard dictated terms by reducing those rounds to a series of short exchanges that he won.

 

The rules of judging has always been about deciding who lands the higher number of solid punches landed per round. it is not suposed to be on what the judges like. It is not suposed to be subjective ....but often is.

There has never been an official rule writen down stating "one big punch can eclipse unanswered combinations of conecting, solid blows from the other man even if the big punch wont knock him over" it is something announcers say because it can often change the course of a fight. A judge cannot and should not erase effective work scored by the harder working boxer just because the other lands one good shot out of the blue, especialy if it is his only contribution of the round.

Likewise presure fighters are often smothering their work with a higher volume of mostly non scoring, off target blows. Again its only the number of corect "on target" shots struck with the knuckle p art of the glove that count. blows to the arms, shoulders, back of the head, gloves cannot be scored.

Too many assume the busy fighter coming forward wins the round but that is only true -or suposed to be- if he lands a higher number of clean, scoring shots of sufficient force to the target area. Thats not to say a fighter cant wear down a man with incorect non effective pressure, he can! And it will swing momentum of the fight but he can only officialy win those rounds if he lands the higher number of corect blows too.

Punch stat machines are bull****. They basicly record activity. Includind feints and punches scored with the heel or open glove. The definition of a power shot on a punch stat machine is incorect. They do not record what is sufficient force force and just counting conections of types of blows attempted.

 

Yes but a judge wont score for defence, effective aggression or ring generalship unless he has decided the number of correct blows landed from both fighters is equal. Number of blows landed with SUFFICIENT force always comes first and outweighs all other factors.

 

True but like I said its all subjective. You say its not supposed to be subjective but unless you are the one in there feeling the punches to gauge which are "sufficient" or you are the one landing the punches to gauge whether or not you landed with the knuckle, it will always be subjective. Same way the punchstat numbers arent accurate due to variations in how the action is perceived, judging will always be inaccurate, subjective, and wide open for debate. What one person sees as effective, another sees as innefective. Points can be made for all cases. And I gotta find the fights Anubis mentioned. Never seen the ones he referenced.

 

Pastrano-Johnson and Griffith-Archer II are readily available on youtube in their entirety.

Dissent is commonly more interesting than agreement. There are those who believe Harold deserved around ten rounds, Willie no more than three rounds. Because I've already expressed my opinions in agreement with the official outcomes of both, it may be intriguing for you to conversely look for reasons why many think the breakdown in scoring should have been so heavily in favor of Johnson.

The entirety of Griffith-Archer I is also easily available on-line, but silent. It is more widely believed that Joey won their first match, while the Don Dunphy telecast rematch was more closely pick-em at the end. [That rematch was also originally broadcast in color, something I wouldn't mind seeing, as the youtube versions are all in B&W.]

 

In this respect, it can be argued that Ali-Foreman was not close at all. Bob Sheridan really nailed the live call in Kinshasa, observing that Foreman's aggression was not effective, and that Muhammad was controlling the movement in the ring. [Sheridan's obituary should clearly feature that broadcast as his career highlight, along with being the man to survive 1000 heart attacks.] Joe Frazier also added brief cogent input after action got underway. Immediately prior to the bout, he picked Foreman. Right before the bell for round six rang though, he rushed a brief reply to David Frost's expression of confusion and question about Muhammad fighting off the ropes with,"Well, what he's [Ali] doin,' he's usin' the old pro, uh, skill on George, and George fallin' for it!"

While that bout was taking place, there seemed no question that Ali was completely dominant in generalship according to every expressed opinion heard on the microphone, from Sheridan, to Frazier, to John Daly. [Daly told Frost immediately after round four ended that "Ali's winning all the way for me, and I think he's going to win it within another four rounds." BINGO!] Ali-Foreman was a pretty conclusive demonstration of superior ring generalship, and I don't think even having Panama Lewis in his corner could have helped George in that one.