I found this on another forum and thought it was worth posting.

Boxing is a subjective sport w/ how scoring is done, but it should be limited as much as possible. Stricter scoring guidelines that judges would have to follow would limit strange scoring and fighters would know what is rewarded and what isn't. As it stands, fans and judges differ opinions very greatly because of what they value in a fight/round.

Clean, Effective Punching
This is generally the most subjective of the scoring points. People fall in love w/ big punchers and flurries and often overlook things. Weak shots are worth something, body shots are worth something, a jab is worth something, but the bigger the shot is obviously important; but just because it hit his gloves doesn't mean it was worth a damn.

Example: Taylor - Wright Wright won this fight in my eyes. Taylor's primary reason for a close score (by fans and judges) was because the punches he threw were simply much harder than Winky. Winky landed the consistent shots all round but when Taylor threw it was a harder shot, despite almost always being blocked. Remember, a few solid jabs that keep the fight going your way, at your pace, at your distance are worth more than a flurry of blocked or missed punches.

Defense
Head movement, shoulder rolls, a tight defense, footwork, working off the ropes, parrying shots, etc... Just because it doesn't look as pretty as punching doesn't mean it isn't worth paying attention to and scoring.

I wont cite a specific example of when defense is paramount... but just look at any Toney fight to see what utilizing a good defense is like.

Ring Generalship
This is based almost solely upon how the pace and how the fight plays out. Imposing your will upon your opponent. Making your opponent only engage when you're ready and only fighting as much or as little as you want. It's your opponents job to make you fight and hit you, don't make it easy on him.

Example: Oscar - Tito He controlled the tempo of this fight from the opening bell. He engaged Tito in the center of the ring and was seldomly, if ever, caught away from where he was willing to engage. Step into the pocket and fire some combinations or while simply boxing at a distance he was always in control.

Effective Aggression
The entire part of Effective Aggression is the EFFECTIVE part. The fighter has to make the punches he gets off or pace he dictates matter. It's hard to define or show what effective aggression is, and easier to show what isn't effective and then work towards avoiding that. This category is the most important in generally determining who is actually winning a fight.

Example: Solimon - Wright Solimon, while throwing a wealth of punches, was ineffective with the large bulk of his punches. They were generally weak, poorly placed, and while moving in and out to throw he was getting tagged. That's the opposite of what you want to do. Wright capitalized while showing his Defense and Ring Generalship.

Now, the reason I made this post is not to reform people or teach them how I score fights and feel they should be... That would be a dream and I'm not delusional enough to think this will have an impact that far. However, the ultimate goal is for people to understand how/why other people score fights and realize the bulk of people (not all) aren't just pulling things out of their ass while scoring.