One of the themes boxing judges are reminded of over and over again is the concept of "effective."

Generally that word is tied to both punching and aggressiveness.

Now the word "effective" is defined as "successful in producing a desired or intended result."

In the context of boxing isn't that, in simplest terms, damaging the other guy?

If all the above is true, then why aren't cuts caused explicitly referred to in scoring. I guess what I am asking is what is more visibly effective than causing a cut? A knockdown probably is but anything else?

Shouldn't causing a cut with a punch play a major role in scoring that round?

Isn't that kind of the perfect example of "effective punching."

I suppose the same concept could be applied to closing eyes, causing a bloody nose or bleeding from the mouth.

So why aren't these clearly "effective" situations addressed in scoring rounds?