Ring generalship: A purely subjective scoring criteria?

[IamInuit]

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.

Looking slick while being punched about the face and not answering back is not supposed to get you points or win rounds that one lost. Same with round stealing in the last 15 seconds. Somehow, the 2:45 of dominance by the other guy is functionally deleted? Ali and Leonard were masters at pulling that blind over the festivities.

Its at times like that when it looks like there is no criteria and they ought to discontinue using a "must system" that they may or may not use.

A broader question is why has the system not evolved? What are they still doing at ringside with all those blind spots and distractions? I mean in some cases you are left wondering if the person even watched the round or was to busy analyzing the celebrities.

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.

The object of the game afterall is to out score your opponent. That's where the 10 point must originates. Landing more scoring blows then the other guy.

I think it originated in London and was an add on to the do's and dont's. Its always been based on the judges knowing what a scoring blow is. Lets not forget that thee were no judges much of the time and the ref called the fight at its origin. I find it interesting that its still practiced in Britain and have mixed feelings about it.

I also find the reluctance to call an even round even kind of odd. There is nothing in the rules about an obligation to pick a winner. I've called an awful lot of first rounds even over the years. Same with a late kd. If person A dominated 2 minutes and 50 seconds of a round and gets dropped that should not get the round for person B all the time. That could easily be justified an even round.

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.

Haglers ability to take the ring away from his opponent and cut it off is no less/more dominant then Floyd's use of the entire ring. They should both be given equal consideration with the other elements
listed

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

Its dummied down the sport and shares the blame in many ways for the erosion of judging.