BoxRec

Khans not keen on being pressured and that showed.. but still how people could make out this to be a draw or even a win for ca makes me thank the heavens they are not the judges...

Instead of saluting ca's effort people make a thread that is nothing short of daft imho

Ricky_ wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:

Blodhemn wrote:Algieri didn't dominate, you're sounding as delusional as the people who scored it wide for Khan. It was the perfect example of a draw, but if you had to lean toward either guy, I'd give it to Algieri as he connected to the head and body with more authority with just a bit more regularity, as Khan had more moments of throwing non-connecting fluff. It pretty much says it all when Algieri appeared to be the harder puncher of the two.

I completely agree with this review. No one deserved to get their hands raised in this one. I watched the fight twice to see if maybe I was too pro Algieir and the only thing that I can determine is that the judges must have been scoring those flurries Khan was throwing. From what i could tell watching twice, very little of those punches scored. Maybe the damage on Algieri's face helped Khan's cause but i'm at a loss with the scoring lately. This judges need to know it's ok to score a round as a tie. It happens more often then not but they never call a round a draw.

Khan did very little, the punch numbers i'm sure were pretty even. So you have Khan on his bike, throwing pitty-patty combos in an attempt to keep Algieri off him, but to no avail. Algieri walked him down, landed beautiful left-hook leads, overhand rights, and ripped the body with hooks all night.

It was a good fight tbh, both guys scored alot of eye catching stuff but Algieri the far more eye catching work, a more effective jab, and was the bigger stronger man continually pushing the action.

Too many fights are being scored like amateur bouts, clear win for Algieri last night.

Absolutely right. I've been impressed with the judges scoring in the PBC but this is the first decision that I felt they blew and 2 of the judges clearly missed a good fight. I went in thinking that Haymon's star fighters would receive preferential treatment as he tried to showcase them and I was wrong. They have been fairly called. Khan's no one's fighter so no one had anything to gain unless Khan signs with Haymon in the near future, then i would have to call BS on that night. So we'll have to see how that shakes out.

I texted my buddy after the 4th round to click on over to the fight instead of the hockey game because it looked like it was FOY material but either Khan made the correct adjustments or Algieri ran out of gas. I really think that it was the latter though. It's a tough pace to keep against an elite fight, i'm sure.

Scoring just needs to change somehow. I clearly do not know what wins a round anymore. Between this fight and the Floyd/Manny fight, my scorecard didn't even look like i was watching the same fight after the real scores were read. Maybe it's me. It very well could be.

Just wondering but were the guys who scored this fight for Algieri, the same ones who had Pacquiao beating Mayweather?

Some people strangely feels that if a fighter doesn't stand still but instead actually moves and boxes, then he doesn't deserve to win a fight.

Here's a clue for you all...the object of boxing is to hit and not get hit. It doesn't matter how much you move or dance, as long as you throw and land punches too. In his prime, I think a guy named Ali had this strategy down pat.

I was not happy with the results of this fight; Algieri was using effective aggression all night, he used defense when he had to though he did get caught with some shots on occasion, he controlled the ring so Ring Generalship belonged to him, the clean and harder shots were landed by Chris all night long.

Khan had his moments but there's no way that he really won this bout, at best you could give Amir a Draw (and that's being generous), at most you could give Algieri a UD or a MD because when you factor in everything you are supposed to score a fight based on then it becomes obvious who deserves the win.

CLEAN PUNCHING=ALGIERI
RING GENERALSHIP=ALGIERI
EFFECTIVE AGGRESSION=ALGIERI
DEFENSE-KHAN (MOSTLY DUE TO HIS RUNNING, those of you who say Floyd runs, look at Amir's Track Meet vs Chris Algieri)

Now this is a fight you should do a slow-mo count for because Usain Amir King of Running Khan Bolt was on skates the way he was running all over the ring the entire bout.

SenorPipino wrote:Just wondering but were the guys who scored this fight for Algieri, the same ones who had Pacquiao beating Mayweather?

Some people strangely feels that if a fighter doesn't stand still but instead actually moves and boxes, then he doesn't deserve to win a fight.

Here's a clue for you all...the object of boxing is to hit and not get hit. It doesn't matter how much you move or dance, as long as you throw and land punches too. In his prime, I think a guy named Ali had this strategy down pat.

I have a feeling people are judging the fight if your the aggressor and a dislike for the other fighter.. The same as manny v Mayweather ... It seems as the dust has settled after the pac v mw fight and the vast casuals input has had a detrimental affect on boxrec users ability to score fights....

fergusg wrote:Amir Khan deserved to win the fight by a wide margin. Even though the contest was competitive, Algieri didn't do enough to win the rounds.

The official scorecards matched my scores that I posted in real-time on this forum. I'm guessing that people that are complaining so much, are using their own criteria that does not match the official guidelines.

The only thing I will concede, was that Khan's performance was sub par.

Totally agree with this post .. Thank god the pac v mw casual virus has not effected your boxing opinion like it appears to have with others. ..

Someone who takes the official cards as evidence of what the scores should've been has no basis to complain about poor decisions.

It's like treating CompuBox numbers as strong evidence when it matches your perception while declaring that they aren't to be trusted when your perception differs.

crusader wrote:Someone who takes the official cards as evidence of what the scores should've been has no basis to complain about poor decisions.

It's like treating CompuBox numbers as strong evidence when it matches your perception while declaring that they aren't to be trusted when your perception differs.

Well, yeah, but the person in question isn't exactly known for bolstering their own biased bullshit by appeals to higher authority & then casting themselves as the lone voice of reason, are they?

[looks to see who you're talking about]

Ah. Apologies. It seems you are correct.

caldo2025 wrote:I clearly do not know what wins a round anymore.

This, on the other hand, is the most telling quote on the whole thread, & explains quite a lot of the threads that pop up over here on CS.

crusader wrote:Someone who takes the official cards as evidence of what the scores should've been has no basis to complain about poor decisions.

It's like treating CompuBox numbers as strong evidence when it matches your perception while declaring that they aren't to be trusted when your perception differs.

i thought it was a close competitive and entertaining fight, scored it 115-113 to Khan.

Datsue wrote:

crusader wrote:Someone who takes the official cards as evidence of what the scores should've been has no basis to complain about poor decisions.

It's like treating CompuBox numbers as strong evidence when it matches your perception while declaring that they aren't to be trusted when your perception differs.

Well, yeah, but the person in question isn't exactly known for bolstering their own biased bullshit by appeals to higher authority & then casting themselves as the lone voice of reason, are they?

[looks to see who you're talking about]

Ah. Apologies. It seems you are correct.

caldo2025 wrote:I clearly do not know what wins a round anymore.

This, on the other hand, is the most telling quote on the whole thread, & explains quite a lot of the threads that pop up over here on CS.

I know exactly what is SUPPOSED to win a round but that doesn't seem to be the way judges are scoring fights recently. 2 of the 3 judges scoring the bout 117-111 in favor of Khan is ridiculous. Algieri had the cleaner punches, more effective aggression and ring generalship in the majority of those rounds. He smothered those ridiculous flurries that barely scored so you could also argue that he also had a better defense going.

Judges are clearly not scoring EFFECTIVE AGGRESSIVENESS and RING GENERALSHIP these days. Boxers these days get NO CREDIT for these factors.

EFFECTIVE AGGRESSIVENESS: Successfully moving forward in a controlled manner. (Algieri did this all night long)
RING GENERALSHIP: Controlling the pace and style of the bout (Algieri every single round).

The worst part about the recent scoring is that the judges in the Khan/Algieri fight and the Manny/Floyd fight are rewarding boxers for running and not engaging and it's sets a horrible precedent. I look back to the Alvarez/Lara fight and I was so happy that they didn't give Lara that fight. Lara deserved a win in that fight more than Khan or Floyd did but those judges correctly gave credit to the boxer TRYING to initiate the action and aggression. With these scores lately, we are going to see a lot more runners out there now that they are being favored for their lack of action. We, the fans, are the one that take it in the shorts because no one wants to see fights like that.

Pathetic.

caldo2025 wrote:

Datsue wrote:

crusader wrote:Someone who takes the official cards as evidence of what the scores should've been has no basis to complain about poor decisions.

It's like treating CompuBox numbers as strong evidence when it matches your perception while declaring that they aren't to be trusted when your perception differs.

Well, yeah, but the person in question isn't exactly known for bolstering their own biased bullshit by appeals to higher authority & then casting themselves as the lone voice of reason, are they?

[looks to see who you're talking about]

Ah. Apologies. It seems you are correct.

caldo2025 wrote:I clearly do not know what wins a round anymore.

This, on the other hand, is the most telling quote on the whole thread, & explains quite a lot of the threads that pop up over here on CS.

I know exactly what is SUPPOSED to win a round but that doesn't seem to be the way judges are scoring fights recently. 2 of the 3 judges scoring the bout 117-111 in favor of Khan is ridiculous. Algieri had the cleaner punches, more effective aggression and ring generalship in the majority of those rounds. He smothered those ridiculous flurries that barely scored so you could also argue that he also had a better defense going.

Judges are clearly not scoring EFFECTIVE AGGRESSIVENESS and RING GENERALSHIP these days. Boxers these days get NO CREDIT for these factors.

EFFECTIVE AGGRESSIVENESS: Successfully moving forward in a controlled manner. (Algieri did this all night long)
RING GENERALSHIP: Controlling the pace and style of the bout (Algieri every single round).

The worst part about the recent scoring is that the judges in the Khan/Algieri fight and the Manny/Floyd fight are rewarding boxers for running and not engaging and it's sets a horrible precedent. I look back to the Alvarez/Lara fight and I was so happy that they didn't give Lara that fight. Lara deserved a win in that fight more than Khan or Floyd did but those judges correctly gave credit to the boxer TRYING to initiate the action and aggression. With these scores lately, we are going to see a lot more runners out there now that they are being favored for their lack of action. We, the fans, are the one that take it in the shorts because no one wants to see fights like that.

Pathetic.

You're missing 1 major issue though.

Canelo beat Trout & Lara because Canelo was supposed to win. Floyd was supposed to beat Pacquaio and Khan was supposed to beat Algieri. Being the guy that is supposed to win is probably a more common denominator than giving the nod to the clinchers/runners.

You're missing 1 major issue though.

Canelo beat Trout & Lara because Canelo was supposed to win. Floyd was supposed to beat Pacquaio and Khan was supposed to beat Algieri. Being the guy that is supposed to win is probably a more common denominator than giving the nod to the clinchers/runners.

I completely agree and that's what the problem is. It reminds of the days when you really had to "beat" the champion to defeat the champion. It's the same way of thinking now when you have these big bouts with a guy heavily favored to win like Khan the other night. It's BS. If a favored fighter gets outboxed and though favored heavily, it doesn't mean he should automatically get the nod as the victor if he barely loses or not clearly loses. Just one of the many issues Boxing needs to fix. Too many to list.

Caldo: "Khan's no one's fighter so no one had anything to gain unless Khan signs with Haymon in the near future."

Pretty sure Khan is already with Haymon.

This fight was similar to Gradovich vs Selby one. One fighter was constantly coming forward landing a few clean punches. The other side was more skilled moving and responding with more significant punches. Both Khan and Selby were in full control of their fights most of the time outsmarting and outlanding their opponents and allowing them to win only one round out of 3-4.

Why is nobody complaining about Selby's win ?

I watched this fight the other day.. I thought Khan won relatively clearly. I thought Khan would even be more dominant than he was, but Algieri came out with a good game plan and made it a competitive fight.

Khan def. has a questionable chin though and don't see this win earning him a shot at Mayweather or Pacquiao. Khan just talks a big game to make himself relevant, but he hasn't done shit as of lately to put himself as the front runner against either guy. I'd like to see Khan take a risk against Brook or Thurman, the Brook fight would be huge in the UK and I'm sure Thurman would go to Wembley to knock Khan out. I just don't see Floyd or Pacquiao taking on Khan with out him carrying a world title and it seems Khan has been doing everything in his power to avoid other title holder not names Mayweather or Pacquiao. Keep that loud mouth Khan begging for a fight, it's amusing to me.

ikorolev wrote:This fight was similar to Gradovich vs Selby one. One fighter was constantly coming forward landing a few clean punches. The other side was more skilled moving and responding with more significant punches. Both Khan and Selby were in full control of their fights most of the time outsmarting and outlanding their opponents and allowing them to win only one round out of 3-4.

Why is nobody complaining about Selby's win ?

Because Algieri landed huge shots on Khan all night, Gradovich couldn't get near Selby and got picked to pieces. IF the fight had gone on Gradovich could have been retired had Selby just kept on popping that cut.

Ricky_ wrote:

ikorolev wrote:This fight was similar to Gradovich vs Selby one. One fighter was constantly coming forward landing a few clean punches. The other side was more skilled moving and responding with more significant punches. Both Khan and Selby were in full control of their fights most of the time outsmarting and outlanding their opponents and allowing them to win only one round out of 3-4.

Why is nobody complaining about Selby's win ?

Because Algieri landed huge shots on Khan all night, Gradovich couldn't get near Selby and got picked to pieces. IF the fight had gone on Gradovich could have been retired had Selby just kept on popping that cut.

Gradovich was getting near Selby and landing just fine in rounds 4 and 5 winning those rounds. Algieri landed a FEW (like 4-5) clean chopping rights over the course of the fight, but with him still being feather-fisted, there was nothing huge in them.

Love how you make things up ferg,-----------------
Scoring criteria



The scoring shall be done on a TEN POINT must system. Judges are to score each round using the following scoring criteria:



1. Clean punching (power versus quantity).

2. Effective aggressiveness.

3. Ring generalship.

4. Defense.

Veteran boxing judge Steve Weisfeld offers tips on how to score a fight
MAR 06, 2015 BY LEM SATTERFIELD
A professional boxing judge since 1991, Steve Weisfeld has worked ringside for approximately 1,600 fights, including about 80 world championships. He also spent two years as the unofficial scorer for HBO's Boxing after Dark.

Adrien Broner
A boxing judge must consider many factors each round in scoring a fight, and ultimately in determining the winner.

Weisfeld, who is licensed as a boxing judge in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, lent his expertise to Premier Boxing Champions on what judges look for when scoring a fight.

"A lot of times fans hear that judges focus on four categories: clean punches, effective aggressiveness, defense and ring generalship," Weisfeld said. "But based upon my own experience, my conversations with other judges and seminars conducted by top judges, judges really focus on one category, and that's clean punches."

Here, Weisfeld explains how judges weigh each of the four categories in scoring a fight, as well as offer a tutorial on the 10-point must system used to judge each round and, ultimately, determine the winner of a fight.

Clean punches: To me, clean punches are the most important aspect, and the other factors are really tied to that. Take the phrase, "effective aggressiveness." How is a boxer effective? He's effective by landing clean punches. How about "defense?" A boxer shows great defense by not getting hit with clean punches. And, finally, the term "ring generalship." A boxer uses the ring to put himself in a position to land clean punches.

So let's focus on the phrase "clean punches." It may not be initially apparent, but there are various elements included within that phrase. First, there's the number of punches. The boxer who lands more punches generally wins. However, harder punches count more than lighter punches.

Now, there's no mathematical formula that equates the number of punches with the hardness of the punch. The judge has to weigh the two based on his experience. But more important than the number of punches or the hardness of the punch is the effect of the punch. For example, a seemingly lighter punch that causes a boxer to stagger is scored higher than a seemingly harder punch that has no effect.

Defense: Defense is important because it helps a boxer set up his offense. Most judges that I have spoken to do not give credit for defense alone. If a boxer has a good defense, it means that he is not being hit with punches. But let's remember the purpose of the sport: to land punches on your opponent.

If Boxer A throws 10 punches in a round, but lands none of them, and Boxer B lands zero and throws zero, you still have an even round with no punches landing. You don't want to create a disincentive for a boxer to land punches if he thinks he's going to be penalized for missing.

Effective aggression: In the extremely rare case of a judge scoring a round otherwise even, the judge might side with the boxer who was the aggressor on the theory that he is trying to make the fight. However, the key is whether or not the aggression is "effective.” Is the boxer landing or just coming forward?

Ring generalship: This term describes a boxer who is generally controlling the action and putting himself into position to land clean punches, or employing a strategy to make his opponent fight his fight. Sometimes, however, the other boxer is forced to fight his opponent's fight and comes out on top.

The 10-point must system of scoring: Fans may accept as a given the fact that the 10-point must system is universal, but that wasn’t the case until recently. Putting aside the possibility of a point deduction by the referee for repeated low blows or other infractions, the winner of a round must receive 10 points, and the loser nine or less. A typical round is 10-9.

If a boxer scores a knockdown, that's usually a 10-8 round. If a boxer thoroughly dominates a round, even without a knockdown, it also could be scored 10-8. If a boxer scores two knockdowns in a round, it’s generally scored 10-7, and so on

fergusg wrote:Amir Khan deserved to win the fight by a wide margin. Even though the contest was competitive, Algieri didn't do enough to win the rounds.

The official scorecards matched my scores that I posted in real-time on this forum. I'm guessing that people that are complaining so much, are using their own criteria that does not match the official guidelines.

The only thing I will concede, was that Khan's performance was sub par.

Didn't do enough of what?

I showed you how he won in every category, I believe you are focusing on output, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Algieri controlled the ring=Ring Generalship
he also controlled the Cleaner Punching
and Effective Aggression
Khan had more combinations, not all of his punches landed in those exchanges, the cleaner and more visibly effective blows were landed by Algieri.

If you know some other criteria that boxing is judged on other than those that would or should determine whether Khan won or not then please share it.

Pureist wrote:Veteran boxing judge Steve Weisfeld offers tips on how to score a fight
MAR 06, 2015 BY LEM SATTERFIELD
A professional boxing judge since 1991, Steve Weisfeld has worked ringside for approximately 1,600 fights, including about 80 world championships. He also spent two years as the unofficial scorer for HBO's Boxing after Dark.

Adrien Broner
A boxing judge must consider many factors each round in scoring a fight, and ultimately in determining the winner.

Weisfeld, who is licensed as a boxing judge in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, lent his expertise to Premier Boxing Champions on what judges look for when scoring a fight.

"A lot of times fans hear that judges focus on four categories: clean punches, effective aggressiveness, defense and ring generalship," Weisfeld said. "But based upon my own experience, my conversations with other judges and seminars conducted by top judges, judges really focus on one category, and that's clean punches."

Here, Weisfeld explains how judges weigh each of the four categories in scoring a fight, as well as offer a tutorial on the 10-point must system used to judge each round and, ultimately, determine the winner of a fight.

Clean punches: To me, clean punches are the most important aspect, and the other factors are really tied to that. Take the phrase, "effective aggressiveness." How is a boxer effective? He's effective by landing clean punches. How about "defense?" A boxer shows great defense by not getting hit with clean punches. And, finally, the term "ring generalship." A boxer uses the ring to put himself in a position to land clean punches.

So let's focus on the phrase "clean punches." It may not be initially apparent, but there are various elements included within that phrase. First, there's the number of punches. The boxer who lands more punches generally wins. However, harder punches count more than lighter punches.

Now, there's no mathematical formula that equates the number of punches with the hardness of the punch. The judge has to weigh the two based on his experience. But more important than the number of punches or the hardness of the punch is the effect of the punch. For example, a seemingly lighter punch that causes a boxer to stagger is scored higher than a seemingly harder punch that has no effect.

Defense: Defense is important because it helps a boxer set up his offense. Most judges that I have spoken to do not give credit for defense alone. If a boxer has a good defense, it means that he is not being hit with punches. But let's remember the purpose of the sport: to land punches on your opponent.

If Boxer A throws 10 punches in a round, but lands none of them, and Boxer B lands zero and throws zero, you still have an even round with no punches landing. You don't want to create a disincentive for a boxer to land punches if he thinks he's going to be penalized for missing.

Effective aggression: In the extremely rare case of a judge scoring a round otherwise even, the judge might side with the boxer who was the aggressor on the theory that he is trying to make the fight. However, the key is whether or not the aggression is "effective.” Is the boxer landing or just coming forward?

Ring generalship: This term describes a boxer who is generally controlling the action and putting himself into position to land clean punches, or employing a strategy to make his opponent fight his fight. Sometimes, however, the other boxer is forced to fight his opponent's fight and comes out on top.

The 10-point must system of scoring: Fans may accept as a given the fact that the 10-point must system is universal, but that wasn’t the case until recently. Putting aside the possibility of a point deduction by the referee for repeated low blows or other infractions, the winner of a round must receive 10 points, and the loser nine or less. A typical round is 10-9.

If a boxer scores a knockdown, that's usually a 10-8 round. If a boxer thoroughly dominates a round, even without a knockdown, it also could be scored 10-8. If a boxer scores two knockdowns in a round, it’s generally scored 10-7, and so on

Another nice post pureist.

Funny thing ferg, he doesn't back your CLAIM either, he mentions effective aggression but only defence, your wording in your post suggests to me your trying to pass your opinion as fact, the use of the word SURELY implies you just see it as logical that EFFECTIVE DEFENCE, really known as defence, should score higher than effective aggression, SURELY that's just your opinion mr educated man

Effective offence should certainly be at least as important in scoring as effective defense. The problem is - Algieri's offence was not effective. He was missing a lot and what he landed didn't do damage. Khan was significantly more effective.

Let's sum this up easily eh, if your defence isn't "effective" your getting belted, plain and simple, you can try and dress it up as you like but it is defence, you seriously go on with some crap ferg

You are a complete tool, defence is defence , countering is countering