What's your system for scoring?

Cannibal · Post by **Cannibal** » 06 May 2007, 08:00

How many of you actualy work off a system for scoring?

I always consider 4 factors and give them each an individual score of 10-9. If the fighters take 2 a piece then the round is a draw. If a fighter takes a majority, then he takes the round.

The 4 factors.

RING GENERALSHIP

The fighter who controls the centre of the ring and attempts to set the pace of the fight best.

SHOTS LANDED

As it says on the tin.

FLUSH SHOTS/FIGHT TURNING SHOTS

Whoever lands the most bruising shots, the ones with mean intentions would most likely win this one.

AGGRESSION

Who is coming forward and making it a fight?

Do you think boxing should introduce a strict scoring system that is similar?. Like actually devise four categories and put them on the judges scorecards, forcing them to mark all 4 before deciding a round winner.

It would make reviewing scorecards a straight forward process and you'd soon fight out who is best for judging the big fights.

Knucklez · Post by **Knucklez** » 06 May 2007, 14:28

Cannibal wrote:How many of you actualy work off a system for scoring?

I always consider 4 factors and give them each an individual score of 10-9. If the fighters take 2 a piece then the round is a draw. If a fighter takes a majority, then he takes the round.

The 4 factors.

RING GENERALSHIP

The fighter who controls the centre of the ring and attempts to set the pace of the fight best.

SHOTS LANDED

As it says on the tin.

FLUSH SHOTS/FIGHT TURNING SHOTS

Whoever lands the most bruising shots, the ones with mean intentions would most likely win this one.

AGGRESSION

Who is coming forward and making it a fight?

Do you think boxing should introduce a strict scoring system that is similar?. Like actually devise four categories and put them on the judges scorecards, forcing them to mark all 4 before deciding a round winner.

It would make reviewing scorecards a straight forward process and you'd soon fight out who is best for judging the big fights.

I'm not sure why you choose your own criteria for scoring a fight?! What if someone decides to score a fight based on which fighter has the best trunks on?

The 4 factors used for scoring are:

1)Effective Aggression
2) Defense
3) Ring Generalship
4) Clean and Hard Punching.

Any other system is redundant.

mattyp151 · Post by **mattyp151** » 06 May 2007, 15:45

1) Clean Hard punching
2) Defense
3) Effective aggression
4) Ring generalship (thinking of winning rounds for coming forward is shit in my opinion)

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 06 May 2007, 16:19

Just punches landed for me really, surely that's what scores points?

If someone slips a punch beautifully then the positive for them is that they didn't get punched in the face, I don't think they should be awarded points for it.

Clean scoring punches for me...

rhino222 · Post by **rhino222** » 06 May 2007, 16:37

punches to the target area with the knuckle part of the glove and landed with 'sufficient' force.

i divide the round into 3 x 1 min segments, and mentally score the fight based on the above boxing judge course statement.

hopefully using my method then rounds will not be shared, but occasionally they have to be when i just cant 'split em'

Cannibal · Post by **Cannibal** » 06 May 2007, 17:34

Goz wrote:Just punches landed for me really, surely that's what scores points?

If someone slips a punch beautifully then the positive for them is that they didn't get punched in the face, I don't think they should be awarded points for it.

Clean scoring punches for me...

If you just went on punches landed then it would be no different than the amateurs really, which is just glorified fencing.

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 06 May 2007, 18:49

Cannibal wrote:
Goz wrote:Just punches landed for me really, surely that's what scores points?

If someone slips a punch beautifully then the positive for them is that they didn't get punched in the face, I don't think they should be awarded points for it.

Clean scoring punches for me...
If you just went on punches landed then it would be no different than the amateurs really, which is just glorified fencing.

I think you definitely have to lend weight to heavy 'power' punches.

For example a big shot that buckles a fighters knees or rocks his head back should outweight 8 jabs.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 06 May 2007, 19:12

For me Ring Generalship is the main factor, but I have a different definition to the original poster. I don't think its all about who is coming forward. The famous Willie Pep round (if true) is a prime example of ring generaliship when not going forwards. Victor Polo wasn't the front foot fighter vs Scott Harrison, Leonard wasn't the front foot fighter vs Hagler - but was the ring general throughout.

In this last fight - for me my card showed who the ring general was in each round. Sometimes it was DLH's agression, with Floyd just doing his shoulder thing on the ropes (DLH's round). Other times, despite DLH's agression - Floyd was beating him to the punch and getting off more (Floyd's rounds).

Regarding punches landed/thrown etc. I think alot will depend on the situation and the quality of the shots. For me alot of the rounds I gave to DLH was because Floyd's shots had nothing on them and were not delivered with intent. Punch stats suggest Floyd was landing and even though DLH's shots were missing/glancing - the intent was there and for me DLH round. DLH hardly tried to throw a punch in the first (a round in which Floyd boxed well but with not big shots) - Floyd round. The other rounds I scored for Floyd he won he did throw with intent to hurt and was the ring general.

So its had to right down a set rules.... thats why its so subjective but with regards to punches landed.. I think its got to be in relation to punches thrown. For example if Fighter A threw 20 shots and landed 3, and Fighter B threw 4 shots and landed 4 - I'd give the round to fighter A (probably, again a lot would depend on why he was missing etc).

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 07 May 2007, 10:20

I mostly score It by who lands the most clean punches each round.

Agression and workrate don't score If you don't land.

Like Toney Vs Jirov, he was trying to outwork Toney and put more pressure on but Toney was the one landing the cleaner blows.

m1kee50 · Post by **m1kee50** » 07 May 2007, 11:02

I read somewhere that as soon as the bell goes you should start scoring - from the first punch, all the way to the end of the round

Eric the Viking · Post by **Eric the Viking** » 07 May 2007, 19:06

I like to start things slowly, perhaps a pleasant hour of chit-chat in a cozy nook of a local coffee shop. If things go well, I might propose a stroll in one of the local scenic parks in the coastal hills. If she declines, then I know she's not into me or not into exercise, either of which is a clear "say no more - been nice meeting ya..." kind of deal. However, if the walk-in-the-park date goes well, it's usually on to phase 3, the "come over to my place and I'll cook you a meal" phase. That gives her the chance to see whether I live in complete and utter bachelor squalor or not, and me a chance to see whether she likes the kind of food I like to eat at home, the kind of TV programs I like to watch, and most of all, whether she's likely to get along with my cat.

Of course on can improvise on that to no end, but anyway, that's my preferred system for scoring.

(If I'm in a rush, however, a quick drunken shag in a nearby walk-in closet or restroom stall will do. A tad squalid, but hey - scoring is scoring.)

Southpaw Stylist · Post by **Southpaw Stylist** » 07 May 2007, 19:56

Ring generalship
Clean punches landed

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 08 May 2007, 10:29

I have a system I've employed before.

I keep a sort of tally of who I think is ahead at a given time in the round. If a fighter lands a few clean blows, I will make little marks in one column if his opponent lands I make a mark in the other with little tally marks.

However, if a fighter lands a barrage of big punches and gets his opponent in trouble, I will credit them with more 'marks' than for a fighter landing say a couple of jabs.

although this sounds like punch counting used in the amateurs, I am also taking into account the effect and impact of the shots, and which fighter is more troubled. This usually gives me a good idea of who dominated more of the round, and avoids being bamboozeld by a fighter grandstanding in the last minute or thirty second of the round.

ABA Boxing · Post by **ABA Boxing** » 08 May 2007, 13:31

Which ever manager bribes the most!

Phenomenal-Nutrition · Post by **Phenomenal-Nutrition** » 09 May 2007, 07:07

Shots landed (A) Clean Punching (b) Effectiveness of Punching (c) - a*b*c = who wins the round - 10 clean effective punches rate over 25 scuffed arm punches for me.

All things been equal aggression come in - but it must be effective aggression and usually the CLEAN EFFECTIVE PUNCHING = adequate aggression for my money

THROWING PUNCHES THAT DON'T LAND OR HIT THE GUARD DO NOT FACTOR INTO A ROUND UNLESS THE ROUND IS COMPLETELT EQUAL. So if Delahoya throws 50 punches and misses 40 of them when Mayweather throws 20 and lands 12 of them and all punches are equally effective at hurting the opponent, in that case its a Mayweather round. Thats a bit of an exageration but you get my point

Phenomenal-Nutrition · Post by **Phenomenal-Nutrition** » 09 May 2007, 07:09

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I have a system I've employed before.

I keep a sort of tally of who I think is ahead at a given time in the round. If a fighter lands a few clean blows, I will make little marks in one column if his opponent lands I make a mark in the other with little tally marks.

However, if a fighter lands a barrage of big punches and gets his opponent in trouble, I will credit them with more 'marks' than for a fighter landing say a couple of jabs.

although this sounds like punch counting used in the amateurs, I am also taking into account the effect and impact of the shots, and which fighter is more troubled. This usually gives me a good idea of who dominated more of the round, and avoids being bamboozeld by a fighter grandstanding in the last minute or thirty second of the round.

I use the same system mentally rather than tallying, I gage whos done the msot in a round after each exchange

SticknMove · Post by **SticknMove** » 09 May 2007, 07:39

Terry D wrote:Has anyone ever scored a fight and been amazed by their own scorecard?

That's the problem with the 10 point must system, when judges are told they have to make a winner of each round.

With the best will in the world, trying to stick to a certain criteria of who wins a round falls down when a round is just too close. Instead a judge has to decide a winner in that situation, and this is where the scoring of fights becomes controversial.

If a guy wins a round reasonably decisively and his opponent responds with a closer next round that he may well have nicked, they are scored the same. If the fight continues like this to the final bell and is given a draw this can not reflect the fight as a whole.

I think there may be a case for scoring rounds 10-9 1/2 so this discrepancy isn't so pronounced. I had DLH winning by a round the other night but I had a few even rounds and some very close ones too, and couldn't argue with the result.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 09 May 2007, 09:19

Terry D wrote:Concentration, consistency and conviction. I'm not keen on keeping a running total on fights as they happen live in case it sways me late-on.

Has anyone ever scored a fight and been amazed by their own scorecard?

Yes, I was with Williams vs Skelton II.... I think I made Skelton only a 1 point winner - but he was much the better man on that night.

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 09 May 2007, 09:21

Terry D wrote:Concentration, consistency and conviction. I'm not keen on keeping a running total on fights as they happen live in case it sways me late-on.

Has anyone ever scored a fight and been amazed by their own scorecard?

Yes - I scored the whole of Lewis-Holyfield 1 only to look down at my card to find out I'd been sick on it due to being on an all day bender.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 09 May 2007, 09:39

SticknMove wrote:
Terry D wrote:Has anyone ever scored a fight and been amazed by their own scorecard?
That's the problem with the 10 point must system, when judges are told they have to make a winner of each round.

With the best will in the world, trying to stick to a certain criteria of who wins a round falls down when a round is just too close. Instead a judge has to decide a winner in that situation, and this is where the scoring of fights becomes controversial.

If a guy wins a round reasonably decisively and his opponent responds with a closer next round that he may well have nicked, they are scored the same. If the fight continues like this to the final bell and is given a draw this can not reflect the fight as a whole.

I think there may be a case for scoring rounds 10-9 1/2 so this discrepancy isn't so pronounced. I had DLH winning by a round the other night but I had a few even rounds and some very close ones too, and couldn't argue with the result.

In total agreement here. That's why I tend to award 10-10 round fairly often.

SticknMove · Post by **SticknMove** » 09 May 2007, 12:14

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
SticknMove wrote:
Terry D wrote:Has anyone ever scored a fight and been amazed by their own scorecard?
That's the problem with the 10 point must system, when judges are told they have to make a winner of each round.

With the best will in the world, trying to stick to a certain criteria of who wins a round falls down when a round is just too close. Instead a judge has to decide a winner in that situation, and this is where the scoring of fights becomes controversial.

If a guy wins a round reasonably decisively and his opponent responds with a closer next round that he may well have nicked, they are scored the same. If the fight continues like this to the final bell and is given a draw this can not reflect the fight as a whole.

I think there may be a case for scoring rounds 10-9 1/2 so this discrepancy isn't so pronounced. I had DLH winning by a round the other night but I had a few even rounds and some very close ones too, and couldn't argue with the result.
In total agreement here. That's why I tend to award 10-10 round fairly often.

I’m also loath to give a 10-9 in very close rounds.

Scoring very close rounds 10-91/2 would make much more sense and would be more appropriate in reflecting rounds that are difficult to score, but where judges are pressured to find a winner. This system would be much fairer, in that rounds won reasonably decisively are then awarded 10-9, giving a much better reflection of the fight as a whole.

Perhaps this would go some way to eliminating the old conundrum of I made A a wiiner on the scorecards but…..

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 09 May 2007, 12:19

wasn't there a scoring system where they did used to award half points? Was it in the UK? I'm sure I've a recollection of seeing a scorecard with half points on it.

SticknMove · Post by **SticknMove** » 09 May 2007, 12:29

jamesmcdonnell wrote:wasn't there a scoring system where they did used to award half points? Was it in the UK? I'm sure I've a recollection of seeing a scorecard with half points on it.

There definately were scorecards with a something and a half points total in British fights years ago. I don't what the ruling was then and why or if it has been abolished.

What's your system for scoring?

What's your system for scoring?

Re: What's your system for scoring?