Should casual fans opinions be discounted

[JAHamilton77]

Let me first say, that I did not score the fight, but on the night I watched I felt that Mayweather won within the range the 3 judges presented (between 116-112 and 118-110).

What has surprised me since though is the casual fans reaction. I have heard one sports radio after another and other pundits who deal in sports (but not necessarily boxing) announce their confusion at Pacquiao not winning the fight. My assumption would have been them agreeing with Floyd winning but in a boring fashion.

At first I gave the response most of us would..... "Who cares these guys don't know what they are talking about and don't know what to look for".

The more I thought about it, I started thinking about what they are looking at, and that's the actual action going on in the ring. If they are paying attention they are basing their feeling on what they see.

Sometimes as boxing heads I wonder if we get too caught up in things like looking too much for nuisances we think others don't see, what we think should be happening based on what we know about the boxers (both to negative positive effect), and being the smartest guy in the room with our "inside baseball" type opinions. This might lead us in not always seeing the action for what it is but some abstract interpretation of what is happening. Like we are snobby members of the art world commenting on a few fine brush strokes in a work instead of enjoying a beautiful landscape that was painted.

[JAHamilton77]

To continue:

Is it that when looking at a fight that casual fans don't watch enough boxing to get what's really happening or sometimes that real boxing fans maybe watch too much and can't always see the forest through the trees?

Just a query... And for the record I still think Mayweather won the fight.

[JAHamilton77]

This is true about how casual fans feel about boxing in general, but I am more referring to about how they feel about an individual fights results.

[Datsue]

This might lead us in not always seeing the action for what it is but some abstract interpretation of what is happening. Like we are snobby members of the art world commenting on a few fine brush strokes in a work instead of enjoying a beautiful landscape that was painted.

Good to see you back man.

However, to slightly modify your own analogy: boxing is a complicated, multi-layered endeavour in which one can expand one's critical abilities by prolonged exposure to the subject at hand, much like say, reading books.

Whose opinion would one trust on a book's overall worth? The dude who reads one book a year (or less), or the person who consumes a book a week?

(You can take this analogy further: the type as well as the amount is important: someone who's never read beyond an airport thriller but consumes a book a week is likely to give a less nuanced, more fragmentary opinion of a work than someone whose reading is wider but somewhat less frequent; also, one who reads nothing but 18th Century Gothic novels but has read every single one ever written is going to have little to say about anything other than their niche, & one should likewise discount most of their opinions if they are venturing outside their little box. You can slot in "someone who's watched every Felix Sturm fight fifteen times" & "People who think boxing died with Bobo Olsen's retirement" in place of the examples I just gave.)

That's what you're picking up here, imo. The people who "read one book a week" in this analogy haven't watched a fight since, I dunno, ODLH-Trinidad or Lewis-Tyson. They're going "Manny won" because--to steal Uncle Roger's favourite phrase--most people don't know shit about boxing. Knowing lots about it takes time & application & a certain unworldly open-mindedness, just like if you want to learn anything.

Unfortunately, reading more widely will probably make one a more broad-minded, smarter individual. Caring too much about this fecking sport just makes you old & sad...

PS: & fergus' response boils down to "Who cares what we think 'cos the punters want Fifty Shades of Twilight Redux", which is fine as long as he's not confusing the economic impact/value of said piece of work with its artistic impact, which is what we're talking about here.

[Ricky_]

Boxing is ultimately entertainment. The die hard fans amount to a very small number, take this forum for instance, how many active posters we got here? Not many.

Like i said, boxing is entertainment and that entertainment must appeal to the masses for the sport to survive.

The pac-floyd fight was built to be the best our sport had to offer and it stunk the fornicating joint out with single-digit punch numbers in nearly every round. Boxing has a habit of trying to destroy itself, multiple champions/orgs & rewarding runners with olympic style scoring, not penalising huggers/inactivity are all examples of that, that majorly switches off the mainstream consumers. I think it will be a while before we see big PPV numbers again. Golovkin is boxing's shining light at the moment, he needs a worthy rival.

[koolkc107]

I think it was Steven A. Smith who put it best.

I am paraphrasing, but the jist is this:

Folks didn't pay to see a great fight.

They didn't fork over a c-note to see the best of both men.

They thought they were going to see a bad guy finally get what they think was long overdue coming to him.

And they didn't.

Instead, "evil" triumphed over "good" and it wasn't even in anyway close.

Evil gave good a boxing lesson, owned good from start to finish.

And folks can't reconcile reality with their storybook expectations.

[MachoTime]

I'm ashamed to say to anyone that I'm a hardcore Boxing Fan. I only say it when I meet fighters, trainers, promoters. AND no casual fans opinions should not be discounted. Never.

[KBB]

Yes because casual fans are idiots and do not follow the sport in its' entirety. I get tired of having to dispute the nonsense that is out there in regards to all of this crap surrounding this entire Floyd and Manny debacle.

It is damn near sickening to have to listen to the garbage that is regurgitated by PacTURDS that has already been proven to be untrue, like for instance; on fight night one of my friends (we is a Casual) said to me "Floyd is bailing out Suge Knight", now we all know this story to be untrue the minute it hit the media but for some reason the Cas still go around repeating it as though it is true.

A little Google search would quantify any of the BS that is out there but uh-uh, not the the Cas, they won't do any research and will simply repeat, rinse and repeat stuff and never bother to see if it is true or not, just swallow the Kool-Aid without knowing the flavor.

Yes, their opinions are as idiotic and uninformed as they are.

[jockpunk]

I was watching the fight in a bar in the middle of nowhere alaska with about a dozen locals. One guy kept talking about how he was a huge arguello fan so i thought wow, this guy might actually know boxing. He then proceded to score the fight 12 rounds to 0 for manny.

So yes, I think they can be discounted.

[Lackeos]

Boxing fans tend to overvalue the elusive "ring generalship" compared to actual damage dealt. It is as though they think it makes them a better, smarter boxing fan if they disregard what matters in favor of what can only be appreciated by a fan. "Ring generalship" is only a means to an end, to facilitate the punch landing. If it does or doesn't land, that's that, regardless of what you did to get it there.

I don't think casual fans are in any way less capable of seeing whether a punch lands than we are. I think if anything, they are perhaps a bit biased by their own desire to be entertained, and they will reward / punish accordingly. But hardcore boxing fans, out of masturbatory self-assurance, have a need to swing from the nuts of fighters like Mayweather because they think it reaffirms their boxing knowledge. I.e. if you don't gush over the fact that Mayweather took a step to the left, threw a feint, stepped on someone's foot, or remembered to breathe, then you don't have enough boxing knowledge to see all of the invisible angles that he's abusing his opponent with.

[MachoTime]

I'm ashamed to say to anyone that I'm a hardcore Boxing Fan. I only say it when I meet fighters, trainers, promoters. AND no casual fans opinions should not be discounted. Never.

I have enough integrity to openly admit that, in terms of the current era, my knowledge of the weight classes up to the bantamweight division is pretty sketchy at best.

If that means that I should only be considered as a “casual fan”, then that’s something I can learn to live with… quite EASILY!

In terms of the real world, I tend to keep my nerdy and almost encyclopaedic knowledge of the heavier divisions firmly under wraps, because in my social circle, I'm the only fight fan and my friends don't awarded badges of honour for being labelled as a self-proclaimed boxing geek!

Yup. I know what you mean by the lower weights. I don't really have much interest 125, 122, 118 or lower. I hear the name Roman Gonzalez thrown into the P4P mix and I have never seen him fight. So I guess I'm not hardcore enough either.

[crusader]

But hardcore boxing fans, out of masturbatory self-assurance, have a need to swing from the nuts of fighters like Mayweather because they think it reaffirms their boxing knowledge. I.e. if you don't gush over the fact that Mayweather took a step to the left, threw a feint, stepped on someone's foot, or remembered to breathe, then you don't have enough boxing knowledge to see all of the invisible angles that he's abusing his opponent with.

There is definitely a sizable group of over-analyzers who seem to think that they're especially discerning because they can apparently spot tiny nuances that most others don't. Many of them also predict fights based on minute factors as if this is evidence of their supposed perspicacity, and to give an example one of these types argued that Adonis Stevenson would beat Kovalev, which on its own is a reasonable position, because Adonis sometimes takes a tiny step to the right when he throws straight-lefts. I asked him why that mattered so much and his explanation was essentially a hollow "well because Adonis can punch from angles".

Related to this, these types also bristle with condescension when people label as unenjoyable certain fights involving skilled boxers. They sense I get from them is "Ha! Those boorish philistines may have found it boring, but I thought it was beautiful display of skill! Boxing is an art! Boxing is a science! Aha!" Of course in doing this it seems like many of these perceptive pundits are unable to grasp that people can recognize and appreciate skill while sometimes finding it's implementation boring.

[Ricky_]

Boxing fans tend to overvalue the elusive "ring generalship" compared to actual damage dealt. It is as though they think it makes them a better, smarter boxing fan if they disregard what matters in favor of what can only be appreciated by a fan. "Ring generalship" is only a means to an end, to facilitate the punch landing. If it does or doesn't land, that's that, regardless of what you did to get it there.

I don't think casual fans are in any way less capable of seeing whether a punch lands than we are. I think if anything, they are perhaps a bit biased by their own desire to be entertained, and they will reward / punish accordingly. But hardcore boxing fans, out of masturbatory self-assurance, have a need to swing from the nuts of fighters like Mayweather because they think it reaffirms their boxing knowledge. I.e. if you don't gush over the fact that Mayweather took a step to the left, threw a feint, stepped on someone's foot, or remembered to breathe, then you don't have enough boxing knowledge to see all of the invisible angles that he's abusing his opponent with.

Spot on Lacko, what gripes me the most is these boxing fans who feel the need to proclaim their love for runners is harming the sport.

Combat sports probably have the longest history of any sport, dating back to roman/ancient greek times. There will also be a human desire to find entertainment in 2 men having a fight. The "fight game" has evolved a great deal since then, gloves, ropes, 'fight till someone wins' became broken up with rounds, then eventually a final bell and judges to pick a winner should the fight not come to it's conclusion.

What we have now is rather than judges being a 'back-up plan' to determine a winner, we have fighters learn & train specifically to impress the criteria the judges look for... actually fighting becomes secondary, the judging the primary. The judging system was initially conceived to be the vice-verca - wth the judging only secondary to determine a winner where their was no natural conclusion.

What we're going to end up with is something similar to dressage or olympic diving/gymnastics. Guys are getting technically better, more athletic, Crawford, Rigo... we'll have more of these guys meeting their match at the top level, cancelling each other out, demonstrating awesome elusive skills but a clear hesitation to throw proper shots for fear of counter and losing points. 12 rounds of poise, craft, elusive side-steps, catching punches on gloves, quick jabs or check hooks now and then. Technical brilliance but really just 12 rounds of nothing, 12 rounds of high class dancing.

But ultimately, fans switch off, the money stops flowing; because we've moved so far from the basic premise that the fight game is the entertainment business.

[caldo2025]

Great OP premise. I have to admit, sports radio has been brutal on this fight and tough to listen to. One said yesterday that they were expecting Ward/Gatti 1. Oh you were expecting one of the best fights in the history of the sport because you finally paid for a fight? Shut up. Most of us die hards know to expect the worst in these big fights and hope for the best. The former usually is the result no matter how much of a lock it seems to be. Just look at Provodnikov/Matthysse last month. ALL of us expected an all timer type fight there and no one wants to admit it but it was a lousy fight. I was more shocked at the entertainment value of that fight than the fight last week.

But this is not the real question I don't think. Whether you are a casual fan or a die hard fan, no one knows what wins a round anymore. In the Canelo/Lara fight, the judges refused to give Lara rounds for his hit and not be hit style. In the Floyd fight, it was the other way around. I honestly don't know what wins a round anymore. If nothing happens in a round where both guys collectively land less than 20 punches (and most of those are tap jabs), how does every judge give the round to Floyd who ran away from action and held? To me, in those rounds, you need to reward the fighter trying to make the fight and trying to engage. To me, you DON'T get points for running unless you are doing in such an effective way that it's still entertaining.

Boxing doesn't need these kinds of fights but that's exactly what they will get if they keep rewarding boxers for avoiding entertaining fights. How many boxers now will adopt Floyd's style again? After Lara lost that fight, those judges set a great example I felt. You can't win a fight running away for 12 rounds. No one, casual or diehard fans, want to see a fight like that one was or the fight last Saturday. As boxing tries to move back into the worlds living rooms, they need to reset their judges expectations and make examples of any fighter choosing to fight in a way that doesn't reward the ticket buying fan. If you want to set a behavior, reward it and penalize those not following along. Then you will have better fights and you won't need to be a die hard to know who truly won a fight.

[man]

i think these days pundits give floyd credit for
inactive fights. being on the ropes without getting
hit clean is interpreted as his kind of ring generalship
i have no problem with a close decision for floyd, but
118:110 seems brainwashed to me

do not ge me wrong. just walking forward does not
mean effective offense, marvin lost against ray. but
leonard was way more active going forward than floyd.

the same fight in 1950 would have never been scored
118:110 for floyd … by no one.

[Bard of Boxrec]

But hardcore boxing fans, out of masturbatory self-assurance, have a need to swing from the nuts of fighters like Mayweather because they think it reaffirms their boxing knowledge. I.e. if you don't gush over the fact that Mayweather took a step to the left, threw a feint, stepped on someone's foot, or remembered to breathe, then you don't have enough boxing knowledge to see all of the invisible angles that he's abusing his opponent with.

There is definitely a sizable group of over-analyzers who seem to think that they're especially discerning because they can apparently spot tiny nuances that most others don't. Many of them also predict fights based on minute factors as if this is evidence of their supposed perspicacity, and to give an example one of these types argued that Adonis Stevenson would beat Kovalev, which on its own is a reasonable position, because Adonis sometimes takes a tiny step to the right when he throws straight-lefts. I asked him why that mattered so much and his explanation was essentially a hollow "well because Adonis can punch from angles".

Related to this, these types also bristle with condescension when people label as unenjoyable certain fights involving skilled boxers. They sense I get from them is "Ha! Those boorish philistines may have found it boring, but I thought it was beautiful display of skill! Boxing is an art! Boxing is a science! Aha!" Of course in doing this it seems like many of these perceptive pundits are unable to grasp that people can recognize and appreciate skill while sometimes finding it's implementation boring.

Good post. and a sound display of perspicacity!

[KBB]

Great OP premise. I have to admit, sports radio has been brutal on this fight and tough to listen to. One said yesterday that they were expecting Ward/Gatti 1. Oh you were expecting one of the best fights in the history of the sport because you finally paid for a fight? Shut up. Most of us die hards know to expect the worst in these big fights and hope for the best. The former usually is the result no matter how much of a lock it seems to be. Just look at Provodnikov/Matthysse last month. ALL of us expected an all timer type fight there and no one wants to admit it but it was a lousy fight. I was more shocked at the entertainment value of that fight than the fight last week.

But this is not the real question I don't think. Whether you are a casual fan or a die hard fan, no one knows what wins a round anymore. In the Canelo/Lara fight, the judges refused to give Lara rounds for his hit and not be hit style. In the Floyd fight, it was the other way around. I honestly don't know what wins a round anymore. If nothing happens in a round where both guys collectively land less than 20 punches (and most of those are tap jabs), how does every judge give the round to Floyd who ran away from action and held? To me, in those rounds, you need to reward the fighter trying to make the fight and trying to engage. To me, you DON'T get points for running unless you are doing in such an effective way that it's still entertaining.

Boxing doesn't need these kinds of fights but that's exactly what they will get if they keep rewarding boxers for avoiding entertaining fights. How many boxers now will adopt Floyd's style again? After Lara lost that fight, those judges set a great example I felt. You can't win a fight running away for 12 rounds. No one, casual or diehard fans, want to see a fight like that one was or the fight last Saturday. As boxing tries to move back into the worlds living rooms, they need to reset their judges expectations and make examples of any fighter choosing to fight in a way that doesn't reward the ticket buying fan. If you want to set a behavior, reward it and penalize those not following along. Then you will have better fights and you won't need to be a die hard to know who truly won a fight.

I agree that no one wants to see a fight like that anymore but if Manny had just been intelligent enough to cut off the ring and make his opponent trade then we wouldn't have seen such a boring fight.

It was a boring fight because Manny was rendered 90% ineffective, Floyd made it look too easy and there wasn't any running as he mostly stood right in front of him, Packy backpedalled as well but you won't dare call that running just as you won't call his inability to land his flurries boring.

You are not a real boxing fan, you are an action junkie and want to see a brawl, I can appreciate both in this sport. The fighters who lack the skill to avoid getting hit while still hitting their opponents leave opportunities for the boxing match to turn into a fight or brawl, fortunately for Floyd he is able to execute the sweet science the way it is supposed to be done and in the process he renders the most effective fighters into virtually nobodies in the ring, which is exactly what he did to your Pacman.

[CrazyHorse]

I never expected a great fight. Just knew it was a historical fight and wanted to see the results. Casuals want to see a slug fest toe to toe and don't fully comprehend the kind of skill a guy like Floyd Mayweather Jr is displaying in the ring. After the fight I was still amped up and excited while everyone else (the casuals) started complaining how the fight was "boring" and "waste of money". What did you expect from Floyd Mayweather? Most boxing pundits knew he would fight a fight as he did. Kind of ridiculous when you think about it, expect the best boxing technician of this generation to fight a 'less boring' style of fight against arguably the best offensively minded fighter of this generation? Note I said 'less boring' style of fight ... thing is I did not find it boring at all. I was engaged and excited for every second of the fight.


Understand what you are watching. If you expect a toe to toe slug fest or KO then start watching MMA.




Just my opinion

[ajwesty13]

Many casual probably thought that pac wn due to his punches thrown however as the boxing fan knows that most of pacs punches landed on arms and gloves and did not score the vital points you need... i had the fight about 119 - 112 ...

what is funny though is how people are sayin that floyd held pac more than his GF... hmmm maybr they should watch a Vlad fight they would think its an orgy ....

[uptconnect]

Related to this, these types also bristle with condescension when people label as unenjoyable certain fights involving skilled boxers. They sense I get from them is "Ha! Those boorish philistines may have found it boring, but I thought it was beautiful display of skill! Boxing is an art! Boxing is a science! Aha!" Of course in doing this it seems like many of these perceptive pundits are unable to grasp that people can recognize and appreciate skill while sometimes finding it's implementation boring.

Well put.
While I consider myself to be one of the nuance types, the type that will watch a fight the 2nd time around with special attention to the nuances like distance and footwork and such, I have no problem with people liking what they like.
My issue stems from boxing proficiency and nuance being labeled cute and/or cowardly, or anything other than 'toe to toe' being called running.
I simply have a problem discussing boxing with someone who when watching boxing sees only 2 guys punching in the general direction of each other, and wishes every fight was a brain damaging, brawling, block punches with your head type of fight..
Don't get me wrong- Those are great fun to watch (with a twinge of guilty feeling)- But I think what makes boxing great is the wide range of styles that comprise the sport, and seeing contrasting styles match up as much as similar ones.

[caldo2025]

I agree that no one wants to see a fight like that anymore but if Manny had just been intelligent enough to cut off the ring and make his opponent trade then we wouldn't have seen such a boring fight.

It was a boring fight because Manny was rendered 90% ineffective, Floyd made it look too easy and there wasn't any running as he mostly stood right in front of him, Packy backpedalled as well but you won't dare call that running just as you won't call his inability to land his flurries boring.

You are not a real boxing fan, you are an action junkie and want to see a brawl, I can appreciate both in this sport. The fighters who lack the skill to avoid getting hit while still hitting their opponents leave opportunities for the boxing match to turn into a fight or brawl, fortunately for Floyd he is able to execute the sweet science the way it is supposed to be done and in the process he renders the most effective fighters into virtually nobodies in the ring, which is exactly what he did to your Pacman.

I wish you we could get an honest reply from you KBB without the insults and your cut and pasted pictures that you clearly spent more time looking for online than brewing up an honest thought from your heart. From the beginning, I just wanted to see an ALL TIME great fight and I really felt like we would see it. Here we are 5 days since the fight and i still have a bad taste about how badly this went. FOR BOTH GUYS. You heard the crowd after it and you have seen the reviews and now the lawsuits, this fight was a loser and though both guys can sit in that blame tub together, I feel that more of the blame falls onto Floyd's shoulders for this. But for you and the other Floyd backers, it was a greatest night of boxing in your life. And then have the nuggets to say that i'm not a "real boxing fan"? Hypocrite.

Here you have the BEST defensive fighter in history with a FIVE inch reach advantage, a significant weight advantage though Floyd didn't weigh in Sat, a height advantage that was more like >3 inches, fighting at his home arena that he's basically built in a fight officiated by his favorite referee that he clearly puppeteer'd to assist him to victory in his previous fight.

Look at those advantages. Go ahead and look again, i'll wait. So you're honestly going to blame Manny for this boring mess for what again? Not "cutting off the ring"? Floyd's best move Saturday night was the "duck and hug". It's a new move for Floyd, i'll give him that, so you won't find in that little boxing cliche book of yours where "walking him down" and "don't hook with a hooker" can be found. The duck and hug move was very effective for him and of course, Bayless failed to warn him once for it. This move is great for an exciting fight and super for fans in your opinion though right?

News Flash Super Fan, when the best defensive fighter in history possessing extensive reach, height and weight advantages has the unabashed freedom to initiate clinches without ANY warnings or penalties during the extremely rare moments of a fight that he's spent running for 75% of, how could you possibly blame the other fighter who was clearly trying? Because you're a Floyd Boy and show your true colors, not a fan of boxing and excitement. Floyd is to blame 85%. No one dictates a fight with Floyd while giving up everything above. It's impossible. For you not to see this just seems ridiculous to me. I credit Manny for trying and it's true, he was outclassed Saturday and that was pretty clear. We don't need to see another minute of them together but Floyd chose this boring style and to win in this fashion when for once he could have thought about the fans and like Elway's spinwheel play in the Super Bowl at the end of his career, gone for broke. I feel Floyd would have knocked him out early if he took the dress off and fought a crowd pleasing fight.

I honestly valued your opinion about boxing up until now but you need to take your Bieber jammies off and get back to making sense because we all appreciated your opinion A LOT more when it didn't have an agenda. I'll just look forward to reading your Non Floyd posts if you decide to do any. I hope you will.

[crusader]

Related to this, these types also bristle with condescension when people label as unenjoyable certain fights involving skilled boxers. They sense I get from them is "Ha! Those boorish philistines may have found it boring, but I thought it was beautiful display of skill! Boxing is an art! Boxing is a science! Aha!" Of course in doing this it seems like many of these perceptive pundits are unable to grasp that people can recognize and appreciate skill while sometimes finding it's implementation boring.

Well put.
While I consider myself to be one of the nuance types, the type that will watch a fight the 2nd time around with special attention to the nuances like distance and footwork and such, I have no problem with people liking what they like.
My issue stems from boxing proficiency and nuance being labeled cute and/or cowardly, or anything other than 'toe to toe' being called running.
I simply have a problem discussing boxing with someone who when watching boxing sees only 2 guys punching in the general direction of each other, and wishes every fight was a brain damaging, brawling, block punches with your head type of fight..
Don't get me wrong- Those are great fun to watch (with a twinge of guilty feeling)- But I think what makes boxing great is the wide range of styles that comprise the sport, and seeing contrasting styles match up as much as similar ones.

No doubt it goes both ways, and accounting for casual fans the types who scream 'runner!' if a fighter doesn't plant their feet in cement and throw at least 80 punches a round is probably more common than those I mentioned in my earlier post. One thing that's piqued me numerous times is that this mentality is extended to scoring, where the facile logic that someone shouldn't win a fight because they 'ran' is commonly used as if that 'running', whether it accounts to excessive movement or not, makes all the other judging criteria irrelevant.

[pound per pound]

Should casual fans opinions be discounted?

That depends. A casual fan could know what's he's talking about.

[uptconnect]

No doubt it goes both ways, and accounting for casual fans the types who scream 'runner!' if a fighter doesn't plant their feet in cement and throw at least 80 punches a round is probably more common than those I mentioned in my earlier post. One thing that's piqued me numerous times is that this mentality is extended to scoring, where the facile logic that someone shouldn't win a fight because they 'ran' is commonly used as if that 'running', whether it accounts to excessive movement or not, makes all the other judging criteria irrelevant.

Agreed.
It would also help if they came up with some solid explanations for the judging criteria- it's just so vague and littered with phrases open to individual interpretation, like 'effective aggression' and 'ring generalship'. That's why we, judges included, often see totally different fights when watching the same thing.

[KBB]

No doubt it goes both ways, and accounting for casual fans the types who scream 'runner!' if a fighter doesn't plant their feet in cement and throw at least 80 punches a round is probably more common than those I mentioned in my earlier post. One thing that's piqued me numerous times is that this mentality is extended to scoring, where the facile logic that someone shouldn't win a fight because they 'ran' is commonly used as if that 'running', whether it accounts to excessive movement or not, makes all the other judging criteria irrelevant.

Agreed.
It would also help if they came up with some solid explanations for the judging criteria- it's just so vague and littered with phrases open to individual interpretation, like 'effective aggression' and 'ring generalship'. That's why we, judges included, often see totally different fights when watching the same thing.

I don't believe the phrases effective aggression and ring generalship are vague; EFFECTIVE indications that the actions one is doing is working and making a difference and Generalship indications that someone is in command and is dominant in that area.

I'm glad boxing has these criteria as the basis for judging, otherwise one would think boxing just meant two guys standing there going "you hit me and then I'll hit you".

The problem isn't the judging it is the perception of one's definition of what boxing actually means that clouds a person's judgment as to who won or who didn't especially when you factor in the fact that they might not understand that things like ring generalship and effective aggression are part of the scoring.