Thread: How do people judge fights here?

I don't understand how people score fights on this forum. A round is judged on defense, ring generalship, aggression, and as Ledderman says first and FOREMOST clean effective punching.
ring generalship: who fights the fight they want to
defense: who has better defensive skills
aggression: who is initiating or coming forward

Now in the Margarito-Cotto fight for example
in rounds 1,2,3,4,5,6,9
Cotto clearly won these categories defense, CLEAN EFFECTIVE PUNCHING
while Margarito clearly won the aggression and ring generalship part of every round.

That being said did anyone have Cotto not winning rounds 1,2,3,4,5,6,9? I think people put an over emphasis on ring generalship and agression which are not the most important criteria when it comes to a fighter winning a fight.

I thought Miguel Cotto clearly won majority of the first 6 rounds based on clean effective punching and basically making it his type of fight and also good ring general ship and good defensive work...............

Then after the 6th round i think Antonio Margarito won majority of the rounds based on effective aggression he may not have been landing at a high percentage................

But he made it his kind of fight pinning Miguel Cotto against the ropes and whacking him from all angles Miguel Cotto still avoided alot of punches but it was no longer his type of fight.............

I thought Antonio Margarito was ahead after 10 rounds.

Originally Posted by ssss

I thought Miguel Cotto clearly won majority of the first 6 rounds based on clean effective punching and basically making it his type of fight and also good ring general ship and good defensive work...............

Then after the 6th round i think Antonio Margarito won majority of the rounds based on effective aggression he may not have been landing at a high percentage................

But he made it his kind of fight pinning Miguel Cotto against the ropes and whacking him from all angles Miguel Cotto still avoided alot of punches but it was no longer his type of fight.............

I thought Antonio Margarito was ahead after 10 rounds.

How did you score the rounds? beause definitely Margarito even when he was losing the early rounds inhindsight was setting up what was to come, but if you look at the fight up until the tenth there wasn't enough rounds for Margarito to catch up by how i had it. If Cotto won 4-2 rounds in the first half which is being generous to Margarito then 1 out of 4 rounds in the second half its still draw, but in reality Cotto should have won every single round in the first half of the fight.

Originally Posted by Taeth

Originally Posted by ssss

I thought Miguel Cotto clearly won majority of the first 6 rounds based on clean effective punching and basically making it his type of fight and also good ring general ship and good defensive work...............

Then after the 6th round i think Antonio Margarito won majority of the rounds based on effective aggression he may not have been landing at a high percentage................

But he made it his kind of fight pinning Miguel Cotto against the ropes and whacking him from all angles Miguel Cotto still avoided alot of punches but it was no longer his type of fight.............

I thought Antonio Margarito was ahead after 10 rounds.

How did you score the rounds? beause definitely Margarito even when he was losing the early rounds inhindsight was setting up what was to come, but if you look at the fight up until the tenth there wasn't enough rounds for Margarito to catch up by how i had it. If Cotto won 4-2 rounds in the first half which is being generous to Margarito then 1 out of 4 rounds in the second half its still draw, but in reality Cotto should have won every single round in the first half of the fight.

I do remember having Miguel Cotto 4-2 up after 6 rounds then i thought Antonio Margarito pretty much made it his kind of fight after 6th round can't remember my exact scorecard but i believe i either had it even or Antonio Margarito just ahead after the 10th round.

Originally Posted by Taeth

I don't understand how people score fights on this forum. A round is judged on defense, ring generalship, aggression, and as Ledderman says first and FOREMOST clean effective punching.
ring generalship: who fights the fight they want to
defense: who has better defensive skills
aggression: who is initiating or coming forward

Now in the Margarito-Cotto fight for example
in rounds 1,2,3,4,5,6,9
Cotto clearly won these categories defense, CLEAN EFFECTIVE PUNCHING
while Margarito clearly won the aggression and ring generalship part of every round.

That being said did anyone have Cotto not winning rounds 1,2,3,4,5,6,9? I think people put an over emphasis on ring generalship and agression which are not the most important criteria when it comes to a fighter winning a fight.

Before round 11, my score card had cotto winning the fight(7 rds in the bank) if he just stayed on his feet. So when I heard his trainer telling him(and rightly so) "we need these next two rounds", I had visions of Talyor vs Chaves.

Originally Posted by Taeth

I don't understand how people score fights on this forum. A round is judged on defense, ring generalship, aggression, and as Ledderman says first and FOREMOST clean effective punching.
ring generalship: who fights the fight they want to
defense: who has better defensive skills
aggression: who is initiating or coming forward

Now in the Margarito-Cotto fight for example
in rounds 1,2,3,4,5,6,9
Cotto clearly won these categories defense, CLEAN EFFECTIVE PUNCHING
while Margarito clearly won the aggression and ring generalship part of every round.

That being said did anyone have Cotto not winning rounds 1,2,3,4,5,6,9? I think people put an over emphasis on ring generalship and agression which are not the most important criteria when it comes to a fighter winning a fight.

clean EFFECTIVE punching. No doubt Cotto was landing the cleaner punches in these rounds, but in round 2 and 6 Margarito was landing with more EFFECT IMO.

I go by clean effective punching then aggressivness in a fight. going into the 11th i had the fight scored even but i havent rewatched it

simple. i ask myself, who would I have rather been in that round? That's who wins it.

Originally Posted by Bomp

Originally Posted by Taeth

I don't understand how people score fights on this forum. A round is judged on defense, ring generalship, aggression, and as Ledderman says first and FOREMOST clean effective punching.
ring generalship: who fights the fight they want to
defense: who has better defensive skills
aggression: who is initiating or coming forward

Now in the Margarito-Cotto fight for example
in rounds 1,2,3,4,5,6,9
Cotto clearly won these categories defense, CLEAN EFFECTIVE PUNCHING
while Margarito clearly won the aggression and ring generalship part of every round.

That being said did anyone have Cotto not winning rounds 1,2,3,4,5,6,9? I think people put an over emphasis on ring generalship and agression which are not the most important criteria when it comes to a fighter winning a fight.

clean EFFECTIVE punching. No doubt Cotto was landing the cleaner punches in these rounds, but in round 2 and 6 Margarito was landing with more EFFECT IMO.

Cotto was snapping Marg's head back in those two rounds with his punches, I don't see how one's punches were more effective than the others

Originally Posted by Von Milash

simple. i ask myself, who would I have rather been in that round? That's who wins it.

That is a Max Kellerman Quote.

Do you guys actually jot the score down per round - pen and paper, like a judge?

I count each round personally, but in my head, you kind of have to or you let what is happening later on affect what you are thinking earlier. For example you see Margarito effective later in the fihgt will make you feel that he had a purpose for fighting how he did earlier in the fihgt, but when the round in question was actually happening you might feel Cotto landing so cleanly clearly gave him the round.

Also Max Kellerman's way of judging rounds isn't how it should be officially done, but I do see that he is usually pretty accurate in scoring fights.

Originally Posted by Taeth

Originally Posted by Bomp

Originally Posted by Taeth

I don't understand how people score fights on this forum. A round is judged on defense, ring generalship, aggression, and as Ledderman says first and FOREMOST clean effective punching.
ring generalship: who fights the fight they want to
defense: who has better defensive skills
aggression: who is initiating or coming forward

Now in the Margarito-Cotto fight for example
in rounds 1,2,3,4,5,6,9
Cotto clearly won these categories defense, CLEAN EFFECTIVE PUNCHING
while Margarito clearly won the aggression and ring generalship part of every round.

That being said did anyone have Cotto not winning rounds 1,2,3,4,5,6,9? I think people put an over emphasis on ring generalship and agression which are not the most important criteria when it comes to a fighter winning a fight.

clean EFFECTIVE punching. No doubt Cotto was landing the cleaner punches in these rounds, but in round 2 and 6 Margarito was landing with more EFFECT IMO.

Cotto was snapping Marg's head back in those two rounds with his punches, I don't see how one's punches were more effective than the others

But they still had little effect overall on Margarito. No doubt Cotto was lighting him up like a christmas tree, but he may as well have been hitting a brick wall for all the effect it was having.

So that brings up a great question, to me at least. It seems clean punching and effective punching may be two entirely different things, just taking this fight as an example. Cotto's punches were cleaner, and Margarito's were more effective, if you concede that those punches were what caused Cotto to fade toward the end.

How can you objectively score these criteria when they are not necessarily dependent?

Originally Posted by Taeth

Originally Posted by Bomp

Originally Posted by Taeth

I don't understand how people score fights on this forum. A round is judged on defense, ring generalship, aggression, and as Ledderman says first and FOREMOST clean effective punching.
ring generalship: who fights the fight they want to
defense: who has better defensive skills
aggression: who is initiating or coming forward

Now in the Margarito-Cotto fight for example
in rounds 1,2,3,4,5,6,9
Cotto clearly won these categories defense, CLEAN EFFECTIVE PUNCHING
while Margarito clearly won the aggression and ring generalship part of every round.

That being said did anyone have Cotto not winning rounds 1,2,3,4,5,6,9? I think people put an over emphasis on ring generalship and agression which are not the most important criteria when it comes to a fighter winning a fight.

clean EFFECTIVE punching. No doubt Cotto was landing the cleaner punches in these rounds, but in round 2 and 6 Margarito was landing with more EFFECT IMO.

Cotto was snapping Marg's head back in those two rounds with his punches, I don't see how one's punches were more effective than the others

H e landed 1 maybe 2 punches in each round which snapped Tony's head back, does not make up to being pinned on the ropes doubled over by body shots IMO.

I basically divide around in 3 parts, the first minute the second minute and finally the 3rd minute......usually I would score the round 10-9 to whoever wins 2/3rds of that round. I would most certainly go for the boxer who is agressive and lands the harder shots

Job Biscuit (Like i did with Margarito)!!!


eh eh!!