Effectiveness and Cuts

[marbleheadmaui]

One of the themes boxing judges are reminded of over and over again is the concept of "effective."

Generally that word is tied to both punching and aggressiveness.

Now the word "effective" is defined as "successful in producing a desired or intended result."

In the context of boxing isn't that, in simplest terms, damaging the other guy?

If all the above is true, then why aren't cuts caused explicitly referred to in scoring. I guess what I am asking is what is more visibly effective than causing a cut? A knockdown probably is but anything else?

Shouldn't causing a cut with a punch play a major role in scoring that round?

Isn't that kind of the perfect example of "effective punching."

I suppose the same concept could be applied to closing eyes, causing a bloody nose or bleeding from the mouth.

So why aren't these clearly "effective" situations addressed in scoring rounds?

[p4pking]

Well I think you have to imagine they are for the most part. I myself almost always give rounds to the fighter I feel inflicted more damage, which is sometimes tricky for me being very partial to slick fighters who move a lot. Obviously cuts caused by flush shots are very telling of the quality of punches. If you are suggesting that there be a finite way to factor them into scoring though? It's completely impossible. First off some fighters are just so much more prone to being cut than others, it'd be completely unfair to put a real scoring emphasis on aesthetics like that. Arturo Gatti would've never won a decision in his life. Secondly, you often see cuts caused by glancing blows that are anything but damaging punches otherwise. If it were known to be a scoring criterium regardless of the punches causing cuts you'd have guys trying to thumb each other or use the palm of gloves in the clinch etc.

[marbleheadmaui]

Well I think you have to imagine they are for the most part. I myself almost always give rounds to the fighter I feel inflicted more damage, which is sometimes tricky for me being very partial to slick fighters who move a lot. Obviously cuts caused by flush shots are very telling of the quality of punches. If you are suggesting that there be a finite way to factor them into scoring though? It's completely impossible. First off some fighters are just so much more prone to being cut than others, it'd be completely unfair to put a real scoring emphasis on aesthetics like that. Arturo Gatti would've never won a decision in his life. Secondly, you often see cuts caused by glancing blows that are anything but damaging punches otherwise. If it were known to be a scoring criterium regardless of the punches causing cuts you'd have guys trying to thumb each other or use the palm of gloves in the clinch etc.

Nice post.

I NEVER hear Harold Lederman (as one example) talk about cuts in his scoring. Nor anyone else.

Fighters prone to being cut is too damned bad. That's part of my point. I mean it isn't the guy who lands the harder punches who matters, it is the guy who lands the punches the other guy can't handle, right? So why is a weak chin any different from being prone to cuts?

As for the last point, this leading to muggings? Good point!

[JazMerkin]

Well I think you have to imagine they are for the most part. I myself almost always give rounds to the fighter I feel inflicted more damage, which is sometimes tricky for me being very partial to slick fighters who move a lot. Obviously cuts caused by flush shots are very telling of the quality of punches. If you are suggesting that there be a finite way to factor them into scoring though? It's completely impossible. First off some fighters are just so much more prone to being cut than others, it'd be completely unfair to put a real scoring emphasis on aesthetics like that. Arturo Gatti would've never won a decision in his life. Secondly, you often see cuts caused by glancing blows that are anything but damaging punches otherwise. If it were known to be a scoring criterium regardless of the punches causing cuts you'd have guys trying to thumb each other or use the palm of gloves in the clinch etc.

Nice post.

I NEVER hear Harold Lederman (as one example) talk about cuts in his scoring. Nor anyone else.

Fighters prone to being cut is too damned bad. That's part of my point. I mean it isn't the guy who lands the harder punches who matters, it is the guy who lands the punches the other guy can't handle, right? So why is a weak chin any different from being prone to cuts?

As for the last point, this leading to muggings? Good point!

I think that it can also be down to the fact that in many cases it is unclear without the use of replays how a cut came about. If we're talking something like Cotto's beatings against Margarito & Pacquiao, it's clear where his cuts came from, however in many fights it's hard to tell especially when fights are in close. I can remember many fights where what looked like a cut from a punch in real-time subsequently proved to be from a butt or it could end up like Jorge Arce getting stopped against Darchinyan on the basis of a cut caused by the ring ropes.

[marbleheadmaui]

Well I think you have to imagine they are for the most part. I myself almost always give rounds to the fighter I feel inflicted more damage, which is sometimes tricky for me being very partial to slick fighters who move a lot. Obviously cuts caused by flush shots are very telling of the quality of punches. If you are suggesting that there be a finite way to factor them into scoring though? It's completely impossible. First off some fighters are just so much more prone to being cut than others, it'd be completely unfair to put a real scoring emphasis on aesthetics like that. Arturo Gatti would've never won a decision in his life. Secondly, you often see cuts caused by glancing blows that are anything but damaging punches otherwise. If it were known to be a scoring criterium regardless of the punches causing cuts you'd have guys trying to thumb each other or use the palm of gloves in the clinch etc.

Nice post.

I NEVER hear Harold Lederman (as one example) talk about cuts in his scoring. Nor anyone else.

Fighters prone to being cut is too damned bad. That's part of my point. I mean it isn't the guy who lands the harder punches who matters, it is the guy who lands the punches the other guy can't handle, right? So why is a weak chin any different from being prone to cuts?

As for the last point, this leading to muggings? Good point!

I think that it can also be down to the fact that in many cases it is unclear without the use of replays how a cut came about. If we're talking something like Cotto's beatings against Margarito & Pacquiao, it's clear where his cuts came from, however in many fights it's hard to tell especially when fights are in close. I can remember many fights where what looked like a cut from a punch in real-time subsequently proved to be from a butt or it could end up like Jorge Arce getting stopped against Darchinyan on the basis of a cut caused by the ring ropes.

Yeah I hear you. I'm not actually sure I susbscribe to the position I laid out, but it is something I wonder about. As for the uncertainty about the source of the cut? I'd tell the judges you only score what you see.

[greynotsoold]

This is a concept that seems to be lost in the obsession with punch-stat numbers. In my opinion, amateur boxing should be reserved for punch counting- if there must be punch counting, which I don't believe, and pro judges should evaluate the effect of the blows. They sit right at the ring apron, for heaven's sake, and it ain't that hard to tell who is landing the better shots.
Today the emphasis seems to be on the numbers, be they slapping, cuffing blows or not.

[marbleheadmaui]

This is a concept that seems to be lost in the obsession with punch-stat numbers. In my opinion, amateur boxing should be reserved for punch counting- if there must be punch counting, which I don't believe, and pro judges should evaluate the effect of the blows. They sit right at the ring apron, for heaven's sake, and it ain't that hard to tell who is landing the better shots.
Today the emphasis seems to be on the numbers, be they slapping, cuffing blows or not.

GREAT post!

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

What's that saying? Arturo Gatti wakes up with a swollen eye?

I think facial damage should only have minimal consideration. To be honest, I'd never really given it a though buy I think for now I'm happy with the idea that any swelling/ cuts caused will probably lead to increased quality of effective punching anyway.

[Howlin Mad Missy]

same old same old. Are 50 clean landed jabs cancelled out by one hard hook? IMO no.

It's your interpretation that effective means damage. The aim is to hit and not be hit.

If I see a guy relying on a jab to control the fight, keep the other guy off and at distance. That's effective punching in my book.

[greynotsoold]

Agreed, the object is to hit and not be hit, and if one guy is being kept off balance and ineffective by a jab, then that is effective punching. But how about a fight like Chavez-Taylor I?
I had Chavez winning the fight going into the 12th, thought the kd secured it for him, because, while Taylor fought his heart out and landed many fast arm punches, Chavez was landing the effective punches and was clearly winning the fight, if not, in many cases, the scorecards.
There really must be some reward for damaging blows over irritating punches.

[Howlin Mad Missy]

Howdy. I'd have to re-watch with a view to judging it on the cards. Although it remains controversial because it appears most had Chavez losing if not for the late round stoppage.

[p4pking]

Well I think you have to imagine they are for the most part. I myself almost always give rounds to the fighter I feel inflicted more damage, which is sometimes tricky for me being very partial to slick fighters who move a lot. Obviously cuts caused by flush shots are very telling of the quality of punches. If you are suggesting that there be a finite way to factor them into scoring though? It's completely impossible. First off some fighters are just so much more prone to being cut than others, it'd be completely unfair to put a real scoring emphasis on aesthetics like that. Arturo Gatti would've never won a decision in his life. Secondly, you often see cuts caused by glancing blows that are anything but damaging punches otherwise. If it were known to be a scoring criterium regardless of the punches causing cuts you'd have guys trying to thumb each other or use the palm of gloves in the clinch etc.

Nice post.

I NEVER hear Harold Lederman (as one example) talk about cuts in his scoring. Nor anyone else.

Fighters prone to being cut is too damned bad. That's part of my point. I mean it isn't the guy who lands the harder punches who matters, it is the guy who lands the punches the other guy can't handle, right? So why is a weak chin any different from being prone to cuts?

As for the last point, this leading to muggings? Good point!

I don't think you can really compare being prone to cuts with having a bad chin. There are no recovery powers that will aid a fighter who gets busted up, it's all up to his cutman to do what he can. It's not at all uncommon to see a guy with far more visible damage who is still winning the fight. How often is that the case for a guy who is getting rocked more often etc.? There's also the fact that once you are cut it becomes much easier for the opponent to make it worse without actually inflicting more punishment in a given round. If a guy is sliced open in the first he will probably look worse every round thereafter, despite whether his opponent continues to land all that much. If a guy is hurt badly by a punch he has ample chance to recover and erase that defecit.

[marbleheadmaui]

Well I think you have to imagine they are for the most part. I myself almost always give rounds to the fighter I feel inflicted more damage, which is sometimes tricky for me being very partial to slick fighters who move a lot. Obviously cuts caused by flush shots are very telling of the quality of punches. If you are suggesting that there be a finite way to factor them into scoring though? It's completely impossible. First off some fighters are just so much more prone to being cut than others, it'd be completely unfair to put a real scoring emphasis on aesthetics like that. Arturo Gatti would've never won a decision in his life. Secondly, you often see cuts caused by glancing blows that are anything but damaging punches otherwise. If it were known to be a scoring criterium regardless of the punches causing cuts you'd have guys trying to thumb each other or use the palm of gloves in the clinch etc.

Nice post.

I NEVER hear Harold Lederman (as one example) talk about cuts in his scoring. Nor anyone else.

Fighters prone to being cut is too damned bad. That's part of my point. I mean it isn't the guy who lands the harder punches who matters, it is the guy who lands the punches the other guy can't handle, right? So why is a weak chin any different from being prone to cuts?

As for the last point, this leading to muggings? Good point!

I don't think you can really compare being prone to cuts with having a bad chin. There are no recovery powers that will aid a fighter who gets busted up, it's all up to his cutman to do what he can. It's not at all uncommon to see a guy with far more visible damage who is still winning the fight. How often is that the case for a guy who is getting rocked more often etc.? There's also the fact that once you are cut it becomes much easier for the opponent to make it worse without actually inflicting more punishment in a given round. If a guy is sliced open in the first he will probably look worse every round thereafter, despite whether his opponent continues to land all that much. If a guy is hurt badly by a punch he has ample chance to recover and erase that defecit.

Nice post and good points all around. Not sure I am persuaded, but a good deal to consider. Thanks!

[Spicoli]

Refs have a hard enough time and can be less effective in determining a knockdown let alone the orgin and cause of a cut, abrasion, bruise or all of the above. Judges and fans do notice and i think it plays an unspoken factor already. Facial damage can be a combination of head butts, shoulders, laces on one side and a clean punch on the other eye, literally. It would be a case where replay would be almost a must. If we start considering scraps and damage done off more subjective than not things how many more billy goats and shoulder blockers will hone the craft? I love swift slicing punchers who can be cutters and train to target a cut...manuver to the blindside of an opponent...flick a jab off the one good eye to blind etc etc but I'd like to leave it in the hands of the fighters to give themselves a personal effective advantage rather than have judges or refs give bonuses on cards when they already have their hands full getting it right as it is.

[marbleheadmaui]

Refs have a hard enough time and can be less effective in determining a knockdown let alone the orgin and cause of a cut, abrasion, bruise or all of the above. Judges and fans do notice and i think it plays an unspoken factor already. Facial damage can be a combination of head butts, shoulders, laces on one side and a clean punch on the other eye, literally. It would be a case where replay would be almost a must. If we start considering scraps and damage done off more subjective than not things how many more billy goats and shoulder blockers will hone the craft? I love swift slicing punchers who can be cutters and train to target a cut...manuver to the blindside of an opponent...flick a jab off the one good eye to blind etc etc but I'd like to leave it in the hands of the fighters to give themselves a personal effective advantage rather than have judges or refs give bonuses on cards when they already have their hands full getting it right as it is.

Damn. More logic.

WTF is going on here?