How to score a Fight

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

Quote:

---

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.

---

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with a few of the statements in this, quite simply because the number of situations that can arise in boxing, and the number of permutations in how a fight can go mean that any set of strict rules in place for boxing would damage, rather than benefit the sport.

For example, Colin Lynes v Paul McCloskey last week. How do you decide which aspect of the four put forward should be weighted heavier or equally when judging a round's score? Looking at one of the earlier rounds, Lynes would focus on throwing flurries to the body, and would be throwing and landing more punches, the majority of these rib-rattlers to the body, but McCloskey was resilient in this area. 1-0 Lynes. Defense. McCloskey would be winning this side of it, dodging a lot of punches, and moving out of reach quite often. Ring Generalship, Lynes was the one standing in the centre of the ring, and making the moves towards McCloskey. 2-1 Lynes. Effective Aggression, McCloskey getting the better shots off, and picking Lynes off coming in. Landing less frequently, but better punches. 2-2.

But the rounds I'm thinking were almost exclusively McCloskey's on the cards, so what I'm getting at is that the removal of discretion of the judges would be bad, not good for the sport, and mean boxers looking to meet criteria in fights, rather than matching their tactics to the opponents, and fighting the best way to win, and trusting the judges to see how the flow of the fight goes. MAybe the answer to this is not placing tighter restrictions on judges, but rather to choose more judges from boxing hotbeds, and less box-ticking by bringing in judges from countries who may not have the best boxing pedigree, simply because they're a member of that boxing organisation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superheavyrhun

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with a few of the statements in this, quite simply because the number of situations that can arise in boxing, and the number of permutations in how a fight can go mean that any set of strict rules in place for boxing would damage, rather than benefit the sport.

For example, Colin Lynes v Paul McCloskey last week. How do you decide which aspect of the four put forward should be weighted heavier or equally when judging a round's score? Looking at one of the earlier rounds, Lynes would focus on throwing flurries to the body, and would be throwing and landing more punches, the majority of these rib-rattlers to the body, but McCloskey was resilient in this area. 1-0 Lynes. Defense. McCloskey would be winning this side of it, dodging a lot of punches, and moving out of reach quite often. Ring Generalship, Lynes was the one standing in the centre of the ring, and making the moves towards McCloskey. 2-1 Lynes. Effective Aggression, McCloskey getting the better shots off, and picking Lynes off coming in. Landing less frequently, but better punches. 2-2.

But the rounds I'm thinking were almost exclusively McCloskey's on the cards, so what I'm getting at is that the removal of discretion of the judges would be bad, not good for the sport, and mean boxers looking to meet criteria in fights, rather than matching their tactics to the opponents, and fighting the best way to win, and trusting the judges to see how the flow of the fight goes. MAybe the answer to this is not placing tighter restrictions on judges, but rather to choose more judges from boxing hotbeds, and less box-ticking by bringing in judges from countries who may not have the best boxing pedigree, simply because they're a member of that boxing organisation.

---

Usually in the big fights at least in the US they say that they weight one more that the others, such as clean punching or effective aggression.

I think it ranking of importance it should be
1. Clean effective punching
2. Ring generalship
3. effective aggressiveness
4. Defense.

IMO effective aggressiveness and defense should be up there. Ring generalship entails who is imposing their style more effectively whether they are using movement or coming forward, in other words controlling the action. Clean punching should get rid of the defense category because if you get hit by less clean punches then obviously that accounts for you landing more clean punches and your opponent landing less.

But my big thing with clean punching is that it NEEDS to be effective. Using slapping punches isn't punching effectively, its a lot easier to land like this, and if thats what you need to do to land punches it deserves less merit than clean crisp punches that are landing with power and precision. I don't care you can knock your opponent out or not scratch them, IMO if you are landing cleanly, as hard as you can then thats good enough. I also give higher credence to guys like Pacquiao who knowingly put themselves off balance to punch harder, I think if you are trying to hit as hard as you can, knowing it will take you out of position then I will consider your landed punches worth more.

after attempting to score over the years a good 300 odd contests ive come to a conclusion...

Never attempt to overthink what your doing.

Dont score the fight the second the round gets going

Watch and enjoy the 1st 2minutes and then during the final minute evaluate who is winning the round and what the losing man needs to possibly swing it in his favour!!!

It's not all cut and dry like that though, obviously. There's to much grey area to simply rank the elements in order imo. For instance if one guy is landing the cleaner, more effective punches, yet the other guy is always pressing forward and forcing his man to fight off the back foot in this manner, while being visibly stronger or fresher, who is the ring general? Is it the first guy, because clean effective punching is more important than effective agressiveness? Because it's certainly not a given one fighter will be doing both. And to what extent does having a tight defence negate the agressor's edge.. If a guy barely get's hit in a round, yet spends the whole time backing away from his opponent and only lands the slightly more telling shots, is he therefore going to check 3 of the 4 boxes? Should a fighter landing the cleaner better shots AND showing a better defence be the ring general based on having 2 of the 3? Or could you give it to the agressor alone if he was really pressing and his opponent was reluctant to engage? It certainly happens all the time. It just depends what you like to see in the first place really.

How to score....

(Alright!!!!!!!)

... a fight.


(Booo!)

;D

And when all is said and done a judge can score 10-9 whenever they feel like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

And when all is said and done a judge can score 10-9 whenever they feel like it.

---

it comforts me to know however bad i was as long as i stay on my feet the very worst they can do is 10-8 me ;D;D;D

When I first started following & scoring I was able to focus much more intently,but was still learning what it was I was looking at.Also I'll admit it....when I was younger,I at times leaned towards a favorite :-X.Though I look at some of my sheets from around 91'-93' and am embarrassed to have ALOT of even rounds down :bucktooth:.Even rounds should be an absolute last resort,seem pretty indesicive and useless.

Over the last year,I have not scored fights as Im usally typing and not fully focused on the big screen.Scoring can be like ranking p4p...very subjective and interpeted in numerous ways.I say # 1 is clean/effective punching.It does not have to be earth shattering but clean.Even that can offset a fighter from responding and make him react to you.Effective aggresion speaks for itself,often led by punching and out manuvering or positioning fighter b.

I like how Max Kellerman puts it.


"At the end of the round ask yourself which guy would you rather be?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

I like how Max Kellerman puts it.


"At the end of the round ask yourself which guy would you rather be?"

---

Wow, I cant stand Kellerman and usually disgree with whatever he says, but that statement is spot on. Never thought of it that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boom Boom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

I like how Max Kellerman puts it.


"At the end of the round ask yourself which guy would you rather be?"

---

Wow, I cant stand Kellerman and usually disgree with whatever he says, but that statement is spot on. Never thought of it that way.

---

I agree with Max and I score rounds that way...

But at the end of the day, clean effective punching is by far the single most imporftan measure. By the way, maybe we could send this to the NYC Commission. You know, the one that did the Cassamayor-Sanata Cruz fight and the recent Agustus robbery.:angryxo4:

Those are the outlines and criteria but it all on the person which one they prefer or put first....and how they view each....

EG-...You have a fighter that is very defensive but not a counter puncher...He is the type that slips and moves....

His opponent is a come forward aggressive fighter....

The defensive fighter knows he is faster and can avoid most the aggressive fighters punches so he allows the agressive fighter to control the ring by letting him pursue him.....yet the agressive fighter fails to land more then one or two clean shots in the round....And the defensive fighter only threw one shot here and there mostly jabs yet they landed cleanly....

Who do you give the round to?
Some judges to the agressive fighter for pushing the action and keeping the defensive fighter constantly working even when he did not want to.....

Others to the defensive fighter because he did not allow the agressive fighter to be effective with that agression

In the end judges are just like any fan and will sway toward the style they prefer and not a strict outline....

Personally I score it according to this way and in this order

Ring Generalship- If you can manage to fight off the ropes when you want and then take it to the center when you want then you have your opponent fighting your fight...

Defense-- Boxing is to hit and not be hit...Or not be hit with punishing blows depending on your style.....Avoid being damaged and you already are up a leg..

Effective Aggression-- You can throw punches all night but if they are not calculated they are useless...EG throw a 100 bombs in a round and if one does not land on the button all you did was waste energy....Guys who work the body to brak a man down like Cotto does making them ripe for the taking or guys like Calzaghe who just overwhelm you so you can not get off your shots are perfect examples of effective aggression....

Also effective aggression can be used in other ways...Guys who like to get close and fight in a clinch are just as effective in their aggression if they are amking progress with it....Or guys who get off then tie you up while roughing you up on the inseide to drain your energy...Hatton is a master at this...Making you use energy to get out of his hold after landing shots, leaning on you until the ref seperates you.....

They are art forums many do not understand..or appreciate

Clean effective punching--People often confuse this with effective aggression...clean effective punching does not always mean hard shots....If you can keep landing clean jabs that are just enough to keep your opponent busy enough to worry more about avoiding then throwing you are throwing effective clean punches...Sure hard power shots are what dazzles but keep hitting a guy in his shoulder just as he is getting ready to throw and you disrupt his rythm enough the punches are effective just in a different way

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holmcall

But at the end of the day, clean effective punching is by far the single most imporftan measure. By the way, maybe we could send this to the NYC Commission. You know, the one that did the Cassamayor-Sanata Cruz fight and the recent Agustus robbery.:angryxo4:

---

i was thinking more the dumbies that scored chris john winner over JMM one of the most byest decisions ive ever seen!!

For the record i hate kellerman and dearly wish he never called another fight as long as he lives.

But the "which man would you rather be" is actually a very good point!!

I generally score towards effective punching to legal targets.
If he's just throwing alot of shots and hitting the arms,thats not a pointing target is it?
The rules clearly state torso and head,I dont care how many times he hit him in the elbow

I tend to watch the 12 rounds and make a decision based on the
hour or so of boxing ive watched.....A winner is usually pretty obvious.

Unless it's a close fight. In wich case ill grab a pen a paper.

But You can't really explain how you score a fight you just gotta go with
what your watching.

But IMO combinations are the biggest point scorer....If your scoring Combos...You have to be given the round surly.