How do you score a fight?

[Finn]

I bring up the topic from the comments made on ringside, i also finally got round to watching the Pac v JMM fight so i thought it would make a good example to debate on.

Before i watched it i was under the impression that JMM was completely robbed but i scored it as a draw just now, HBO/Letterman imo doesnt know how to score a fight; he was saying Pac won a round through ringmanship and footwork but seemed to ignore the fact JMM had nailed Pac with big shots on numerous occasions with no reply.

These were my scores for the fight -

Pac 10 9 10 10 9 9 9 9 10 9 10 10 - 114
JMM 9 10 9 9 10 10 10 10 9 10 9 9 - 114

In my personal opinion there were only 5 rounds which were open to debate the other were cut and dry, those being 3, 9, 10 ,11 and 12.

So how do we all score the fights because many had JMM clearly ahead where as TV and 2 of the judges clearly had Pac ahead. Incidentaly the judge that scored it even had different rounds than i have.

I score for clean shots, effect of shots, volume of punches (landed only), effective aggression, accurate countering, ringcraft and footwork. With any possible even rounds going to the aggressor unless its toe toe then i will occasionally give a 10 10 round.

This is about any fight not just this example.

[Newport Daz]

You make some interesting points. I find Lederman changes his mind consistantly on how he scores fight depending on who's fighting. On other forums he's been accused of being an HBO "company" man changing his scoring criteria to fit the HBO star. There may be something in that as his scoring has confused me.

As for boxing, I thought it was always a case of hit and not be hit. Surley the guy that lands the most significant shots in a round should win? Punches landed surley should be ranked higher than a throwing twice as many but missing all of them?

As for this fight, robbery is a ridiculous notion. I only watched the fight yesterday and deliberatly watched with the sound off. I saw Marquez win his rounds big, wheras Pac shaded the rounds I gave him. However an obvious round and a shaded round are still scored 10-9. Given that I can completley see how Pac shaded the fight. Marquez gave away the last round which cost him imo.

Because Marquez was given so little chance to win I think people are going overboard with the robbery claims. Because it was so close he is being touted as the moral winner. Imo they could fight 50 x from welter up to heavyweight and it would always be this close.

[Emmseegee]

When im scoring a fight i always go by the old fashioned statement of hit and dont be hit aswell. If there is no clear advantage in that department then i would go with effective aggression but thats when it gets tricky because taking the burns v katsidis fight for example, katsidis was just banging away on the gloves. That can take a lot out of the fighter xon the recieving end but Burns was comfortable to let it happen knowing it would open up good countering opportunitys so on occassioms like that you need to look beyond aggression and score on quality and effect of punches.

Scoring is and probably always will be a shocker of a topic.

[winkveron]

For me it's a combination of well directed aggression, and accuracy. If someone is throwing a lot of punches and just hitting gloves and the other guy is replying with accuracy, I'd probably give it to the accuracy. I think you just get a 'feel' for the round and know who has won without always worrying about what makes a winning round.

[Finn]

I agree with pretty much everyone above - but as said above scoring for effective aggression is difficult. Katsidis's aggression wasnt effective imo he wasnt wearing burns down enough and the shots werent accurate enough to stop burns countering, where as macklins against sturm was effective and stopped Sturm being active, sturm did throw some effective clean and flashy shots at the end of each round but not enough to win the rounds unless the judges were really looking for the silver lining.

[Tomasino]

I break the round down into one minute sections, it can be easy to score the round to the more effective fighter in the last minute of the round, so I try to avoid that.

I think better use of the ten point must system would help do away with some of the tight decisions. I thought Marquez clearly won the fight but only scored it to him by three rounds. I can see how some had a draw or Pacman winning. My dad and brother however felt it was a robbery.

[LeedsLad]

Clean punching, ring generalship and defence.

I'd only factor in aggression if one of them is on their bike, ala Froch vs Dirrell.

Coming forward and windmilling/missing shouldn't be rewarded.

Failing that, the opposite of what Ian John Lewis scores should usually suffice.

[Tomasino]

Clean punching, ring generalship and defence.

I'd only factor in aggression if one of them is on their bike, ala Froch vs Dirrell.

Coming forward and windmilling/missing shouldn't be rewarded.

Failing that, the opposite of what Ian John Lewis scores should usually suffice.

How did you score Froch v Dirrell. I found it a very hard fight to score but went for Froch as Dirrell was doing an audley impression.

[LeedsLad]

I had it to Froch by three in the arena, I had a good seat and it seemed that Froch kept Dirrell at bay with his jab.

When I watched it on TV it seemed entirely different, Froch was made to miss an awful lot and was hit fairly regularly too, but I didn't score it.

One thing I will say is that by waiting until the 10th round to deduct a point from Dirrell did Froch a favour. If he'd been forced into action as early as the 3rd/4th round when a point could have already been taken he'd have lost easily.

When Dirrell actually threw punches and boxed properly the fight was very one-sided. Obviously some people mistake running for boxing, when you try and steal a points decision like that you can have no objections if the verdict goes the other way.

A bit like Haye vs Valuev, I had Haye a clear winner but felt he was dicing with death a bit with those tactics, especially in Germany.

[Quixall]

I think the simple rule is obviously who landed the most punches in a round, but if you can't seperate that in your mind then it comes down to what type of shot was thrown, effective counters, who was making the running, etc etc. I tend to look at the round as a whole and don't split it up or look at the last 30 seconds etc and i usually get a good sense of who has come out on top, but i have to say that sometimes i do tend to see rounds as even, but will tend to give it to one fighter or the other rather than score it a 10-10 round. As for the Pacquaio fight, i think people are now re-visiting that fight and part of their mind is looking more closely at what Pacqauio did and that in itself is maybe pushing up his scoring a little. I personally thought that Marquez won that fight by anything from one to three rounds which gives some leeway to rounds that Pacquaio could have snatched.

[NazNaci1]

Clean punching, ring generalship and defence.

This is the general rule I follow. Aggression can be misleading, so that comes pretty low down on my list of criteria.

[LeedsLad]

Agreed.

It's alright throwing, but making your opponent miss is just as important a facet of the game.

If you are making the opponent miss and then running, the aggressor gets the round on my card. If you are boxing off the back foot and punching with your opponent who is walking forward and missing, then it goes to the ''negative'' fighter.

Obviously the big talking point is the Marquez/Pacquiao fight, Manny was slightly more aggressive than Juan Manuel, but to be honest was missing most of the time and being hit with hard shots in return. It wasn't as if Marquez was running at any point, and he dictated the terms of the action in probably every round.

Some aspects of the fight were pretty close, but ring generalship was a whitewash.

[mrbassie]

Clean punching, ring generalship and defence.

This is the general rule I follow. Aggression can be misleading, so that comes pretty low down on my list of criteria.

^This.

Easy example is Hatton v Mayweather, I've read posts on the CS (I know) where people have been bickering about Mayweather and Pacquiao and brought up their fights Hatton as a comparison, people have said Hatton was running Mayweather close. I gave Hatton 2 rounds in that fight and that was only because Mayweather took breaks. Aggression counts for nothing if it's the supposedly defensive guy landing the quality punches.

[Hagler2002]

I listen to see what Jim Watt says and who he thought won the round, then I give it to the other fighter

[Londonirish]

I listen to see what Jim Watt says and who he thought won the round, then I give it to the other fighter

Then when he picks his winner of the the fight who then loses by 6 rounds on the score cards his Favourite words are-
"Well you cant Argue with that Decision some of them round where close and could of went either way"

[Terrrrry]

On clean shots landed, not getting tagged cleanly/showing a good defence, boxing and moving, as long as shots are actually landed.

Not impressed by pressure being soaked up by the opponents arms/gloves and wild swings/aggression that has no impact on the opponent.

Just scoring on the basics of boxing really.

[Finn]

Clean punching, ring generalship and defence.

This is the general rule I follow. Aggression can be misleading, so that comes pretty low down on my list of criteria.

^This.

Easy example is Hatton v Mayweather, I've read posts on the CS (I know) where people have been bickering about Mayweather and Pacquiao and brought up their fights Hatton as a comparison, people have said Hatton was running Mayweather close. I gave Hatton 2 rounds in that fight and that was only because Mayweather took breaks. Aggression counts for nothing if it's the supposedly defensive guy landing the quality punches.

see i felt alot of hattons agression was effective but not as effective as PBFs countering, hatton won 2 clear rounds and won them big imo, he also landed far more clean shots on PBF than ive seen any other fighter do for years, Floyd was really emotional after the fight. BUT in the rounds PBF won his work was clean, crisp, the shots were hurtful and he landed more of them, so i agree effective agression is low down on the list. Thats just a deciding factor on rounds i would usually score 10 10.

But would people score a round for volume of punches over effect of the punch? I go for a mix 1 big punch doesnt offset 10 on target lesser shots, but it may offset 3 or 4 lesser shots imo.

[Finn]

Ok so if a fighter doesn't throw a punch in a round yet his defensive masterclass means he doesn't get hit as the other fighter throws punches while coming forward who does the round go to:

1. More aggressive fighter who is forcing the action and throwing punches?
2. The defensive master who's skills have meant he hasnt taken a blow yet hasn't thrown a punch?

The aggressor imo

[kamicazze]

I toss a coin.