Ring generalship: A purely subjective scoring criteria?

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

Am I right in understanding that clean punching/, effective aggression, defence & ring generalship are NOT all equal scoring criteria? That clean punching is the most important aspect of scoring a bout and that ring generalship is last, behind defence?

Or am I wrong?

Who actually set the criteria, I mean initially?

I found the Boxing Rules of Athletic Commission of the State of New York but this confuses me. Does the rules differ from state to state?

5. It is advisable to deduct points when a contestant persistently delays the action of a contest by clinching and lack of aggressiveness

.

I never knew this?

I'm rambling because I am genuinely confused about ring generalship. There seems to be no absolute rule on what is to be considered as more appropriate or more competent ring generalship so it is left up to the judge to decide and therefore the fighter to influence the judges.

So I'm wondering is ring generalship as much about the appearance of being in control as much as it is about actually being in control.

Is 'smoke and mirrors' something that judges take into account? Should they?