BoxRec

just watched pauly upton vs adam jones (much better than his journeyman record and actually came to fight) from price card. at end of first commentator said he gave the round to upton because he was neater.

my question is does it really matter if someone has prettier technique? why? seems like a superficial thing.

btw in general how do you score rounds?like what are you looking for.

For me punches landed, if the round is close, I don't like shared rounds, work rate can edge it.

Who's done the most work, defense, offence, who pressed more.

I never like 10-10 rounds. I will always do my best to pick a winner of a round. I used to score a lot of 1st rounds as 10-10, because it's usually boxers feeling each other out. But I have moved away from that and look at who's done more. By more, I don't just mean throw, but actually land.

If a round is really close and I'm having trouble giving it to someone then I've got no trouble scoring it a 10-10. If both fighters seem equal in that round surely 10-10 is the way to go

smiling assassin wrote: ↑04 Dec 2017, 07:21 If a round is really close and I'm having trouble giving it to someone then I've got no trouble scoring it a 10-10. If both fighters seem equal in that round surely 10-10 is the way to go

Same here, it would be unfair giving the round to someone if is a Draw!!! If the round is equal then its 10-10 simple as that...

Tend to score on what's landed and done something. If someone throws a hundred soft shots that have no impact, but "dominating the round" I'd score to the other guy who landed 2-3 with power.

I feel work rate with no results is just wasted effort.

Its a cop out to give a 10-10,there must be a way you can split them.Move down your order of criteria until you can split them.

LancashireLoyal wrote: ↑04 Dec 2017, 07:43 Its a cop out to give a 10-10,there must be a way you can split them.Move down your order of criteria until you can split them.

But then you get 'ridiculous' cards which are too wide because there are several close rounds....

MarkMcBurney wrote: ↑04 Dec 2017, 08:52

LancashireLoyal wrote: ↑04 Dec 2017, 07:43 Its a cop out to give a 10-10,there must be a way you can split them.Move down your order of criteria until you can split them.

But then you get 'ridiculous' cards which are too wide because there are several close rounds....

Rather have a wide card than a 118-116 card.

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑04 Dec 2017, 08:55

MarkMcBurney wrote: ↑04 Dec 2017, 08:52

LancashireLoyal wrote: ↑04 Dec 2017, 07:43 Its a cop out to give a 10-10,there must be a way you can split them.Move down your order of criteria until you can split them.

But then you get 'ridiculous' cards which are too wide because there are several close rounds....

Rather have a wide card than a 118-116 card.

Not sure - if there was a close fight with lots of close rounds and someone comes out with a 118-110, everyone cries robbery, but if they score just four of the close rounds the other way, you get a draw.

I think I'd rather a narrow win based on lots of close rounds, even if it is 118-117 or something ridiculous. Someone getting a score of 118-110 against them is a terrible reward for their efforts.

MarkMcBurney wrote: ↑04 Dec 2017, 09:08
I think I'd rather a narrow win based on lots of close rounds, even if it is 118-117 or something ridiculous. Someone getting a score of 118-110 against them is a terrible reward for their efforts.

If it's a close fight, it would never really be 118-110, unless you're Adelaide Byrd lol.

Also, not sure about you, but I hate draws. Fans always tend to boo at draws, because we want to see a winner. I understand, sometimes a fight is really close, I draw is fair, and because the fighters have given it their all, the fans respect that. Example would be, Frampton vs. LSC. Both fights, you could really score for either fighter tbh. A robbery doesn't need to be 118-110.

If don't look for anything specific to be honest. Whoevers done the best work. Punches landed, best punches, work rate, who's forcing the action etc...

If a round is drawn, it's drawn. No sense to me in having one bloke potentially 4 up at the midpoint where he's been beaten up in 1 clearly and just shaded the other 5 by a jab each time (presuming at least 2 of the judges like that style of fighting). It's a subjective enough game as it is - no need to throw coin-toss rounds into the mix and end up with scores that don't reflect the fight.

Key thing ultimately is to reward effective offense. 5 clean hard right hands > 20 shoeshine arm punches with nothing on them to allow the thrower to get away. And too many judges are guilty of ignoring body work.

Mate, you're too lazy to type the word YOU?

That's f*cking terrible.

A punch delivered on the target area with force is the way to score imo

I think who is trying to be positive. In most cases it is usually the guy who is landing the harder punches, even from the back foot.

Classic case is the fury v parker fight. Until i fell asleep 3 rounds in, i had parker up with all 3 because he was trying to actually hit hughie who was just trying to feather jab parker away from him.

I keep a close eye on everyone's levels, and when they get almost to the bottom, I go to the loo and when I come back someone else has got the next round in.

breaking the round down into 3x1 mins can help you out aswell.

i dont think people give a fighter the credit they deserve when they are fighting on the back foot.if you have guy swinging wildly coming forward pushing the action it looks great but if his opponent is making him miss and showing good movement to evade the shots is he not in control of the fight?

Clean, Effective punching is the key thing.

I generally like to keep a tally in my head of who got the better of each 30 second interval in the round. This especially helps in closely contested fights.

If all is equal in terms of punches landed I'll often score the round to the busier fighter as he's doing more to make the fight.

Defense is a factor obviously, but it all goes hand in hand. If your defense is on point then you won't be getting hit by clean, effective punches regularly and therefore you probably won't be losing the round.

Taansend wrote: ↑04 Dec 2017, 09:39 Mate, you're too lazy to type the word YOU?

That's f*cking terrible.

i mean what does it matter if u all can read it and it saves me effort

Effectiveness is more important than technique, if someone looks a bit ungainly but is still able to get through their opponents defence and land clean shots they deserve credit for it.

It is hard sometimes, but I do try to give equal credit for defence and attack, making your opponent miss is just as important a part of a fighters game plan than landing punches of their own.

I don't shy away from even rounds... If it's very close I score it that way. I think I'm swayed by output a lot. I tend to favour the busier guy.

Each round is a fight unto itself. I tend to split the round in two in order to not weight what happens late more heavily than what happens early.

Punches landed are important but the effectiveness of those punches is more important than the number landed. There is a balance between the two, however.

In my opinion, many people give the boxer who they perceive to have the power advantage more credit than he or she deserves for landing punches. It tends to cloud their vision of the action.

Of course, if a KD is scored it should in the vast majority of the cases give that boxer a 10-8 victory in that round. However, too often rounds are scored for the heavier handed boxer even when that combatant lands faaar less volume in a round, especially when that fighter has scored a KD in an earlier round.

There should be no carryover from round to round, beyond what happens as a consequence of the action in an earlier round. In other words, if the dominance of the fighter who scored the earlier KD continues due to the opponent’s inability to recover.

That is not to argue that volume should always trump power except in the case of KDs. It is a balance. If a boxer has done the vast majority of work in a round, one or two hard shots should not override that volume of work in a round in most cases.

Two fights that illustrate clearly the above described lack of objectivity by many observers leading to cards that were far to wide and to shrieks and squeals of robbery and corruption were Pac v Ramming Speed I and Krushedner v SOGgy I. IMO, too many scored those fights as a single fight rather than 12 individual self contained battles. Furthermore, they were jaded by one of the fighter’s power in each match, too heavily weighting every shot thrown by that fighter, whether those shots were effective or not, or landed at all.

Both of those fights were close enough to have gone either way. I happened to agree with the judges in both cases, but I would have had little problem if the decisions had gone the other way, close.

I very seldom score rounds even.

I base it on work load, quality of punches, punches that are successful, pressure.

If someone is forcing the fight more than the other, than I tend to score it in their favour

jamamb wrote: ↑05 Dec 2017, 04:15

Taansend wrote: ↑04 Dec 2017, 09:39 Mate, you're too lazy to type the word YOU?

That's f*cking terrible.

i mean what does it matter if u all can read it and it saves me effort

It's not an effort though. It's TWO taps on a keyboard.