Ring generalship: A purely subjective scoring criteria?

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

That is a pretty deep inquiry you have there. Based on the difference between score cards more often then not these days it would appear that "subjective" wins the day but we all know that something else has to be at play in many cases.

Yeah we have to consider corruption or some other outside inflence as far as 'bad' decisions go but then I guess there is this other side of the coin that I wanted to get in to with casual and even hardcore fans where there are massive differences of opinion over close fights, robberies and bad decisions. For examle (not neccessarily here but) Canelo fights seem to devide a lot of opion. As do Danny Garcia fights.

It seems a guy who has seeminlgly heavy feet and dosent look good moving around the ring and is being made to 'look bad' although when you look at the shots (and crucially the type of shots) actaully being landed (per round/ per fight, whatever) then you have a fight that is not as it 'looks'.

I think in these intances, ring generalship is misleading.

There is a certain amount of redundancy in the 10 point must system where I suppose lends itself to subjectivity or the ability to claim simply that you saw it differently.

I was going to bring this up as well.

I always assumed that the good old Marquess of Queensbury created a one-stop-shop for the rules of boxing. But thw 10-point must is nothing to do with him. Who created the 10-point must?
Your right, it is a poor system if the looser of the round only gets deducted 1 point, unless they are knocked down.

However when people start to call the effective use of the ring and working off the back foot as running, something is clearly lost in translation.

Rule no.5 leaves me a little stunned, frankly. So I can't really comment on 'lost in translation', untill there is some clarifciation on the enforcement or at least considerationof this rule.

Ring generalship can include effective aggression, defense and clean accurate punching as part of its definition. The ring is there for a reason and its size a major contention in pretty much every major fight. Unfortunately today we are in the phone-booth era driven by highlight reels. People in large measure dont want to watch a boxing match and those that make it to 12 are deemed a failure. Its a knockout or bust time. That leaves little room for the subtleties of the sweet science to even get noticed.

To be honest, I can undertsand this. Boxing is ultimately an entertainment business and thrives off thrills and spills. Shame though.