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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bomp

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bomp

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bomp

Quote:

---

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!!

honestly id say the best way is to watch the round and just go with gut instinct on who got the better of it , i think looking for particular criteria too much can make you miss other things and cloud your judgement

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lance Uppercut

Quote:

---

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.

---

exactly. that's where I got that. It's simplicity and perfection. And yet the guy has never worn gloves.

Quote:

---

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.

---

You wearing those shades again the new Cotto model!

Margarito clearly won 2 and 6 and i gave him 9 but it was 50/50.

Must have been the nose eh ;)

I always go be who is landing the cleaner harder shots. Then I look at work rate. Defense over swarming pointless punches. I usally like to see busy fighters. I DONT COUNT SLAPS AND ARM PUNCHES for all you Calzaghe fans.

Quote:

---

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.

---

I had Cotto ahead on points. However, there were a few rounds where even though Cotto landed more and effective punches, I gave fews round to Tony because Tony managed to stun Cotto seriously while taking Cotto's shots well.

I also factor in the Kellerman Rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bomp

Quote:

---

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 aggression 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.

---

yepper,"effective" can be one size fits all and subjective.The showier,quicker,head turner shots can be effective in there own way just as Body shots that immobilize and square you up for more can be another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bomp

Quote:

---

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.

---

Yeah me too; Didnt we all have Cotto way ahead comming into the 7th? I did,but still getting worried.
Taeth to write "I dont understand how people score fights on this forum"..
well I know what you're getting at but its not a general thing.
Most score full contact blows scored clean without being checked on the way in first and foremost .
Then comes ring generalship , aggression or impact if the round went even. 10 /8 if ones down etc, even back to 10/9 down, if they fight their way back and (except for the knockdown) they win the round.

We noticed a few people a number of years back who would score a pro fight like an amature one and would score glances even though the reciever was on the move out the same way already or if it got through just after being checked on the way in and when you tap a guys kidneys ten times to let him know your over him hugging you etc or the light ones to get a reaction from an arm in close etc. ;D ohh look 5 body shots!

I think its who fought better in round because in some cases one guy can land one punch that is more devastating to his opponent then every punch the other guy landed, but I still don't consider that one punch to be worth 20 clean punches from the other guy. If Cotto or whoever lands 10 clean punches that should stand for more then 5 clean punches landed by his opponent, but that his opponent land that effect him more.

The actual rule is clean punching. I checked it up, and effectiveness has no part in it. Thus even more Cotto wins those rounds becuase he landed the far cleaner punches. Which also would have Hopkins ahead against Calzaghe, which I had. Mayweather way ahead of Oscar which I had. Effectiveness isn't a fair criteria because one guy will always be effected more than his opponent by the punches, but if he lands more perfect punches there is no reason he shouldn't win because his opponent has a better chin or more power. Whoever lands the most clean punches does deserve to win around unless his opponent lands nearly as many punches, but wins every other criterion.

Does affective aggression and ring generalship HAVE to include landing clean punches? Can we not make a case for Margarito having a shout in all of the rounds after 1? He was making Cotto work at a pace he wasnt confortable, making him move more than he wanted to, ultimately it paid off. Didnt he display excellent ring generalship and affective aggression through every round bar 1?

I dont score round by round. I'd rather just watch and make my call at the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Memphis

Does affective aggression and ring generalship HAVE to include landing clean punches? Can we not make a case for Margarito having a shout in all of the rounds after 1? He was making Cotto work at a pace he wasnt confortable, making him move more than he wanted to, ultimately it paid off. Didnt he display excellent ring generalship and affective aggression through every round bar 1?

I dont score round by round. I'd rather just watch and make my call at the end.

---

Me too ;)

10-9
10-8 KO in round
10-10 if draw
10-7 multi KO
10-6 if i don't like fighter
10-5 if Hatton is fighting as he poo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

Quote:

---

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.

---

Correct

if we are going for agressiong, then we mayaswell not bother learning to box, just keep wal;king forward taking shots lol


Agression Calzaghe v Hopkins

Calzaghe was throwing punches and landing he won rounds

Margarito Agression V Cotto, he was missing and Cotto was running and tagging

so it should have been cotttos rounds

Quote:

---

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.

---

I disagree with that.

Cotto won all them rounds while on the back foot. That indicates that his ring generalship was greater than Margarito's, which it clearly was up until Marg caught up with him.

All Tony had going for him early on was aggression and persistance.

Personally i split the round up into 3 seperate 1 minute intervals. At least that way, rounds cannot be stolen solely by en eye catching ineffective flurry at the end of the round. I know it's probably not the most effective way of scoring, but i don't see why a fighter should win a round based on the last few seconds of it. I fail to see why those few seconds should be viewed as any more important that the rest of the round (other than the fact it will be the last thing the judges remember).

i ageree to disagree with you but disagree to agree with him:lickish::lickish:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

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

---

Sometimes. More often if I'm home alone or with my gf watching a free event. When I'm in a crowd watching a ppv, I do it mentally and keep track as best as I can through the cheering and the beer.