judging of fights has to change

[Datsue]

I think you're always gonna get a certain stripe of boxing fan to whom moving backwards--even if it's accompanied by effective hitting, like lumping up a Ginger's face & buckling his knees a couple times--irks them at the core of their being.

They are vocal, & vociferous, & usually preface their remarks with a stream of macho bullshit denigrating the fighter who dared to try to not get hit.

It seemed obvious that Canelo was much stronger on the night (how much did he weigh in the ring? He looked a weight-class or two bigger to me, but that might just be 'cos he's so stocky). Lara couldn't have done anything else but try to get away from him, imo, & did as good a job as could be expected.

I was bollocksed but gave it to Alvarez by a couple, I think. Wouldn't be bothered to see it go a couple either way from there, but I joked to a mate at about the 9th that I had it nip & tuck but would not be surprised if the judges had it 9-0 Alvarez.

To those so deeply insulted by "excessive" movement, can I just ask: if--as Alvarez faded badly in the last three rounds--Lara had upped it just a little more & stopped him, which I thought was well within the realms of possibility, would you still howl in outrage? I ask only for information, not for personal gain.

& also, why does no-one shouting "I hated to see [Defensive boxer] running, I never want to see him again!" ever shout "I was horrifically disappointed by the awful footwork of [aggressive boxer], has no-one ever told him how to cut off a ring?" Especially in this case, Canelo lumbered after him like a fvcking novice, throwing one punch at a time.

[Counter-puncher]

i just can't understand it. and it's getting worse.

I don't know how any self-respecting judge can score close rounds to a fvcking ginger.

[forcefraser]

i just can't understand it. and it's getting worse.

I don't know how any self-respecting judge can score close rounds to a fvcking ginger.

Fair point. In a close round the ginger should rarely if ever get the nod.

[Datsue]

i just can't understand it. and it's getting worse.

I don't know how any self-respecting judge can score close rounds to a fvcking ginger.

[CharlesListon]

Its worth downloading and reading the BBBOC rules regarding scoring. I'm not sure how World Bodies differ, but in the UK at least, there is nothing about 'effective aggression', 'ring generalship' etc.

Scoring punches (knuckle part of the glove to front and side of head and body) are what a round is judged on.

Where both boxers are even on that, then defence comes into it.

Also, a fight is scored round by round. That means that whatever went on in a previous round is forgotten about and each round is judged on its own merit. That is why it can be easy for scores to look ridiculously wide. For example, if boxer A, narrowly lands more scoring punches in round 1, but boxer B isnt far behind him, and it goes on throughout the rounds, then you can end up with a wide score by the end of the fight. It means scores dont always tell the story of the fight.

I'm not saying that this is relevant to the fights mentioned previously, I'm just saying that sometimes TV commentary teams dont actually know how a judge is required to judge a fight in the UK.

[handsofstone]

Its worth downloading and reading the BBBOC rules regarding scoring. I'm not sure how World Bodies differ, but in the UK at least, there is nothing about 'effective aggression', 'ring generalship' etc.

Scoring punches (knuckle part of the glove to front and side of head and body) are what a round is judged on.

Where both boxers are even on that, then defence comes into it.

Also, a fight is scored round by round. That means that whatever went on in a previous round is forgotten about and each round is judged on its own merit. That is why it can be easy for scores to look ridiculously wide. For example, if boxer A, narrowly lands more scoring punches in round 1, but boxer B isnt far behind him, and it goes on throughout the rounds, then you can end up with a wide score by the end of the fight. It means scores dont always tell the story of the fight.

I'm not saying that this is relevant to the fights mentioned previously, I'm just saying that sometimes TV commentary teams dont actually know how a judge is required to judge a fight in the UK.

Ive scored loads of close fights with a similar pattern in each round where one of the boxers has the slight edge each round and its wide on my card although its not telling the whole story

[CharlesListon]

Its worth downloading and reading the BBBOC rules regarding scoring. I'm not sure how World Bodies differ, but in the UK at least, there is nothing about 'effective aggression', 'ring generalship' etc.

Scoring punches (knuckle part of the glove to front and side of head and body) are what a round is judged on.

Where both boxers are even on that, then defence comes into it.

Also, a fight is scored round by round. That means that whatever went on in a previous round is forgotten about and each round is judged on its own merit. That is why it can be easy for scores to look ridiculously wide. For example, if boxer A, narrowly lands more scoring punches in round 1, but boxer B isnt far behind him, and it goes on throughout the rounds, then you can end up with a wide score by the end of the fight. It means scores dont always tell the story of the fight.

I'm not saying that this is relevant to the fights mentioned previously, I'm just saying that sometimes TV commentary teams dont actually know how a judge is required to judge a fight in the UK.

Ive scored loads of close fights with a similar pattern in each round where one of the boxers has the slight edge each round and its wide on my card although its not telling the whole story

And that is how the judges are meant to score in the UK, so a 40-36, 60-54, 80-72, 100 -90, 120-108 doesnt always tell the full story.