"There must be a system in place where aggressiveness is actually encouraged"

The system that I am advocating is how boxing was in the old days when there were more even rounds and judges had to decide if someone did enough to win around. That system was changed when 15 round fights were abandoned since there were less rounds and they thought there would be too many draws if they didn't discourage even rounds. It's really a fact. All you gotta do is go back to the old days 1940s-1970s and you'll see more even rounds.

Since today's scoring discourages even rounds, that means there's more of an incentive to be aggressive, because in the event that neither guy is landing, being aggressive and throwing more punches generally makes you win a round. In the old days you could outbox more and not worry about losing a round if you aren't getting hit. Fights were 3 rounds longer also so that was a smarter strategy to avoid damage. It worked well, but like I said that all changed when they abandoned 15 round fights.

 

If they scored rounds 10-8 (or even 10-7) more oftenly where one fighter heavily dominates the other with power punches the issue would resolve itself. Right now you dont get nothing but a 10-9 unless you score a knock down.

 

So a guy can just walk forward and land no punches to win a round.

That's a joke!!

I'm all for aggression but the aggressor has to be backing the opponent up and actually dominating the said opponent.

Pacquaio didn't dominate Mayweather at all.

 

The way it was designed was that a knockdown simply is supposed to subtract 1 point from the guy who got knocked down, and score the rest of the round straight up.

But in the last few decades, since knockdowns are generally rare, it became a standard to automatically score rounds where there is 1 knockdown 10-8 no matter what. But that's not the way it was designed when 10 point must was first implemented.

 

Right now you can throw 50 heavy punches into the guards and lose the round with a one soft counter that touches your face with no effects whatsoever. Thats also ridiculous for a "fight", its a "game" thing not a "fight" thing.

 

Really. Got an example?

 

Well it really depends on the individual judge. I mean each judge has his own criteria, based on the 4 areas of scoring. But each judge is only guided by that and is free to score a round however he / she would like to.

 

Its the scoring system, only clean landing punches are scored, an example is not necessary.

 

I think you'll find those types of rounds are given to the aggressor far more often than not.

 

An example is necessary, because the scoring system is not a robot that perfectly accounts for clean punching.

 

:deal

 

The system is fine, just ban Floyd from entering a ring ever again :deal

 

Thats why there is no standard which there should be. Ill do some digging later to find some examples.

But certainly not "All fighting styles should be rewarded". Theres a reason why excessive clinching is (seemingly) illegal, one could argue its a fighting strategy but it is discouraged as it kills all the thrills and considered more defensive than it should be allowed.

 

Are you referring to the May and Pac fight? It couldn't have been Pac because his rotator cuff was tore, remember, or was it.:huh

 

But that's not how the scoring system works at all.