Who knows better how to score a boxing match?

[icha]

I imagine most judges, or probably all, keep track somewhat of what punches are landing and really scoring in a round...kind of have to keep track in a way...otherwise how can you even score the round ya know?...probably a formula where a scoring shot is .5 points...and a big shot is 1 full point or more...generally the system I use...



I encourage you to have some interactions with Mr Time my friend.

Anyway thanks for your posts/feedback

[
nah man, if you dont outland by a significant margin judges can score either way based on the actual criteria, i find it hard to believe judges keeping track of every punch and even less likely jabs.. you will have to clearly outland your oponent if your main weapon is the jab, outlanding by a few jabs guarantees nothing in pro boxing..
also i have yet to see a judge counting or making a note every time a punch lands, let alone a jab...
we are overthinking this, usually the man who looks better wins the round, and many factors can contribute to that , landing clear hard punches being the most important of course, but not the only factor..
too many close rds between canelo and ggg on either fight, i ended up with draws on both fights, lol ..

[Ca$ual Fan]

Serious question - if two guys fight, and each round they land the same punches on the other, but you feel one guy shows better defense every round, would you score it 12-0/how would you score it? To me that is a 6-6 fight all day...not to mention that one could see it as the guy who threw more punches was controlling the action by negating his opponent from even attempting to score on him...so you could value his 'defense and ring generalship' as much as the other fighter who slipped more punches

This is why there should be a 10-10 (even) round. Not just choose 1 fighter over the other for the rounds when you can just praise/ridicule both with a good/bad performance each round. To me, choosing one side over the other in these type of scenarios is already showing bias when neither deserved to be on top over the other in that round. I can definitely see a 12-0 fight wherein both fighters struggle to convincingly beat each other. How does the general public see that fight after reading the judges scorecards that don't favor theirs? Robbery???

[Boxing_1013]

Ditto

I hope I'm civil about our disagreements.
Being an emo fight fan leads to

You're good man...we all get passionate sometimes but for the most part I feel like we can disagree without being disagreeable

[R-Hand Southpaw]

Bro go get some fish and chips and RELAX....you get so worked up on here it's crazy lol

It's funny now that guy is like, learn to appreciate styles, but, only the ones I like lmfao.

I box pretty recreationally and thought about maybe doing amateur competition but work, time, life lol.

That's how I "know" that dude doesnt know ****. Personally I take offense because I'm the exact kind of fighter that dude would never give a fight to. I dont have flashy defense and I'm a big volume puncher. I use punches to open offense, punches just to get reactions, feint with punches etc. Think of like a lomachenko/GGG mix. Imo, every boxer is different and giving people "points" for the sole reason their defense looks good is ridiculous. Might as well train defense only because that's the only thing people like him care about eh?

Let's work on pull counters and flashy movements. Let's also work on walking backwards and only throwing punches for 30 seconds every round.

"Inflicting style" is nonsense. You do whatever you need to win. Guess Mayweather lost against McGregor too because he didnt use his style.

Such hypocrites.

[Boxing_1013]

[
nah man, if you dont outland by a significant margin judges can score either way based on the actual criteria, i find it hard to believe judges keeping track of every punch and even less likely jabs.. you will have to clearly outland your oponent if your main weapon is the jab, outlanding by a few jabs guarantees nothing in pro boxing..
also i have yet to see a judge counting or making a note every time a punch lands, let alone a jab...
we are overthinking this, usually the man who looks better wins the round, and many factors can contribute to that , landing clear hard punches being the most important of course, but not the only factor..
too many close rds between canelo and ggg on either fight, i ended up with draws on both fights, lol ..

I hear ya man...good post...I was really just posting that article/comment from Weisfeld because I thought it was interesting to hear this thoughts about how he and other judges really scored fights.

I do agree there is a difference between a touch...and a scoring shot...sometimes the jab can be touch...sometimes a power punch can be partially blocked/weak/ineffective as well...in those cases I find it hard to reward the shot as a scoring punch...I do feel GGG's jab is generally a scoring punch...it is generally a good solid shot...my 2 cents.

Definitely agree that a fighter can win a round even if he gets outlanded in scoring shots...harder to do for me but if you land the best shot or shots of the round it is certainly likely and sometimes it can be a clear round for a guy if he is really landing the big shots.

I do think that judges have to keep track in a way of their score throughout the round...keeping a running tally in their mind at least...I would be surprised if they didn't to be honest.

Yeah the beauty and difficulty of scoring fights at the highest level sometimes is that when two similar fighters go at it...often times there are many close rounds...there just isn't much to separate them and I would wager about half of the rounds at the top level are 'close rounds'...that certainly seems to be the case when I score fights...about 4-8 close rounds and then the others seem to be pretty clear.

[Boxing_1013]

This is why there should be a 10-10 (even) round. Not just choose 1 fighter over the other for the rounds when you can just praise/ridicule both with a good/bad performance each round. To me, choosing one side over the other in these type of scenarios is already showing bias when neither deserved to be on top over the other in that round. I can definitely see a 12-0 fight wherein both fighters struggle to convincingly beat each other. How does the general public see that fight after reading the judges scorecards that don't favor theirs? Robbery???

Besides the bolded part, I agree with your post man...and I may just not be fully understanding the bold part...but yeah I agree on 10-10 rounds...that's essentially how I score it by alternating the 10-9 rounds in fights...I do agree though that many fights have rounds where at the end my impression is a shoulder shrug and a 'eh, man I don't know, what a tight round'...seems to happen in about half the rounds at the top level.

I think incorporating 10-10 rounds would be good...but honestly I think a bigger issue is that many people who are searching for a reason to give a guy a round...will still be able to if it is a 10-10, either way, type of round...basically those rounds will not really get used as needed...a judge or fan will still be able to slide it 10-9 to their desired fighter.

I just usually think a fight has a clear winner 95% of the time...and the other 5% they are tight, 7-5, too close to call, draw type of fights. Generally I feel it is pretty clear who has more rounds, but again with there almost always being many close rounds in a fight...it always gives an opportunity for the scorer to slide the majority of the close rounds to their fighter and make the claim they won...just my perception.

It's funny now that guy is like, learn to appreciate styles, but, only the ones I like lmfao.

I box pretty recreationally and thought about maybe doing amateur competition but work, time, life lol.

That's how I "know" that dude doesnt know ****. Personally I take offense because I'm the exact kind of fighter that dude would never give a fight to. I dont have flashy defense and I'm a big volume puncher. I use punches to open offense, punches just to get reactions, feint with punches etc. Think of like a lomachenko/GGG mix. Imo, every boxer is different and giving people "points" for the sole reason their defense looks good is ridiculous. Might as well train defense only because that's the only thing people like him care about eh?

Let's work on pull counters and flashy movements. Let's also work on walking backwards and only throwing punches for 30 seconds every round.

"Inflicting style" is nonsense. You do whatever you need to win. Guess Mayweather lost against McGregor too because he didnt use his style.

Such hypocrites.

Good post my friend...very interesting story as well...always nice to see someone on here who has actually boxed at a fairly high level.

I particularly agree with the bolded part...and as Weisfeld said about himself and every other top judge...they only score punches, and the other criteria is important, but only so far as it helps you to land punches. That's just all boxing is imo...who can land more and better shots.

The defense argument is interesting to me...who really has better defense - a guy who avoids more punches, or a fighter who avoids damage by limiting his opponent from even throwing punches? Lol, kind of like some Mr Miyagi type stuff but it's a real point - if you aren't even allowing your opponent to throw punches on you, doesn't that mean you have great defense? I would say yes.

So yeah, as you mentioned, all the stuff about defense and ring generalship and effective aggression is important...but it is important because it helps you either land, or avoid, punches...and that's how boxing is scored...and not that it really matters, but scoring punches is pretty straightforward and hard to fudge...as you alluded to, if we're actively scoring other arbitrary factors, the scoring can become a bit of a popularity contest...and one could tweak the criteria every fight to find a way to give his guy enough rounds...seems some are trying to do that now imo.

Again the other stuff helps and is important...but the only stuff that is scored are the actual punches landed

[TonyGe]

Ridiculous, a fighter can completely embarrass his opponent and show he's in control with defence. If a fighter is throwing and not landing then the fighter who prevented him landing gets credit for doing so.

But in the meantime the fighter on defense isn't landing punches so then what.? The fighter throwing punches isn't receiving punches either because the opponent is too busy defending. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense. It's exactly as Steve laid out in his scenario. Obviously they are not going to create a scenario where punching is discouraged. Defense is important there is no doubt but boxing is a contact sport.

[R-Hand Southpaw]

Besides the bolded part, I agree with your post man...and I may just not be fully understanding the bold part...but yeah I agree on 10-10 rounds...that's essentially how I score it by alternating the 10-9 rounds in fights...I do agree though that many fights have rounds where at the end my impression is a shoulder shrug and a 'eh, man I don't know, what a tight round'...seems to happen in about half the rounds at the top level.

I think incorporating 10-10 rounds would be good...but honestly I think a bigger issue is that many people who are searching for a reason to give a guy a round...will still be able to if it is a 10-10, either way, type of round...basically those rounds will not really get used as needed...a judge or fan will still be able to slide it 10-9 to their desired fighter.

I just usually think a fight has a clear winner 95% of the time...and the other 5% they are tight, 7-5, too close to call, draw type of fights. Generally I feel it is pretty clear who has more rounds, but again with there almost always being many close rounds in a fight...it always gives an opportunity for the scorer to slide the majority of the close rounds to their fighter and make the claim they won...just my perception.



Good post my friend...very interesting story as well...always nice to see someone on here who has actually boxed at a fairly high level.

I particularly agree with the bolded part...and as Weisfeld said about himself and every other top judge...they only score punches, and the other criteria is important, but only so far as it helps you to land punches. That's just all boxing is imo...who can land more and better shots.

The defense argument is interesting to me...who really has better defense - a guy who avoids more punches, or a fighter who avoids damage by limiting his opponent from even throwing punches? Lol, kind of like some Mr Miyagi type stuff but it's a real point - if you aren't even allowing your opponent to throw punches on you, doesn't that mean you have great defense? I would say yes.

So yeah, as you mentioned, all the stuff about defense and ring generalship and effective aggression is important...but it is important because it helps you either land, or avoid, punches...and that's how boxing is scored...and not that it really matters, but scoring punches is pretty straightforward and hard to fudge...as you alluded to, if we're actively scoring other arbitrary factors, the scoring can become a bit of a popularity contest...and one could tweak the criteria every fight to find a way to give his guy enough rounds...seems some are trying to do that now imo.

Again the other stuff helps and is important...but the only stuff that is scored are the actual punches landed

Okay, well I'm not THAT good lol, but compared to the average Joe I'm considerably better. I'm not gonna make any national teams soon lol.

As you've seen scoring here is almost 100% just a popularity contest. He likes his style, he only sees what he wants to see. Things like that.

If style was so legit then "Mexican style" would lose every fight but and people would only focus on boring defensive fights.

I'm a big fan of fighters who move forward and evade. It's because they have purpose. I dislike fighters who have "defense" and dont fight.

That's like saying a guy who runs the entire round and doesnt waste punches to keep his percentage high wins the round. That's not boxing. That isnt ring generalship. That isnt even defense.

[Boxing_1013]

Okay, well I'm not THAT good lol, but compared to the average Joe I'm considerably better. I'm not gonna make any national teams soon lol.

As you've seen scoring here is almost 100% just a popularity contest. He likes his style, he only sees what he wants to see. Things like that.

If style was so legit then "Mexican style" would lose every fight but and people would only focus on boring defensive fights.

I'm a big fan of fighters who move forward and evade. It's because they have purpose. I dislike fighters who have "defense" and dont fight.

That's like saying a guy who runs the entire round and doesnt waste punches to keep his percentage high wins the round. That's not boxing. That isnt ring generalship. That isnt even defense.

100% agree my friend

[jreckoning]

aboutfkntime is doing really well in the poll which I guess wasn't the ts intention. LOL.

Maybe he should put in an application to be a judge!