BoxRec

I score for ring generalship and who is dictating the pace of the fight. I also score for boxing skill over aggression also clean punches landed is a major factor

I always look for accurate, quality punches. Punches thrown, are meaningless if they land on arms, gloves and fresh air. I like to see come forward fighters so a level of aggression is good to see although it doesnt score points for me. Good defence and countering does catch my eye, I have to admit. A good finish to a round by a fighter doesnt make me forget the previous 2 and a haf minutes if he didnt do well. BTW I had McDermott winning by 7 to 3 but I wouldnt argue with 6 to 4. I actually scored the PBF and Katsidis fights the same as you but I cant comment on the John fight because I went to bed until the beginning of the main event.

I had John 115-113 Juarez the rounds John won were wide but the rounds I gave to Juarez could've gone either way

I had Katsidis 118-110 Escobedo there were a few close rounds but generally a easy fight to score

And I had Mayweather a shout out 120-107 there was a shout for JMM in the 4th but I thought Mayweather was controlling the pace of the fight and ring generalship

I'd love to see Terry O'Connor answer this

JimJim2009 wrote:I'd love to see Terry O'Connor answer this

Marquez would have won LOL

....by a very wide margin!!

i go for work rate 1st combinded with ring generalship

then quality of punches IMO 6 thown with 2 light hits beats 1 decent punch

Terry was at York Hall Friday, People telling Him He should have gone to Specsavers.

The biggest problem I find people have when scoring rounds, is when one boxer has a strong first 2 minutes, while the other boxer closes strong. This can tend to sway people into scoring for the guy who left the last good impression on them, when in reality he lost the majority of the round. I have also found that (especially casual fans) tend to go crazy in favor of the guy who is throwing more punches as opposed to the guy who is actually landing, they aren't aware that scoring blows get more credit than glove shots.


When I score fights I mainly focus on the number of punches landed and quality of the landed punches. I don't give extra credit for good defense or ring generalship, unless the boxer can put up some offense of his own. For example a guy can block 92 out of 100 punches and put on a defensive master class, but if he only throws and lands 2 punches he will lose the round, unless of course they were very meaningful shots that did some damage.

Also in a round where neither man lands anything, if the one significantly outworks the other, I will score it for the guy who put in the effort.


I had PBF 120-107, John 117-111, and Katsidis 117-111

I had Marquez winning the fourth and sharing one of mid-late rounds.

119-109 on mine.

I had John by a big distance.

BIGMARK wrote:

crusader wrote:The biggest problem I find people have when scoring rounds, is when one boxer has a strong first 2 minutes, while the other boxer closes strong. This can tend to sway people into scoring for the guy who left the last good impression on them, when in reality he lost the majority of the round. I have also found that (especially casual fans) tend to go crazy in favor of the guy who is throwing more punches as opposed to the guy who is actually landing, they aren't aware that scoring blows get more credit than glove shots.

I dont think it's just casual fans that get swayed by a late round rally as fighters like Bhop have been using that tactic for years to sway the opinion of a judge. I often wonder what a judge looks for sometime as opinions are so different in so many fights and this seems a lot of the time to have something to do with where they come from and of course which promoter has supplied their entertainment before the fight in some cases.

PM mushashi hes a judge

I normally like aggresive fighters but who also have a bit of skill and I will always score someone higher even if not all the punches land decent.

I think in this way because a good offensive fighter may be up against someone who's a bit of a spoiler and too defensive, which normally makes a boring fight so if someone is actually trying to get throw the guard and throwing punches then surely they deserve to win a round compared to the defensive spoiler who may be more accurate but not actually come for a fight.

I think this is one of the main differences in pro boxing compared to amatuer (Oh and the fact they have to fight longer)

I've often thought about how a round would be scored if one boxer uses sublime defensive techniques to duck and weave his way out of danger, block or parry any punch which is remotely near to connecting but he never throws a punch back. While the other boxer is just windmilling in with no skill whatsoever.

BIGMARK wrote:
didnt Roy Jones win a round once without throwing a punch?

It was Willy Pep, & it's probably apocryphal.

Has anyone said the obvious in this thread yet?

"With a piece of paper & a pen"...

Sorry, I just couldn't help it.