Who knows better how to score a boxing match?

[kafkod]

But they aren't. If a round is basically even in punches, then criteria like defence comes into consideration. That's why it's in the rules.

I see where you are coming from - but this is from a top boxing judge, saying that defense is only important insofar as it helps a fighter to not get landed on/and presumably land more on his opponent:

"Defense: Defense is important because it helps a boxer set up his offense. Most judges that I have spoken to do not give credit for defense alone. If a boxer has a good defense, it means that he is not being hit with punches. But let's remember the purpose of the sport: to land punches on your opponent.

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. You don't want to create a disincentive for a boxer to land punches if he thinks he's going to be penalized for missing."

Not to mention that what I deem 'good defense' could differ from someone else's opinion. Some may value a certain defensive style over others. Defense matters, but really only as far as limiting your opponent's scoring.

If two fighters both appear to land the same number of clean punches, but one of them displays some great defensive skills - like Fury slipping a salvo of punches on the ropes against Schwartz - then a judge will very likely give that round to the guy who impressed with his skillful defence, which is fair.

But bear in mind that, if punches landed were even, then the guy who displayed those defensive skills would have taken more punches than his opponent, and therefor lost the round, were it not for his great defense.

This is why "clean punches landed" is at the top of the list of scoring criteria.

Imo, what you two are saying here basically amounts to the same thing, but from slightly different perspectives.

[Boxing_1013]

Of course - I already posted the guidelines from three different governing bodies (if you consider the ABC as a single body) and linked the Weisfeld article that I assume led to this thread. I would have thought that made clear enough that clean, hard punches in a scoring zone is absolutely the single most important scoring criteria... what I'm getting at is that there is naturally room for subjective opinion over how clean and hard a punch lands and - when a round is close in terms of cleanly landed punches - over who controlled the action, showed better defense etc.

If this wasn't the case then there would be no need for judges - certainly not three of 'em anyway -and there would be no call for threads like this one, cos everyone would agree on how every fight should be scored.

EDIT: FWIW I'm of the opinion that boxing scoring should in fact be more accessible and populist - that in fact when the so called 'experts' in boxing turn in scorecards that are incomprehensible to the general public (the 'casuals' who actually drive the sport with their disposable income however much they appear to be looked down upon on here) or that lead to a result that the majority disagree with we're doing the sport a disservice. You shouldn't need a damn course in fight scoring or to spend half your life on boxing forums to figure out who won a fight, though I suspect some self proclaimed experts rather like the opacity involved, as do experts in every other field. Personally I'd advocate some form of mass or crowd sourced scoring - the technology is widely available and the statistical methods for minimising bias and rigging are well understood... at the very least replays and at least an extra pair of judges should be involved if crowd sourcing is a step too far for most.

Good post man...I actually found that Weisfeld article independently...but after I found it I saw that you found a similar article prior to me.

As you seemed to suggest...biggest issue for me by far in boxing scoring is that the judges will generally reward the home fighter with 80% of the close rounds...I mean I get why it happens and it is what it is...those are the breaks that the home fighter/bigger star gets...money talks and too many upsets for the stars means less money coming in for the short term.

Just unfortunate when you know going in that one guy has no real chance to win a decision...Sulecki Andrade this weekend a good example...pretty even fight on paper but going in, no way Sulecki wins on points. And also he has not much power so not much of a chance to win by KO. Oh well I am still looking forward to that one.

[Boxing_1013]

If two fighters both appear to land the same number of clean punches, but one of them displays some great defensive skills - like Fury slipping a salvo of punches on the ropes against Schwartz - then a judge will very likely give that round to the guy who impressed with his skillful defence, which is fair.

But bear in mind that, if punches landed were even, then the guy who displayed those defensive skills would have taken more punches than his opponent, and therefor lost the round, were it not for his great defense.

This is why "clean punches landed" is at the top of the list of scoring criteria.

Imo, what you two are saying here basically amounts to the same thing, but from slightly different perspectives.

Good post, no real disagreement from me...in general I personally am not a fan of shoe-shining too much...I'm just scoring punches landed and punch effectiveness, and everything else means basically nothing to me as far as what I am actively scoring.

I however tend to agree with Weisfeld's comments that defense is definitely important, as you are negating your opponent's offense and not allowing him to score...in a way, what is more important than that (other than scoring punches)?...so yes I definitely value defense, I just feel scoring it actively is scoring it twice...my 2 cents.

Even if one is showing skills and slipping punches, I want to see him get off on his opponent and score too...and to be fair most boxers who display top tier defense are very good boxers/counter punchers and are able to land effectively on the opponent...I can't think of one fighter who was great defensively and also wasn't very good at times offensively.

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

[Boxing_1013]

If you think GGG won both fights, take the time to explain how he won each round. If you say he land more spaghetti arm jabs so he won... Then, Im sorry but you're an idiot.

Please watch the fights again and tell me Canelo isn't the quicker and more impactful puncher of the two..

Thanks for your post man...which rounds did you score to Canelo in each fight?

Fights were quite similar scoring wise, even though Canelo was more impressive in fight 2. GGG outlanding Canelo almost every round...Canelo had some good shots in some of the rounds he got outlanded (mainly in fight 2) which made those rounds close.

Fight 1-
1 - GGG
2 - Canelo
3 - GGG
4 - GGG
5 - GGG
6 - Canelo
(I forget the exact spread but I know it was 2-1 GGG after 3, and 4-2 GGG after 6 every time I score it)
7 - GGG (clear)
8 - GGG (clear)
9 - GGG (clear)
10 - Canelo (close)
11 - GGG (close)
12 - Canelo (close)

Fight 2
1 - 3 Usually have Canelo up 2-1...but can have GGG up 2-1...always give the 6th round to whoever was down 2-1...those round were all similar with GGG outlanding Canelo put Canelo's speed (especially in rounds 1-3) leading to some good combos and shots that he landed...round 6 shows a big punch edge to Canelo, but when I watch it I think GGG just outlands him in that round too...not sure what the counters were scoring there tbh.

4-5 GGG (clear)
6 (close)
4-2 after 6 for GGG
7-8 (close) I usually split them
9-11 - GGG (clear)
12 - Canelo (close)

Those scores make sense btw from what we know of each guy...Canelo being younger and quicker, starting out well enough against the older GGG, who with his activity and workrate is still scoring early, but his age and Canelo's speed lead to some close rounds.

Once GGG starts to warm up and settle in, he starts to become a little more dominant in the fights, which leads to clear rounds...Canelo also starts to fatigue a bit in these rounds, which make GGG's edge a little clearer.

The final few rounds are tight rounds which are fought with heart and skill and pride, Canelo getting his second wind back and GGG continuing to press forward.

So yeah watching those fights, and knowing/seeing that GGG was outlanding Canelo almost every round, often times landing the bigger or just as big shots in those rounds as well, they were pretty straightforward fights to score. Canelo fought well at times but GGG's activity just gave (and usually gives) him a lot of clear rounds, and also forces something special from Canelo to get a clear round...GGG just lands too many punches round in and round out.

Thanks for your post though bro, good to talk boxing on here

[aboutfkntime]

You're not from the UK but everyone says you are. I'm pretty sure thats exactly what you told me. 🤷*♂️

But again. Just opening a book and saying here look!

Lmao.

It's like someone who has never worked on cars before telling me that I just need some tools and I can so the job. It's not a science.

And wouldnt you say it's tough to judge a fight objectively because of your own bias? You clearly got Canelo on the mind and you want to give him every advantage you can so you see what you want to see eh?

Just like Byrd. Eh? Eh?

FACT: I am not from the UK you moron

FACT: " all landed punches count "..... is rubbish.....



FACT: " defence/effective aggression/ring generalship don't count " ..... is rubbish.....




you are just another casual-fan who took time out of his busy day to log on and prove to everyone that he has no idea what he is talking about

[aboutfkntime]

If two fighters both appear to land the same number of clean punches, but one of them displays some great defensive skills - like Fury slipping a salvo of punches on the ropes against Schwartz - then a judge will very likely give that round to the guy who impressed with his skillful defence, which is fair.

But bear in mind that, if punches landed were even, then the guy who displayed those defensive skills would have taken more punches than his opponent, and therefor lost the round, were it not for his great defense.

This is why "clean punches landed" is at the top of the list of scoring criteria.

Imo, what you two are saying here basically amounts to the same thing, but from slightly different perspectives.

FACT: when you said this.....

Originally Posted by kafkod
Defense, effective aggression, ring generalship, etc, only become factors if both fighters appear to land the same number of clean punches.

..... you were talking through a MASSIVE hole in your ass

how did that hole get so MASSIVE..... ?

learn the sport, and stop making up rubbish to defend your hypejob

7.32

[aboutfkntime]

Good post man...I actually found that Weisfeld article independently...but after I found it I saw that you found a similar article prior to me.

As you seemed to suggest...biggest issue for me by far in boxing scoring is that the judges will generally reward the home fighter with 80% of the close rounds...I mean I get why it happens and it is what it is...those are the breaks that the home fighter/bigger star gets...money talks and too many upsets for the stars means less money coming in for the short term.

Just unfortunate when you know going in that one guy has no real chance to win a decision...Sulecki Andrade this weekend a good example...pretty even fight on paper but going in, no way Sulecki wins on points. And also he has not much power so not much of a chance to win by KO. Oh well I am still looking forward to that one.

was Weisfeld wrong when he awarded the rematch to Canelo, or not?

[aboutfkntime]

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

[Boxing_1013]

FACT: I am not from the UK you moron

Serious question - if you are not from the UK, why do you say defence instead of defense? People can describe themselves however they want on here, but little hints like that would indicate you are from the UK...so why do that?

[Boxing_1013]

[B][SIZE="5"]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

Hey, how did you score Vanes-Andrade? I just was thinking about that one today. Apparently Andrade missed 540 punches, couldn't really get going, and got dropped - did you score that one for Vanes?