Who knows better how to score a boxing match?

[Boxing_1013]

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".

Very well said kafkod...especially the bold I agree with...a guy who is a volume puncher could have better defense than a guy who looks slicker in there as well...to negate your opponent from even trying to score would indicate you have great defense in a way? I think so.

[kafkod]

Very well said kafkod...especially the bold I agree with...a guy who is a volume puncher could have better defense than a guy who looks slicker in there as well...to negate your opponent from even trying to score would indicate you have great defense in a way? I think so.

Defence and effective aggression can definitely merge in some fights, which is another problem I see in having them as separate, distinct scoring criteria. Fighting aggressively can put an opponent on the defensive and cut down his punch output. So even if the aggressive fighter is missing with a lot of punches, his aggression is still effective, and I guess it could also be viewed as a form of defence.

[Boxing_1013]

Defence and effective aggression can definitely merge in some fights, which is another problem I see in having them as separate, distinct scoring criteria. Fighting aggressively can put an opponent on the defensive and cut down his punch output. So even if the aggressive fighter is missing with a lot of punches, his aggression is still effective, and I guess it could also be viewed as a form of defence.

Yep....good points

[bigjavi973]

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?

actually its quite simple....

rounds are scored on a 10 point must system...

so that means that there HAS to be a winner of the round etc


just my opinion


good thread tho... got lots of people talking about boxing again for once

[TonyGe]

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

Golovkin's opponents and sparring partners have mentioned how hard his jab is. Unfortunately there are people on this forum that think a jab isn't a punch.

[Boxing_1013]

actually its quite simple....

rounds are scored on a 10 point must system...

so that means that there HAS to be a winner of the round etc


just my opinion


good thread tho... got lots of people talking about boxing again for once

Got ya..thanks man...it has been interesting to get some opinions as to how people score fights.

Yeah I guess in that case I would score it 10-10...thankfully most rounds have a little more action than that example :0

[Boxing_1013]

Golovkin's opponents and sparring partners have mentioned how hard his jab is. Unfortunately there are people on this forum that think a jab isn't a punch.

I love a fighter with a good jab...just sets up everything else imo...and the praise over GGG's jab is nice, but in a way it needs no introduction...also I am not really scoring a 'jab' as much as I am a punch that appears to land solidly and has an impact on the opponent...his jab is often times doing that, it seems

[aboutfkntime]

Effective aggressiveness as well as clean punching.

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

exactly !!

#compuboxdoe

[aboutfkntime]

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?

ahahahah LMFAO

it is truly hilarious, that fans of the guy who missed 1000+ punches... who could not get his game going... and who got beaten up..... do not appreciate defense, ring generalship, and clean hard punching LMAO

..... no no, " volume "..... is suddenly more important than the OFFICIAL scoring criteria LMAO








attempting to remove 3 of the 4 official scoring criteria..... was not your best work kafkod LMAO

[aboutfkntime]

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

Steve Weisfeld says.....



[IMG]//media3.*****.com/media/33bpFN25l6qNW/*****.gif[/IMG]