How do people judge fights here?

[bcollins]

I don't understand how people score fights on this forum. A round is judged on defense, ring generalship, aggression, and as Ledderman says first and FOREMOST clean effective punching.
ring generalship: who fights the fight they want to
defense: who has better defensive skills
aggression: who is initiating or coming forward

Now in the Margarito-Cotto fight for example
in rounds 1,2,3,4,5,6,9
Cotto clearly won these categories defense, CLEAN EFFECTIVE PUNCHING
while Margarito clearly won the aggression and ring generalship part of every round.

That being said did anyone have Cotto not winning rounds 1,2,3,4,5,6,9? I think people put an over emphasis on ring generalship and agression which are not the most important criteria when it comes to a fighter winning a fight.

clean EFFECTIVE punching. No doubt Cotto was landing the cleaner punches in these rounds, but in round 2 and 6 Margarito was landing with more EFFECT IMO.

Cotto was snapping Marg's head back in those two rounds with his punches, I don't see how one's punches were more effective than the others

But they still had little effect overall on Margarito. No doubt Cotto was lighting him up like a christmas tree, but he may as well have been hitting a brick wall for all the effect it was having.

So that brings up a great question, to me at least. It seems clean punching and effective punching may be two entirely different things, just taking this fight as an example. Cotto's punches were cleaner, and Margarito's were more effective, if you concede that those punches were what caused Cotto to fade toward the end.

How can you objectively score these criteria when they are not necessarily dependent?