Quote Originally Posted by Britkid
Quote Originally Posted by Clydey_2_Times
Oh, you disagree with the first sentence?

Then by reason you must have had Sam Soliman beating Winky quite handily.

Basically, you can throw punches all night and barely land and the activity means more than the fighter who lands more and throws less? Think you'll find it hard to justify that one.
I do disagree with the first part, as I feel American judges generally prefer an active fighter over a fight who uses economy.

But the reason I had Winky beating Soliman, is because like I stated, I agree with your second sentence, the fighter who lands more punches should (with the odd exception) win the round on 10 point must, that is the first rule of judging.

But that said, it is not the only rule in pro boxing, there other intangibles that a judge may choose award, like effective aggressiveness
Activity does not matter if you don't land. How can you dispute that? Boxing is about landing punches. Throwing and not landing does not score. Generalising American judges' style of scoring is really not a viable argument.

As far as offence goes, economy, punches landed, call it what you will, is more important than activity, irrefutably. If it wasn't, you could just flail away all night and, apparently, win fights.