How do you score a boxing round?

[Xoleth]

First of all, I mostly watch MMA, I do not know your ways, English is not even my primary language, sorry if I say something stupid.

I watch some boxing now and then.
Mostly the big fights... and not even all of those.

I watched the early rounds from Crawford vs Canelo.
No bias, I didn't care for any of them.
In my mind, I thought Canelo was beating him because he was landing punches.
Landing punches = when a punch actually hits the target and does damage

As a noob, I thought that Crawford's punches didn't hit the target. Because most of them stopped short.
a) the punches hit Canelo's gloves
b) the punches hit only the air... fast as fuck, but no target.
c) the punches hit Canelo's skin, but very superficial. Again, very fast punches.

Canelo landed fewer and slower punches, but (at least in my mind) those punches were actually doing damage.

Bu I guess I was wrong, because the scoring and everybody else and Canelo's face told me Crawford was the better boxer.

So, my questions?
a) how do you guys score a round so quick, without rewatching it, since most punches are so fast and it's quite difficult to see if they hit the target?
b) do you count blocked punches? (punches blocked by the gloves)
c) how do you judge if a punch is effective or not?

Thanks,

 

[treelo]

"the punches hit Canelo's skin"...that kind of answers it for you

How to score a fight

 

[WoozyFailGuy]

Which guy would I rather have been last round?

 

[Xoleth]

"the punches hit Canelo's skin"...that kind of answers it for you

How to score a fight

"correctly delivered blows (with the knuckle part of the closed glove of either hand) which land on the target area (any part of the front or sides of the head or body above the belt)"

So, there are no significant blows and non-significant blows?

 

[bng]

scoring boxing round are based on:
a) judges extra payment from the side
b) promoters additional pay
c) fighters popularity
d) crowd interest toward certain fighter at the time
e) judges personal preference
f) rules of boxing (optional)

Maximum points per round - 10
So lets say we have GGG - Canelo 1 (first fight). Noone outside KZ and boxing world knew GGG, GGG's promoter didnt give a shit about GGG, Canelo was/is quite popular. So despite how far Canelo's head bounces off the GGG's glove you score the round toward Canelo. 10-9 or 10-8, 10-7 or whatever number you like after "10-".

You can look for Adelaida Bird, CJ Ross and Dave Moretti. They are doing their job the best, following boxing corruption swamp rules almost perfectly

 

[borntoloseNOT]

"correctly delivered blows (with the knuckle part of the closed glove of either hand) which land on the target area (any part of the front or sides of the head or body above the belt)"

So, there are no significant blows and non-significant blows?

Judges score several factors, defense and who’s fighting who’s fight matters for example. Judges have to determine sometimes who won the round and weigh out more connections vs less connects of higher quality, yes, and every judge has their preference. Usually Canelos dynamic and loud connects stick out in judges memory historically, but TC blocking most of that and making Canelo chase and try and force a fight while getting peppered with combinations had Crawford bagging rounds

Edit: as for the speed of exchanges and telling who’s landing and who’s blocking etc, try relaxing your eyes and watching between the fighters, and you’ll start seeing more and picking up who’s getting off the most

 

[Seano]

I do my best to follow the actual criteria. Clean punches, effective aggression, ring generalship and defense. I think effective aggression and ring generalship are the ones the average fan doesn't really understand and the reason fans think every fight is a robbery.

 

[Paolo Delutis]

1) who's being more effective, with the bigger more impactful shots meaning more, then singular small shots, that said if nothing big happens , the guy who landed more or simply worked more can take this part of the scoring.

2) who's leading the dance - Although countering is a part of boxing i dont think it negates the work of the aggressor...in a round where nothing big happened and no clean counters happen the aggressor or fighter actually working (landing) gets it.


3) fight control - Whos dictating the range and style of the fight, is one fighter constantly getting trapped in the corner or is he being kept a long range with a jab unable to work or is one fighter consistently out maneuvering his opponent...in a round where nothing big happens and there is no clear aggressor... The fighter controlling the pace and ring will get the round.


This is usually what i do ..

That said i had Crawford and Canelo trading back and forth for the first few rounds...Canelo landed the more solid body shots in the early rounds...while Crawford simply out worked him to win the rounds i gave him early...

Crawford won most of his rounds on my scorecard because of sections 2 and 3...there wasnt alot of big shots to keep Canelo in the fight.

I had it 115-113 Crawford..

 

[djacobox372]

First Criteria: who lands the more frequent and better shots
Second Criteria: Who is controlling the pace and geography

If there isn't a CLEAR winner in one or both of those categories, I score it a 10-10 draw.

IMO where judging goes wrong is when there's a very close round and the judge feels he has to "give it to someone." Just score a 10-10, otherwise you're just guessing and going off of bias.

That said, the only 10-10 round I had in Saturday's fight was the first. The rest were fairly clear IMO.

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

Which guy would I rather have been last round?

kellerman was awful that entire fight, but i find i agree with this concept he always puts forth. who would i rather be? in most rounds, i felt like i'd rather be canelo. neither guy landed a ton, so i favor the one coming forward with bigger power, usually.

 

[borntoloseNOT]

kellerman was awful that entire fight, but i find i agree with this concept he always puts forth. who would i rather be? in most rounds, i felt like i'd rather be canelo. neither guy landed a ton, so i favor the one coming forward with bigger power, usually.

I wouldn’t have wanted to be Canelo, and I thought he fought an excellent fight, but I would have felt so discouraged throwing my fastball and being caught right before impact 75% of my best attempts, that was a totally nightmare for Canelo in my eyes

 

[SandisLL]

scoring boxing round are based on:
a) judges extra payment from the side
b) promoters additional pay
c) fighters popularity
d) crowd interest toward certain fighter at the time
e) judges personal preference
f) rules of boxing (optional)

a) and b) might be replaced by proper pickup and then 0 extra cent needed.
The same with refs.
For example some refs are lenient to long clinch , some no. Some hates rabbit punches, some are soft with this etc..

 

[JoeBobbaLou2]

Control of The ring number of punches landed damage inflicted.

I would also include aggression in coming forward, but I do not. In that case, Shawn Porter would win every fight.

 

[Iconoclast]

Effective aggression, ring generalship, damage. Clean shots

 

[Iconoclast]

I do my best to follow the actual criteria. Clean punches, effective aggression, ring generalship and defense. I think effective aggression and ring generalship are the ones the average fan doesn't really understand and the reason fans think every fight is a robbery.

This guy knows.

 

[Xoleth]

Edit: as for the speed of exchanges and telling who’s landing and who’s blocking etc, try relaxing your eyes and watching between the fighters, and you’ll start seeing more and picking up who’s getting off the most

This seems like good advice, thanks.
I realize I wasn't doing that.

 

[johndhi]

The fact that there are so many answers to this shows it's vague to its detriment