Who knows better how to score a boxing match?

[kafkod]

so people here really believe that judges keep track of how many punches are landed by each fighter in each round ??? and no, judges dont use compubox to score a round like some of you do...
if compubox shows 13-10, 11-9 or 22-18 round doesnt mean a judge is going to score for the fighter who landed more, unless the difference is evident judges arent always scoring the round to the fighter who landed more, simply cuz most of the time they dont even know... this isnt amateur ...

Boxing judges are human beings, and can't be held to unrealistic standards. But that's no reason for not giving them a scoring criterion which is, in principle, 100% objective, and requiring them to use it as well as is humanly possible.

And if they aren't satisfied that one fighter clearly out-landed the other in any particular round, then what's wrong with scoring that round even, instead of applying other, none objective criteria, to award it one way or the other?

[kafkod]

Most excellent post. Outstanding. Green k sent.

.. Shalome!

[bigjavi973]

Steve Weisfeld:

"But based upon my own experience, my conversations with other judges and seminars conducted by top judges, judges really focus on one category, and that's clean punches."



and that's how we sometimes get shit decisions

[bigjavi973]

If Boxer A throws 10 punches in a round, but lands none of them, and Boxer B lands zero and throws zero, you still have an even round with no punches landing.

[1bad65]

Defense is definitely important..as are the other attributes...but only so far as they help you to land on your opponent...punches landed and punch effectiveness is all that matters in boxing my friend.

This is true.

I appreciate good defense, but you can't get credit for basically just surviving by playing defense. You have to use your defense to set up counter-shots.

[Boxing_1013]

Good question, and it highlights what I believe is a major problem with the way boxing is scored - the scoring criteria are too subjective. Personally, I use only 2 criteria when scoring fights - who landed the most clean punches, and the visible effect those punches had on the opponent. And I'm not talking about facial damage there, I'm talking about a fighter being visibly hurt or shaken by a punch, which I only apply if I see the number of punches landed by both fighters as even.

If I see the number of punches landed by both as even, and neither was visibly hurt by the other, then I score that round as even.

I don't agree with pressuring judges to always pick a winner and a loser after every round. The problem with that policy is that it promotes subjectivity over objectivity, and gives too much leeway and wiggle room to biased judges who may be looking for reasons to favour one guy over the other.

Good post as usual my friend...I especially agree with the bolded part...since GGG has been brought up, that's why in part it is so easy imo to score his jab...often times it seems to have a real (head snapping generally) impact on his opponent...just a great punch usually

[Boxing_1013]

Effective aggressiveness as well as clean punching.

You can tap body shots in a clinch and they are not effective.

Good post...not just landed punches but also the impact of those punches...

[Boxing_1013]

Steve Weisfeld:

"But based upon my own experience, my conversations with other judges and seminars conducted by top judges, judges really focus on one category, and that's clean punches."



and that's how we sometimes get shit decisions

I would argue we get sh.it decisions because judges favor one fighter over the other for personal reasons...if you just go by landed punches and their impact most fights are pretty easy to score imo

Pretty cool main pic btw...I thought that was Will Smith at first.

Both those comments were from Weisfeld btw...but I do agree with both.

Just curious - do you think that a round where no punches land is an even round or it can have a winner?

[Boxing_1013]

This is true.

I appreciate good defense, but you can't get credit for basically just surviving by playing defense. You have to use your defense to set up counter-shots.

Thank you sir...yes good defense matters for sure...but you are already getting credit for it in a way, as good defense means you aren't allowing your opponent to score on you...no reason to score it twice...and again boxing is all about the number of punches landed and their impact.

One could also argue that a high volume puncher actually has better 'defense' than a fighter who is better at avoiding punches on a percentage basis...you could argue that first guy has great defense because he is negating his opponent from even trying to throw and score on him.

But yes thanks again...boxing is all about what you can land on your opponent...the other stuff helps but it has to be about landed punches and their impact...

[kafkod]

Good post as usual my friend...I especially agree with the bolded part...since GGG has been brought up, that's why in part it is so easy imo to score his jab...often times it seems to have a real (head snapping generally) impact on his opponent...just a great punch usually

GGG has a great jab, not just accurate and consistent, but spiteful and hard enough to hurt. I don't see any reason at all why it shouldn't be scored in exactly the same way as a hard, hurtful hook or backhand punch.

Something else to consider: As you said, judges being required to pick a winner of every round, and using defence, aggression and ring generalship as criteria when clean punches landed appear to be equal, can lead to lopsided scorecards in fights which have been very close and competitive in terms of punches landed. That pisses fans off, especially casual fans, and damages the sport by creating the perception that "boxing is corrupt".