SCORING A FIGHT

Hello there dont often post but I have really got into boxing in the last 4 years. I know I could google this but one day I am going to stay sober and score a bout. I know its 10 points and nine points and 10 -8 for a knock down but what should I be looking for? I have seen enough bouts to get a feel for it but what about aggression, punches landed, skill on the back foot ect?

Cheers in advance thought it might be worth a debate.

It's a little subjective frankly, hence the wildly diverging scorecards from judges.

I follow the Eugenia Williams method of slaughtering a goat and staring into it's entrails........

Effective aggression: Who is initiating the exchanges and having success when they do so?
Ring Generalship: Which boxer is fighting on their terms? Cutting off the ring, keeping it at distance etc, whatever works to their strengths.
Clean Punching: Hitting with the knuckles to the head/body.
Defence: Not getting hit or reducing the effect of punches.

Ring Generalship is an important one and one that can easily be overlooked.

Scott has pretty much gone through the main things, however the one thing I would stress is not to confuse aggression with effective aggression which I think a lot of judges are guilty of, a classic example is De La Hoya against Floyd, threw loads and scored a lot of points for it but little was actually effective and better scoring should have reflected this.

rowley wrote:Scott has pretty much gone through the main things, however the one thing I would stress is not to confuse aggression with effective aggression which I think a lot of judges are guilty of, a classic example is De La Hoya against Floyd, threw loads and scored a lot of points for it but little was actually effective and better scoring should have reflected this.

Are we heading into the realm of a certain someone being the most accurate puncher ever because when he misses it's because he INTENDS to? Froch was pretty ineffective against Dirrell, but at the same time he DID have the effect of making Dirrell run away like a girl, so in that sense Froch wasn't TOTALLY ineffective. It's certainly open to interpretation.

A good example of ineffective aggression for me was Wlad in the Haye fight, though when your opponent is doing nothing in return even ineffective aggression is points worthy.

workrate can win a fight sometimes, and think is very important. if you cannot seperate a round that is even which is often the case then the more active fighter tends to catch the judges eye.

Dass wrote:A good example of ineffective aggression for me was Wlad in the Haye fight, though when your opponent is doing nothing in return even ineffective aggression is points worthy.

eddyfightfan wrote:workrate can win a fight sometimes, and think is very important. if you cannot seperate a round that is even which is often the case then the more active fighter tends to catch the judges eye.

Neither of these should be the case. If one guy isn't hitting, the other deserves credit for defence.

Yeah but defense without an offence is pointless. It's a case then of neither guy winning the fight, just one of them looking like he at least wanted to. The Wlad Haye fight didn't really do much to sell either guy.

Scottrf has outlined the criteria for established for judging but it retains a highly subjective nature as there is no rules on how much you should emphasise one or the other and its pretty much at the judges discretion. Some judges place very little emphasis on defence for instance while some heavily favour aggression or ring generalship. The criteria are almost basic guidelines rather than a rigid system.

The Haye v Klitschko fight for instance would probably see or Haye v Valuev fights for intstance would probably see very little byway of effective aggression for any of the fighters but in terms of ring generalship Haye would have had the upper hand against Valuev but Klitschko would be comfortably ahead of Haye.

eddyfightfan wrote:workrate can win a fight sometimes, and think is very important. if you cannot seperate a round that is even which is often the case then the more active fighter tends to catch the judges eye.

I would give a boxer a round for good defence rather than having a higher punch if he is missing.

prettyboykev wrote:

eddyfightfan wrote:workrate can win a fight sometimes, and think is very important. if you cannot seperate a round that is even which is often the case then the more active fighter tends to catch the judges eye.

I would give a boxer a round for good defence rather than having a higher punch if he is missing.

But then the guy who's on the defensive isn't doing anything to win the round either. He might be tiring out his opponent over the stretch, but in that particular round he's not being allowed to go on the offensive, but that in turn brings us back to how effective the opponent's pressure is, regardless of % landed. It's all a bit crap really.

BALTIMORA wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

eddyfightfan wrote:workrate can win a fight sometimes, and think is very important. if you cannot seperate a round that is even which is often the case then the more active fighter tends to catch the judges eye.

I would give a boxer a round for good defence rather than having a higher punch if he is missing.

But then the guy who's on the defensive isn't doing anything to win the round either. He might be tiring out his opponent over the stretch, but in that particular round he's not being allowed to go on the offensive, but that in turn brings us back to how effective the opponent's pressure is, regardless of % landed. It's all a bit crap really.

Shopuld have explained it a bit more. I meant if you are displaying excellent defensive skills like a Pep, Locche or Whitaker would be capable of and making your opponent miss. A guy with decent defensive skills probably isn't going to be good enough to win a round on defence alone. I never really thought it through properly as there are very few who would be capable of something like that.

I understand your point but for me it goes back to being a bit moot if all you're doing is making your opponent miss and look silly. Sure, that looks impressive but by its nature it's a sport geared towards offence. It's like in football; you still need to score goals to win. Personal preference, at least.

I think you need to combine all the various elements as best you can. A boxer could run around the ring and not get hit which one could argue was good for defensive purposes but he is going to have little in the other areas such as effective aggression, clean punching or ring generalship. This is what happened in the Haye v Klitschko fight by and large. Could give Haye marks for defense in most rounds but it was negated by Wlad scoring better in the other departments and equally in defence.

in america especially it counts for a lot more

Balti I agree obviously you would need to throw at least a few punches. Getting on your bike shouldn't be enough to win you a round even if you do it in the style that guys like Whitaker were capable of.

Their is that infamous round which Pep apparently won without throwing a punch although their is a lot of conflicting reports about that one.

Ivan Calderon came the closest I can find to matching that. He won a round early in his career by only throwing 2 jabs both of which he landed but made his opponent miss horribly. Although the fight was in his homeland of Puerto Rico and he was fighting a Mexican journeyman.

I think ring generalship should be done away with as part of the scoring system. It places emphasis on how the judges believe a boxer should be fighting based on previous fights. An example off the top of my head would be Floyd vs Hatton where Harold Lederman had it very close on points because he thought it was the up close messy kind of Hatton would want and ignored the fact he was losing at his own type of fight.

I ctually think Ring Generalship is the most important aspect as its a kind of a catch all bracket that distinguishes who is controlling the fight.

To be fair to Lederman, the first few rounds of the Hatton v Mayweather fight were pretty close and Hatton was certainly pressurising Mayweather and closing off the ring on him. It was only around the midway point that Mayweather really started taking over. His scorecard looked ok to me after the first 4/5 rounds when Hatton was still well in the fight.

I guess the debate just goes to show how dodgy judging can be and how easy it is to fix a fight, they should simply fight until one boxer loses or gives in

manos de piedra wrote:I ctually think Ring Generalship is the most important aspect as its a kind of a catch all bracket that distinguishes who is controlling the fight.

To be fair to Lederman, the first few rounds of the Hatton v Mayweather fight were pretty close and Hatton was certainly pressurising Mayweather and closing off the ring on him. It was only around the midway point that Mayweather really started taking over. His scorecard looked ok to me after the first 4/5 rounds when Hatton was still well in the fight.

He had Mayweather 2 points up going in to the 10th, that's with Hatton being docked a point. He was scoring it just about even just because it was the kind of fight that should have suited Hatton and ignored the fact that he was losing at his own kind of fight and being outfought on the inside by Mayweather.

von trapp wrote:Hello there dont often post but I have really got into boxing in the last 4 years. I know I could google this but one day I am going to stay sober and score a bout. I know its 10 points and nine points and 10 -8 for a knock down but what should I be looking for? I have seen enough bouts to get a feel for it but what about aggression, punches landed, skill on the back foot ect?

Cheers in advance thought it might be worth a debate.

~ Sir, I regret that you are in error.

A knockdown only causes a fighter to lose a point, not an auto 10-8 round.

Perfessor Albertus Lion V wrote:

von trapp wrote:Hello there dont often post but I have really got into boxing in the last 4 years. I know I could google this but one day I am going to stay sober and score a bout. I know its 10 points and nine points and 10 -8 for a knock down but what should I be looking for? I have seen enough bouts to get a feel for it but what about aggression, punches landed, skill on the back foot ect?

Cheers in advance thought it might be worth a debate.

~ Sir, I regret that you are in error.

A knockdown only causes a fighter to lose a point, not an auto 10-8 round.

Not necessarily, like what we seen in the Mosley v Pacquiao fight if a knock down is scored but the fighter who is knocked down wins the round the judge can score it 10-10

just to confuse matters, scoring in the amateurs if different again, with the scoring supposedly based only on the punches landed- for each 5 punches clear of your opponent , he loses a point on a 20point must system. ie you land 10 more punches than the other guy, and the round is scored 20-18.
Knockdowns don't count for anything. The computer system used at bigger tournements has 5 judges and each hits a button for each punch landed, at the end the two judges with the most extreme scores are discarded, and the score of the remaining three determine whose won. Both systems are poor, esp the computer system. It was supposed to make scoring less subjective, but as it dismisses all other aspects of boxing skill all it has done is dumb down the sport- body shots for example rarely seem to score (may be the judges find it harder to be sure they have landed clean?) so the most effective style is to head hunt with big punches that get noticed. Worse still it doesn't seem to have eliminated that bad decisions that led to its introduction.

Paq vs Cotto, there was a round (4th I think....) that Cotto dominated but Manny put him down toward the end. The judges were likely to have had that as 10-8 to Manny but it was a clear 9-9 round for me.

KingMonkey wrote:Paq vs Cotto, there was a round (4th I think....) that Cotto dominated but Manny put him down toward the end. The judges were likely to have had that as 10-8 to Manny but it was a clear 9-9 round for me.

You can't score it 9-9.

I swear about 5% of boxing fans can score a fight, if that.

It makes me chuckle the amount of times that I've watched fights where the commentators say they score a round 10-8 because of the aggression of one fighter over another.

Despite there being no knockdown.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the rules state a 10-8 round can only be scored when a knockdown occurs.

Sir. badgerhands wrote:It makes me chuckle the amount of times that I've watched fights where the commentators say they score a round 10-8 because of the aggression of one fighter over another.

Despite there being no knockdown.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the rules state a 10-8 round can only be scored when a knockdown occurs.

You're wrong.

Scottrf wrote:

Sir. badgerhands wrote:It makes me chuckle the amount of times that I've watched fights where the commentators say they score a round 10-8 because of the aggression of one fighter over another.

Despite there being no knockdown.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the rules state a 10-8 round can only be scored when a knockdown occurs.

You're wrong.

Care to elaborate I'm all ears.

I was under the impression a it can't be a 10-8 if both fighters stay on their feet barring point deductions for fouls and what not.

Scott are you furiously checking on Google!!

9-9, 10-10, whatever. The bottom line would at least be fair unlike the 10-8 that was probably scored to Manny.

Sir. badgerhands wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Sir. badgerhands wrote:It makes me chuckle the amount of times that I've watched fights where the commentators say they score a round 10-8 because of the aggression of one fighter over another.

Despite there being no knockdown.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the rules state a 10-8 round can only be scored when a knockdown occurs.

You're wrong.

Care to elaborate I'm all ears.

I was under the impression a it can't be a 10-8 if both fighters stay on their feet barring point deductions for fouls and what not.

If one guy clearly dominates a round, it can (and should) be scored 10-8 to that boxer even without a knockdown. Every judge scored the 10th 10-8 to Maidana against Khan.

Sir. badgerhands wrote:Scott are you furiously checking on Google!!

Was going to link you the full ABC rulebook but couldn't find it.

KingMonkey wrote:9-9, 10-10, whatever. The bottom line would at least be fair unlike the 10-8 that was probably scored to Manny.

Even 10-10 is wrong. This is my point, boxing fans are quick to call a result a robbery, but how many can score properly?

And the correct score for that round in question?

10-9 Pacquiao if you think Cotto won the rest of the round. Watch the first Williams-Martinez fight on HBO and listen to Lampley (first round).

The 10-point must system is a method of scoring a boxing match.

Under the system, the judges must give the winner of a round 10 points, and the loser 9 points or fewer. A knock down usually results in a score of eight (8) for the boxer who was knocked down, and ten (10) for his or her opponent (provided, of course, the knocked-down boxer gets up before the end of the count and finishes it). A judge may occasionally award a 10 - 8 score if the round's winner is obviously dominating the other fighter. If the fight progresses through all scheduled rounds, the sum of the scores for each round are tallied for each judge to determine the winner of the match.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10-point_must_system

You can of course have a 9-9 round if the fighter that would have won 10-9 has a point deducted for being naughty, or in Michael Sprott's case last weekend, daring to hit a German in Germany.

Rounds can be scored 10-7 as well (15th round of the Cruz-McGuigan fight was scored that way by at least two of the judges, I think), and I can even recall having seen a 10-6 round awarded once (can't remember the fight though). They are extreme cases, of course, but if you have a fighter in total charge, who has knocked down his opponent on two or three occasions inside a single round, they are not unreasonable. The first round of Moore-Durelle I, for instance, although not scored on the 10 point must system, would surely have produced at least a 10-7 card under the modern formula.

Would slightly disagree with Scott in that if fighter A scores an early flash knockdown in a round, but fighter B gets up and clearly dominates the remainder of the round, a 10-10 scorecard for that round would be perfectly appropriate.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Rounds can be scored 10-7 as well (15th round of the Cruz-McGuigan fight was scored that way by at least two of the judges, I think), and I can even recall having seen a 10-6 round awarded once (can't remember the fight though). They are extreme cases, of course, but if you have a fighter in total charge, who has knocked down his opponent on two or three occasions inside a single round, they are not unreasonable. The first round of Moore-Durelle I, for instance, although not scored on the 10 point must system, would surely have produced at least a 10-7 card under the modern formula.

Would slightly disagree with Scott in that if fighter A scores an early flash knockdown in a round, but fighter B gets up and clearly dominates the remainder of the round, a 10-10 scorecard for that round would be perfectly appropriate.

Appropriate has nothing to do with it. The scoring system isn't totally fair, but it is what it is.

Scottrf wrote:

KingMonkey wrote:9-9, 10-10, whatever. The bottom line would at least be fair unlike the 10-8 that was probably scored to Manny.

Even 10-10 is wrong. This is my point, boxing fans are quick to call a result a robbery, but how many can score properly?

This is the exact reason I never have, and never will sit in my living room and score a fight. I know roughly what the criteria are but not with enough confidence to apply them properly. That, and it's just a bit odd to sit there in your pants scoring it from the television. I imagine it would greatly reduce my enjoyment of watching it should I spend the time deciding who had effective aggression and who landed the cleaner blows. If you are going to do that, then you at least need to turn the sound off to get a true reflection. We might all think we are not always influenced by whoever is calling the fight but we all are at some points.

The recent Macklin v Sturm fight is a good example of why I don't sit there pretending I know what I am doing. I sat there and watched a fantastic fight, totally engrossed in the action, and at the end my initial instinct was that Sturm had nicked it. The following day on here, all hell breaks loose with people calling it a robbery and suggesting all title fights in Germany are boycotted. Insane stuff.

Let me rephrase that then, Scott. You are wrong to suggest that a single knockdown entirely negates the rest of the round. Appropriate has everything to do with it, as does correct and entirely within the regulations.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Let me rephrase that then, Scott. You are wrong to suggest that a single knockdown entirely negates the rest of the round. Appropriate has everything to do with it, as does correct and entirely within the regulations.

I didn't suggest that at all. That's why it's 10-9 rather than 10-8. 10-10 is wrong, as Lampley, Iole and a number of refs have stated.

Judges score to what suits them/their paymasters anyway so it's not important.

By the way, in the Cotto fight the judges scored it 10-8, 10-9 and 10-9 to Pacquiao.

The 10-point must rules were not designed to be a straitjacket, but a framework. A judge who scores a round 10-7, rather than 10-8 is not wrong - he or she is encouraged to use their judgement. Similarly, it is the flow of the round that determines the precise score at the end of it; the idea that a knockdown alone means that the fighter on the end of it cannot gain parity by the finish of that round is stated nowhere in the rules. It may be unusual, but it can, and has, unquestionably happened. I believe, Lampley et al to be wrong on this.

*waves papers*

I'd say a lack of consistency is a bad thing not a good thing.

The scores of the three expert ringside judges can and often do vary wildly, and they are nothing like Jim Watt's card, so four different experts watching the same fight have hugely different opinions. That is what it is about at the end of the day, opinions. There is no definitive way to score a fight, otherwise at least two out of the three judges would be getting it wrong every time.

Union Cane wrote:The scores of the three expert ringside judges can and often do vary wildly, and they are nothing like Jim Watt's card, so four different experts watching the same fight have hugely different opinions. That is what it is about at the end of the day, opinions. There is no definitive way to score a fight, otherwise at least two out of the three judges would be getting it wrong every time.

That's based on who they think is winning the rounds though rather than applying the judging criteria. There's nothing wrong with a 10-10 including a knockdown in principle, but Cotto was nowhere near that dominant in that round.

The flow of a fight is open to interpretation - that's why there are three judges everywhere these days, and why the British system of the referee being the sole arbiter of a fight became, quite rightly, so discredited. I will never complain about a fight scored, say 115-113, 114-115, 115-114. The problem comes with something like Leonard-Hagler, where two judges are obviously in basic synch about the flow of the fight, but a third comes in with a ludicrously off-base score.

It isn't difficult to detect the bad/corrupt judges. However, consistency does not equal duplication. If that is the intention, one might as well do away with human judges altogether. Unfortunately, machines are incapable of assessing elements such as ring generalship, so we're stuck with the least worst system available to us.

Consistency of applying the criteria, not judging winners of rounds. If one guy decided for example that anything slightly close should be a draw, he could. But judges are dissuaded from scoring drawn rounds, so he would be going against precedents and guidelines.