Which side of the fence do you usually lean towards when you typically score fights? Do you prefer the fighter who throws and lands more punches or the fighter who lands the cleaner, more damaging punches? Of course we'd like to factor in both categories... but what if you could only choose one?
Clean effective punching, if u ain't landing **** or landing anything of consequence then it don't really mean much to me other then your offensive arsenal ain't working or the other guys defense is better then your offense
I judge score my fights on ring genereal ship, clean effective punching, how a fighter dictates his game plan. Defense also play a big factor on my scorecards as well.
it does depend, but typically the guy who lands the cleaner and more effective punches gets my vote. there are a lot of other factors though. workrate is more of an amateur competition winner.
both are important. it's really hard to seperate the two. Clean, effective punching should be more important but when looking at a fight like Hagler-Leonard, when one person is landing far more clean punches that are ineffective and the other is very aggressive but only landing very few (though highly effective) punches it makes it harder to score. Workrate ALONE shouldn't matter but if one person is working more AND landing more, despite it's effective it needs to count for something.
And now to take this to war: Hopkins vs Calzaghe What won that fight,clean,effective punching or workrate?
Depends, mostly clean punching. But if the difference in work rate and clean punching is vast, such as in Calzaghe vs Hopkins. Then workrate can take over.
Hopkins was waaaay to inactive to get my vote. He should have done more, and his tactics also helped me give the decisions to Joe. Really though, I don't think he was really that clean/ effective anyways. If he were that effective...Calzaghe would have slowed down wouldn't you think? We need to compare one of Floyd's fights.