How to score a Fight

[superheavyrhun]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with a few of the statements in this, quite simply because the number of situations that can arise in boxing, and the number of permutations in how a fight can go mean that any set of strict rules in place for boxing would damage, rather than benefit the sport.

For example, Colin Lynes v Paul McCloskey last week. How do you decide which aspect of the four put forward should be weighted heavier or equally when judging a round's score? Looking at one of the earlier rounds, Lynes would focus on throwing flurries to the body, and would be throwing and landing more punches, the majority of these rib-rattlers to the body, but McCloskey was resilient in this area. 1-0 Lynes. Defense. McCloskey would be winning this side of it, dodging a lot of punches, and moving out of reach quite often. Ring Generalship, Lynes was the one standing in the centre of the ring, and making the moves towards McCloskey. 2-1 Lynes. Effective Aggression, McCloskey getting the better shots off, and picking Lynes off coming in. Landing less frequently, but better punches. 2-2.

But the rounds I'm thinking were almost exclusively McCloskey's on the cards, so what I'm getting at is that the removal of discretion of the judges would be bad, not good for the sport, and mean boxers looking to meet criteria in fights, rather than matching their tactics to the opponents, and fighting the best way to win, and trusting the judges to see how the flow of the fight goes. MAybe the answer to this is not placing tighter restrictions on judges, but rather to choose more judges from boxing hotbeds, and less box-ticking by bringing in judges from countries who may not have the best boxing pedigree, simply because they're a member of that boxing organisation.

[killersheep]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with a few of the statements in this, quite simply because the number of situations that can arise in boxing, and the number of permutations in how a fight can go mean that any set of strict rules in place for boxing would damage, rather than benefit the sport.

For example, Colin Lynes v Paul McCloskey last week. How do you decide which aspect of the four put forward should be weighted heavier or equally when judging a round's score? Looking at one of the earlier rounds, Lynes would focus on throwing flurries to the body, and would be throwing and landing more punches, the majority of these rib-rattlers to the body, but McCloskey was resilient in this area. 1-0 Lynes. Defense. McCloskey would be winning this side of it, dodging a lot of punches, and moving out of reach quite often. Ring Generalship, Lynes was the one standing in the centre of the ring, and making the moves towards McCloskey. 2-1 Lynes. Effective Aggression, McCloskey getting the better shots off, and picking Lynes off coming in. Landing less frequently, but better punches. 2-2.

But the rounds I'm thinking were almost exclusively McCloskey's on the cards, so what I'm getting at is that the removal of discretion of the judges would be bad, not good for the sport, and mean boxers looking to meet criteria in fights, rather than matching their tactics to the opponents, and fighting the best way to win, and trusting the judges to see how the flow of the fight goes. MAybe the answer to this is not placing tighter restrictions on judges, but rather to choose more judges from boxing hotbeds, and less box-ticking by bringing in judges from countries who may not have the best boxing pedigree, simply because they're a member of that boxing organisation.

Usually in the big fights at least in the US they say that they weight one more that the others, such as clean punching or effective aggression.

[Taeth]

I think it ranking of importance it should be
1. Clean effective punching
2. Ring generalship
3. effective aggressiveness
4. Defense.

IMO effective aggressiveness and defense should be up there. Ring generalship entails who is imposing their style more effectively whether they are using movement or coming forward, in other words controlling the action. Clean punching should get rid of the defense category because if you get hit by less clean punches then obviously that accounts for you landing more clean punches and your opponent landing less.

But my big thing with clean punching is that it NEEDS to be effective. Using slapping punches isn't punching effectively, its a lot easier to land like this, and if thats what you need to do to land punches it deserves less merit than clean crisp punches that are landing with power and precision. I don't care you can knock your opponent out or not scratch them, IMO if you are landing cleanly, as hard as you can then thats good enough. I also give higher credence to guys like Pacquiao who knowingly put themselves off balance to punch harder, I think if you are trying to hit as hard as you can, knowing it will take you out of position then I will consider your landed punches worth more.

[HattonTheHammer]

after attempting to score over the years a good 300 odd contests ive come to a conclusion...

Never attempt to overthink what your doing.

Dont score the fight the second the round gets going

Watch and enjoy the 1st 2minutes and then during the final minute evaluate who is winning the round and what the losing man needs to possibly swing it in his favour!!!

[p4pking]

It's not all cut and dry like that though, obviously. There's to much grey area to simply rank the elements in order imo. For instance if one guy is landing the cleaner, more effective punches, yet the other guy is always pressing forward and forcing his man to fight off the back foot in this manner, while being visibly stronger or fresher, who is the ring general? Is it the first guy, because clean effective punching is more important than effective agressiveness? Because it's certainly not a given one fighter will be doing both. And to what extent does having a tight defence negate the agressor's edge.. If a guy barely get's hit in a round, yet spends the whole time backing away from his opponent and only lands the slightly more telling shots, is he therefore going to check 3 of the 4 boxes? Should a fighter landing the cleaner better shots AND showing a better defence be the ring general based on having 2 of the 3? Or could you give it to the agressor alone if he was really pressing and his opponent was reluctant to engage? It certainly happens all the time. It just depends what you like to see in the first place really.