Some Scoring Questions

You are only supposed to score punches that land to the head or side of head, body (above hip bone). But, the important part is it should be 'knuckle punches'.

The really ambigious part of scoring for me, is that excellent defensive work is supposed to be scored. Then at the same token, when a round is pretty close, and there are is not much to separate them, the judge can go with the more aggressive fighter or fighter with the preferred style.

I think the BBBoC should revise their rules of boxing with respect to the scoring of fights - 'preferred style' and what constitutes an example of 'defensive work' - that warrants scoring is not clear.

 

1. i dont think it's mutually exclusive, i generally keep a tally in my head or on paper of what went on (eg. good combo landed by fighter a after 1 minute, 2 good straight rights by b at 1.20) and then judge and score at the end of the round

2. if a combination is blocked i'd generaly discount that, i wouldnt say either fighter has won that exchange if nothings landed, i wouldnt really factor it into scoring if it hasnt landed.

3. im not afrad to score rounds even if there has been very little action, or one fighter has landed decent volume whereas the other has landed very effective shots but in lesser quantities, i thnk its round 7 or 8? in pac-marquez 1 where marquez is landing a fair few shots, but in the last minute pacquaio lands some significant straight lefts that seem to have an impact on JMM and i scored that even, dont do it often only if in my mind at the end of the round i cant come to a clear conclusion as to who was in control

 

I keep a mental tally of how the round is going, who is landing cleaner punches, who controlled which minute, who started/finished strong, who hurt who etc

The aim of boxing is to punch, if a fighter throws a combo but doesn't land and the other fight throws nothing then the fighter who threw punches would win the round based on activity and aggression, even if they did not land cleanly.

I tend to score even rounds like yourself. Sometimes a hard round can be tough to call but there should always be something that sets one of them apart.

 

i had it to groves by one or two based on this fact, imo it would have been a lot clearer cut if groves had taken a few risks and stepped it up in parts, he was finding it fairly easy to land and avoid being hit but some rounds just seemed to slow down a bit, if i remember rightly, havent seen it since it happened

 

I always score during the round and then whoever has inflicted the most damage by the end of the round gets it.

 

You can't really score exchanges like you say IMO. I always wait until the end of the round until I decide whos got the better of it, unless its just a dominant round where the outcome is obvious. The only time when you score a round for a fighter for just activity and work-rate is where the other guy throws nothing and lands nothing.

I try not to bother with even rounds anymore, I don't think it's that bad an idea giving more though.

 

"Points will be awarded:

For attack - direct clean hits with the knuckle part of the glove of either hand to any part of the front or side of the head or body above the belt

For 'defence' - guarding, slipping, ducking or getting away from an attack. Where contestants are otherwise equal the majority of points will be given to the one who does most leading off or displays the better style"

With Groves-Degale, it depends on how you interpret the above ambigious rules. Did you like Degales more aggressive leading off in the closer rounds or did you choice to award Groves good evasive defence?

Like I said, I think the BBBoC needs to clarify, and articulate better some of the rules. This is the root of the problem.

 

Agreed but if you take boxing down to its most basic form, its about throwing punches. In a what came first 'the egg or the chicken' then there is no defence in boxing without someone committing to offence.

Its a matter of perception. Some score an active fighter against Floyd and some don't. It's about the image the boxer puts across. That image of dominance. Its alot to do with facial expression, body language etc If a boxer blocks 4 punches effortlessly and lands one jab then I'd score it for him.

 

That fight is a good example of scoring differences. Rewarding DeGale for being aggressive is wrong because he really didn't land very much. When the only notable attack came from a headbutt it's hard to give him the benefit of the doubt.

When you consider that Groves dictated the pace and style of the fight, and landed more clean shots - it's a clear win for me.

But I know there are variances in how to score a fight.

 

'Effective aggression'

 

I havent watched it in a while but I'm sure Kessler won the 12th round quite clearly?

Correct me if I'm wrong peeps.

 

Judges can only be trained to the standards set by the Board and they are far too ambigious, especially with relation to scoring for good defensive work. Do judges really interpret that in their factoring of who won the round? I never heard a commentator pass remark that they liked x fighter because of their superior defensive work shaded the round.