How To Score A Pro Boxing Match

[Ruthless-RKO]

By Andrew Hall

Whenever a fight goes to the scorecards it seems controversy ensues. This is especially true with the two last big boxing matches: Triple G vs Jacobs and Kovolev vs Ward. Many people felt very strongly that their favortite fighter won. How does one ascertain who won a fight? What is the criteria? How do you break ties when a fight is close? In this article, I want to go through the basics and give a simple methodology to judge fights.

Boxing is done on a 10 points must system. The fighter who wins a round scores a 10 and the losing fighter gets a 9. If the round is even, both fighters can be given a 10. If there is a knockdown the fallen fighter recieves a score of 8, and if knocked down twice is given a score of 7 and 6 respectively. A 6 is the lowest score a fighter can receive in any round!

What do you to if in round 1 fighter A dominates fighter B. It is a clear win for fighter A and then in round 2 fighter B makes a nice comeback and the 2nd round is very close? If you give it to fighter B the fight is now even but yet objectively fighter A is clearly winning the fight because he dominated fighter B in round 1. Fight fans can see the problem here. In my opinion boxing pundits would do well to call more rounds even. Two perfect examples of this are the Triple G vs Danny Jacobs and the Kovolev vs Andre Ward fight. Many rounds were clearly won by Kovolev and Triple but the underdog fighter (Jacobs and Ward) made several rounds close. Many fans of Danny Jacobs and Andre Ward elected to give these close rounds to their favorite fighters irrespective of the fact that the clear dominant rounds were won by Triple G and Kovolev!

Shouldn’t a clearly dominated round count more than a razor thin close round? Why don’t people score more rounds even in such cases? This, in my opinion, is the problem with boxing scores by fan boys who wish to give close rounds to their favorite fighters. Look at Triple G vs Danny Jacobs…Harold Ledderman gave the first two rounds to Danny Jacobs? Triple G landed more punches and threw more punches. He had Jacobs head snapping back and was chasing Danny the entire first two rounds. Also, any punches thrown by Jacobs were nice flurries, but many punches that were thrown missed or landed more like slaps than actual punches. Furthermore, Danny Jacobs never once hurt Triple G but Triple G CLEARLY hurt Danny Jacobs because he made his head snap back so nicely!

Look at the fight between Kovolev and Ward…there were many rounds that were super close buy Kovolev had rounds where he clearly won. Wards fans seemed hell bent on giving any close rounds to Andre Ward. Round 1 was easy to score because Andre Ward was send reeling backwards by a thudding jab that landed cleanly and effectively. Round two was clear for Kovolev too..he was the aggressor and was clearly the ring general that round.

Round 3 was close and I felt could have gone to either Ward or to Kovolev. Round 4 was easy to score 10-8 because Kovolev scored a knockdown. It may have been a knockout had he landed cleanly with the knuckles. The right hand shot didn’t land properly and may have cost Kovolev the win. After the first 4 rounds there were a slew of rounds that were very close. These rounds could go either way . I felt Ward won more of these rounds but Kovolev won that fight easily and convincingly because his rounds were the more decisive rounds. Also, even throughtout the rest of the fight he had Ward reeling with good hard shots. There was always a feeling that Kovolev could end things with one big shot whereas for Ward his only hope was stealing rounds and edging out a close decision. The result of this fight was clear bias for the American fighter. Heck, boxing commentators and pudits even allowed the American fighter to get away with head butts, tackles, and excessive holding. It was honestly one of the worse decisions I”ve seen in boxing!

Luckily we didn’t get a bad decision in Triple G vs Jacobs but we almost did. Why? Because fan boys and boxing neophytes elected to give close rounds to a clearly outclassed fighter. Triple G gave away atleast 10 pounds yet still had this kid backing up with the jab..Triple G clearly landed the harder more thudding punches and was the fighter doing all the hurting in the fight. Danny Jacobs should be applauded for his valor but he clearly didn’t do enough to win this fight. I feel most of this bad decision making in boxing is a result of bias and just plain lack of knowledge!

So, how do we rectify this? First, we need to make close rounds 10-10. This way clearly dominant rounds hold more weight. Second, we need we need to make use of play back. To get a fair score, the judges should be allowed to look at replays to ascertain who landed what. This way fighters get credit for the more suble shots. Boxing is tough, lets not make it tougher for them by allowing judges to see things blindly. We need to make use of the fact that we have different camer angles, slow motion, and other technologies that can make fights more fair and decisions more accurate!

[Jip]

put it short. it is very simple to judge a boxing fight.

if both land nothing but guard, nothing by air (miss shots) and both dont do much, or equaly do much, than it is a even round. good example was pacquiao-mayweather, in so many rounds both landed nothing or when they landed it was the guard or air. floyd did not push to win the round, pac did not push to win the round, result 10:10.

the aggressor wins the round. boxer a chasing boxer b and rarely connecting and boxer b is just running and also not connecting, than it is a even round because both dont connect, but overall i give a small favour to the boxer who is trying to box and be aggressiv, make the fight, rather than the boxer 90 % on defence, running and holding when opponent comes close.

10:9, somebody won a round when he connected more. or he connected less, but the shots he connected did more damage, quality of punches over quantity of punches. for example, i rate boxer a higher than boxer b, when boxer a wobbled boxer b with a flashing right uppercut, than if in the same round boxer b outlanded boxer with 8 jabs. so 1 big shot over 8 small pity pad punches. sure if someone totaly outlands, outclasses his opponent, than it counts more even if the opponent comes back with 1 big punch that lands clear. exception surely are a knock down.

there was no controversy with kovalev-ward. everybody saw the fight and 80 % of the people had kovalev the winner. and those 80 % were right. straight up robbery, simple as that.

GGG-Jacobs was a controversy, why. because most scored the knock down, not me, i saw oth legs tangled up and jacobs falling because of leg balance and not because of a punch. i thought jacobs won when i saw the fight live, but when i rewatched it had it 115:115, so had i scored the knock down like the ref did, it would have been a close win for GGG. so thats the huge difference, g/j was a super close fight and k/w wasnt this close at all. kovalev easily won by 3 rounds plus.

[RScarf1]

I talked to a judge because I was thinking about becoming one. He said he has to buy a lot of shirts because of blood splattering on them. When I am at ringside, I can use my notepad to shield myself, but judges have to constantly watch the fight with no body substance isolation. Regarding scoring a fight, there is subjectivity because, for example, one boxer could land more powerful punches while the other boxer lands more punches. I think I can score a fight fairly and impartially, but sitting at ringside is different than watching on TV because you are not always going to see everything from one side of the ring.

[straali]

That's presumably why they put judges on three different sides....

[RScarf1]

That's presumably why they put judges on three different sides....

True, but you may be getting three different perspectives not only because of bias and/or incompetence, but because of the viewpoint from that area of the ring. That is why watching it on TV is different.

[Jip]

it would be better that judges would be in spereated silent rooms with a 4k flat screen with sound commentator off, so that they can concentrate 100 % on the fight. no fans cheering, no commentating, no angles where you cant see the fight.

[Ruthless-RKO]

it would be better that judges would be in spereated silent rooms with a 4k flat screen with sound commentator off, so that they can concentrate 100 % on the fight. no fans cheering, no commentating, no angles where you cant see the fight.

TBF, They wouldn't hear the commentary at ringside anyway..

[Ruthless-RKO]

GGG-Jacobs was a controversy, why. because most scored the knock down, not me, i saw oth legs tangled up and jacobs falling because of leg balance and not because of a punch. i thought jacobs won when i saw the fight live, but when i rewatched it had it 115:115, so had i scored the knock down like the ref did, it would have been a close win for GGG. so thats the huge difference, g/j was a super close fight and k/w wasnt this close at all. kovalev easily won by 3 rounds plus.

So even though there is a knockdown and its classed as a knockdown, as a judge, you don't have to score it a 10-8? if you didn't think it's a knockdown?

[Jip]

it would be better that judges would be in spereated silent rooms with a 4k flat screen with sound commentator off, so that they can concentrate 100 % on the fight. no fans cheering, no commentating, no angles where you cant see the fight.

TBF, They wouldn't hear the commentary at ringside anyway..

gobshite

[Jip]

GGG-Jacobs was a controversy, why. because most scored the knock down, not me, i saw oth legs tangled up and jacobs falling because of leg balance and not because of a punch. i thought jacobs won when i saw the fight live, but when i rewatched it had it 115:115, so had i scored the knock down like the ref did, it would have been a close win for GGG. so thats the huge difference, g/j was a super close fight and k/w wasnt this close at all. kovalev easily won by 3 rounds plus.

So even though there is a knockdown and its classed as a knockdown, as a judge, you don't have to score it a 10-8? if you didn't think it's a knockdown?

i didnt class it a knock down.

[world ranked]

Scoring is subjective and never will be a consensus on how to score it. People prefer different styles.

[Jip]

Scoring is subjective and never will be a consensus on how to score it. People prefer different styles.

some things are clearly favouring one boxer of the the other regarding of styles and subjectiv views. judging aint that difficult.

1 very very close rounds are 10:10
2 close rounds are judged in favour which boxer was the aggressor, being more activ to fight, than run around, its boxing not long distance running
3 having more punches landed than your opponent gives you the round (only exception a knock down or your opponent landed more big shots on you)
4 overall big clear hurting landing punches count more than piddy paddy light punches
5 knock down wins you the round 10:8 (only exception is your opponent totaly outclassed you in the round, but you landed a knock down, than 9:9)

i always judge this way and have it always right, when i rewatched a fight. judges dont have the luxury to rewatch, therefore i am for judges watching the fight in silent rooms with flat screen to fully concentrate on whats happening. they have better view on the fight and can better concentrate.

[world ranked]

Scoring is subjective and never will be a consensus on how to score it. People prefer different styles.

some things are clearly favouring one boxer of the the other regarding of styles and subjectiv views. judging aint that difficult.

1 very very close rounds are 10:10
2 close rounds are judged in favour which boxer was the aggressor, being more activ to fight, than run around, its boxing not long distance running
3 having more punches landed than your opponent gives you the round (only exception a knock down or your opponent landed more big shots on you)
4 overall big clear hurting landing punches count more than piddy paddy light punches
5 knock down wins you the round 10:8 (only exception is your opponent totaly outclassed you in the round, but you landed a knock down, than 9:9)

i always judge this way and have it always right, when i rewatched a fight. judges dont have the luxury to rewatch, therefore i am for judges watching the fight in silent rooms with flat screen to fully concentrate on whats happening. they have better view on the fight and can better concentrate.

1)No 10-10 rounds that's a cop out already
2) No fans don't judge close rounds by who's the aggressor
3) move punches gives you the rounds. Whats the margin 1 punch, 3 punch, 6 punches again subjective
4) Does 35 pitty pats over 2 hard shots. Some people like activity over few punches. Another subjectivity
5) Your only non-subjective point.

[Jip]

Scoring is subjective and never will be a consensus on how to score it. People prefer different styles.

some things are clearly favouring one boxer of the the other regarding of styles and subjectiv views. judging aint that difficult.

1 very very close rounds are 10:10
2 close rounds are judged in favour which boxer was the aggressor, being more activ to fight, than run around, its boxing not long distance running
3 having more punches landed than your opponent gives you the round (only exception a knock down or your opponent landed more big shots on you)
4 overall big clear hurting landing punches count more than piddy paddy light punches
5 knock down wins you the round 10:8 (only exception is your opponent totaly outclassed you in the round, but you landed a knock down, than 9:9)

i always judge this way and have it always right, when i rewatched a fight. judges dont have the luxury to rewatch, therefore i am for judges watching the fight in silent rooms with flat screen to fully concentrate on whats happening. they have better view on the fight and can better concentrate.

1)No 10-10 rounds that's a cop out already
2) No fans don't judge close rounds by who's the aggressor
3) move punches gives you the rounds. Whats the margin 1 punch, 3 punch, 6 punches again subjective
4) Does 35 pitty pats over 2 hard shots. Some people like activity over few punches. Another subjectivity
5) Your only non-subjective point.

its very simple. you make it way to complicated.

sure do 1000000000000000000 light punches count more than 2 hard punches. even rounds are important, because so many rounds are even and judges should do more even rounds. an expert has a feeling who landed more and who landed bigger more significant shots and robberys arent because of one liked the defensive boxer more than the aggressor, robbery come along, because rounds where one boxer was clearly better than the his opponent goes to the opponent, cause he is the a side or its his hometown and equal 10:10 go automaticly to him, like it was the case with ward, every single round which was very very close (like 3 rounds) all went to ward on every card, thats just hometown gift.

[world ranked]

some things are clearly favouring one boxer of the the other regarding of styles and subjectiv views. judging aint that difficult.

1 very very close rounds are 10:10
2 close rounds are judged in favour which boxer was the aggressor, being more activ to fight, than run around, its boxing not long distance running
3 having more punches landed than your opponent gives you the round (only exception a knock down or your opponent landed more big shots on you)
4 overall big clear hurting landing punches count more than piddy paddy light punches
5 knock down wins you the round 10:8 (only exception is your opponent totaly outclassed you in the round, but you landed a knock down, than 9:9)

i always judge this way and have it always right, when i rewatched a fight. judges dont have the luxury to rewatch, therefore i am for judges watching the fight in silent rooms with flat screen to fully concentrate on whats happening. they have better view on the fight and can better concentrate.

1)No 10-10 rounds that's a cop out already
2) No fans don't judge close rounds by who's the aggressor
3) move punches gives you the rounds. Whats the margin 1 punch, 3 punch, 6 punches again subjective
4) Does 35 pitty pats over 2 hard shots. Some people like activity over few punches. Another subjectivity
5) Your only non-subjective point.

its very simple. you make it way to complicated.

sure do 1000000000000000000 light punches count more than 2 hard punches. even rounds are important, because so many rounds are even and judges should do more even rounds. an expert has a feeling who landed more and who landed bigger more significant shots and robberys arent because of one liked the defensive boxer more than the aggressor, robbery come along, because rounds where one boxer was clearly better than the his opponent goes to the opponent, cause he is the a side or its his hometown and equal 10:10 go automaticly to him, like it was the case with ward, every single round which was very very close (like 3 rounds) all went to ward on every card, thats just hometown gift.

Every fight fan has a card that the average fight fan doesn't agree with. You just gave an example of what u thought was a 10-10 round. I disagree with scoring a round 10-10. Are there robberies absoulutely but me and you scoring on tv isn't the same being ringside. Nobody will agree with scorecard completely. UFC has robberies to it not just a boxing or hometown think like you are suggesting.

[Lennox]

Scoring is subjective and never will be a consensus on how to score it. People prefer different styles.

some things are clearly favouring one boxer of the the other regarding of styles and subjectiv views. judging aint that difficult.

1 very very close rounds are 10:10
2 close rounds are judged in favour which boxer was the aggressor, being more activ to fight, than run around, its boxing not long distance running
3 having more punches landed than your opponent gives you the round (only exception a knock down or your opponent landed more big shots on you)
4 overall big clear hurting landing punches count more than piddy paddy light punches
5 knock down wins you the round 10:8 (only exception is your opponent totaly outclassed you in the round, but you landed a knock down, than 9:9)

i always judge this way and have it always right, when i rewatched a fight. judges dont have the luxury to rewatch, therefore i am for judges watching the fight in silent rooms with flat screen to fully concentrate on whats happening. they have better view on the fight and can better concentrate.

That is pretty much how I score a fight and in talking to judges many do the same. I count points in my head for piddy paddy punches that are light (1 point) and up to (5 points) for a big shot. End of the round I add them up and award the 10-9. The biggest thing to remember is unless you watch a fight and totally concentrate with sound off and just focus (it ruins the watching really) you are not really in a position to judge and it is easy to be swayed by very poor commentary and a fighter that has a few big rounds. A fight is really 12 mini-fights. 7 close rounds beats 5 massive rounds.

[Jip]

Scoring is subjective and never will be a consensus on how to score it. People prefer different styles.

some things are clearly favouring one boxer of the the other regarding of styles and subjectiv views. judging aint that difficult.

1 very very close rounds are 10:10
2 close rounds are judged in favour which boxer was the aggressor, being more activ to fight, than run around, its boxing not long distance running
3 having more punches landed than your opponent gives you the round (only exception a knock down or your opponent landed more big shots on you)
4 overall big clear hurting landing punches count more than piddy paddy light punches
5 knock down wins you the round 10:8 (only exception is your opponent totaly outclassed you in the round, but you landed a knock down, than 9:9)

i always judge this way and have it always right, when i rewatched a fight. judges dont have the luxury to rewatch, therefore i am for judges watching the fight in silent rooms with flat screen to fully concentrate on whats happening. they have better view on the fight and can better concentrate.

That is pretty much how I score a fight and in talking to judges many do the same. I count points in my head for piddy paddy punches that are light (1 point) and up to (5 points) for a big shot. End of the round I add them up and award the 10-9. The biggest thing to remember is unless you watch a fight and totally concentrate with sound off and just focus (it ruins the watching really) you are not really in a position to judge and it is easy to be swayed by very poor commentary and a fighter that has a few big rounds. A fight is really 12 mini-fights. 7 close rounds beats 5 massive rounds.

yeah...thats right

[Thomastearns]

Judges should be scoring points for the whole fight and not individual rounds. None of this 10-9 nonsense. Less distortion.

The judging seriously needs revision and has done so for decades. The infamous Bugner v Cooper result controversy almost led to a riot. Trouble is that its easy to forget that we're judging the whole fight, especially if one guy is 9/10ths unconscious at the final bell. Then there's the hard punch soft punch debate. Joe Calzaghe scored a massive amount of points with limp wristed quick punches. They looked fairly innocuous but they won him a lot of rounds.

Of course in the early days of boxing the rules didn't need to account for all this because then they kept fighting until one guy went down - and stayed down.

The way boxing is going, judging is going to get more critical - so give me CompuBox over 3 'independent' judges anytime. It ain't perfect, but its the best we have til its all done by computers.

[caldo2025]

At some point, boxing judges decided that scoring a fight is subjective like watching synchronized swimming or olympic diving. Some judges clearly explain what they look for. WHAT THEY LOOK FOR? No, see that's not how it works. Every judge should be looking for the same thing and scoring based upon that criteria.

Scoring 10/10 rounds would be a huge improvement but i've not seen an even round scored yet since it was suggested a few months ago. Not one.

Make these judges visible during the fight and responsible to comment inside the ring after the fight to tell us what they saw. These weasels score their fights and crush careers and just wiggle through the crowd home to their sofa's and comfortable lives. Make it more difficult for them to screw things up and make them more responsible for the numbers they jot down on those cards.

[RScarf1]

At some point, boxing judges decided that scoring a fight is subjective like watching synchronized swimming or olympic diving. Some judges clearly explain what they look for. WHAT THEY LOOK FOR? No, see that's not how it works. Every judge should be looking for the same thing and scoring based upon that criteria.

Scoring 10/10 rounds would be a huge improvement but i've not seen an even round scored yet since it was suggested a few months ago. Not one.

Make these judges visible during the fight and responsible to comment inside the ring after the fight to tell us what they saw. These weasels score their fights and crush careers and just wiggle through the crowd home to their sofa's and comfortable lives. Make it more difficult for them to screw things up and make them more responsible for the numbers they jot down on those cards.

Do you know how they score a fight in Germany for their fake female featherweight champion Elina Tissen? If the boxer from another country deserves to win the round, the judges score it 10-10 so that the German boxer does not lose the round. I agree with scoring a round 10-10, but only if the round is truly a tie which does not happen very often.

[Jip]

At some point, boxing judges decided that scoring a fight is subjective like watching synchronized swimming or olympic diving. Some judges clearly explain what they look for. WHAT THEY LOOK FOR? No, see that's not how it works. Every judge should be looking for the same thing and scoring based upon that criteria.

Scoring 10/10 rounds would be a huge improvement but i've not seen an even round scored yet since it was suggested a few months ago. Not one.

Make these judges visible during the fight and responsible to comment inside the ring after the fight to tell us what they saw. These weasels score their fights and crush careers and just wiggle through the crowd home to their sofa's and comfortable lives. Make it more difficult for them to screw things up and make them more responsible for the numbers they jot down on those cards.

exactly. it is very important what they judge and they just be responsible for what they do. put pressure on them. it aint that hard to judge a fight, when all you have to do is concentrate for 3 minutes and do this 12 times. its not a hard job. working 12 hr, thats hard work, not concentrating who landed more punches, who was more aggressiv, who did more damage, who struggled and who did not! and if its super hard to judge because both did even in 1 round that judge 10:10, that simple. we would have wounderful fair results and 95 % time the true winner.

[caldo2025]

At some point, boxing judges decided that scoring a fight is subjective like watching synchronized swimming or olympic diving. Some judges clearly explain what they look for. WHAT THEY LOOK FOR? No, see that's not how it works. Every judge should be looking for the same thing and scoring based upon that criteria.

Scoring 10/10 rounds would be a huge improvement but i've not seen an even round scored yet since it was suggested a few months ago. Not one.

Make these judges visible during the fight and responsible to comment inside the ring after the fight to tell us what they saw. These weasels score their fights and crush careers and just wiggle through the crowd home to their sofa's and comfortable lives. Make it more difficult for them to screw things up and make them more responsible for the numbers they jot down on those cards.

Do you know how they score a fight in Germany for their fake female featherweight champion Elina Tissen? If the boxer from another country deserves to win the round, the judges score it 10-10 so that the German boxer does not lose the round. I agree with scoring a round 10-10, but only if the round is truly a tie which does not happen very often.

I don't think that a 10-10 round is more because the round was EVEN as much as the fact that in a lot of rounds, nothing happens and to award a round to one of the boxers in which nothing happens, that is what leads to horrible decisions. Let's face it, most of the rounds in the Wlad/Fury fight was uneventful and hardly any punches were thrown. How can you score those rounds for one or the other? You really can't. But they did and they do and then you have an even match in which one boxer is now chasing 3 points on the cards even though nothing happened in the fight yet.

[Tanzio]

If you do not like the way boxing is judged, do something about it. Become a judge. Investigate judging and judges. Take legal action. Or, just keep whining incessantly about how you, and only you understand how to properly judge a fight.

[Stuarty]

I very seldom sit and write down what I think round for round. I just basically pick who I think was the better at the end of the round and keep score in my head then at the end I'll generally have an opinion on who's won. That's my prerogative as a fan though. I don't have a system I just pick what I like, what I feels working, who's pressuring, who's landed the more eye catching shots? It must be a hard job but some of the score cards we get seem to me to be beyond human error. Some of em are inexcusable.

[punchoutsb]

I've always treated each round as it's own contest, it's simple really. Win more of these contests than your opponent and you win the fight. The first round is just as important as the last round, it's just not as fresh in the memory. This removes bias for feeling momentum shifts and such, because it doesn't matter if Fighter B takes control and finishes stronger in the last 5 rounds, Fighter A still wins the fight if he won the first 7.