22.01.08 – By “Old Yank” Schneider: If you don’t know how to judge a fight, then when you open your mouth about how it was scored you will be judged harshly by other fans. At the minimum you had better get the basics right or else you will continue to simply hand over your lunch money in every debate you get into. So you want to become a better judge? Follow me.
NOTE: For all you “experts” who are in no need of a refresher, the “Old Yank” is here to tell you that I’ve listened to some fairly lame excuses for justifying a scorecard from many of you. And if you don’t think that your “expertise” should be tested from time to time, how about climbing into an airplane with a pilot who never feels that his skills should be tested? “Experts”, climb aboard!
LESSON NUMBER ONE: The Four Elements of Judging.
The four elements of judging are: 1. Clean, effective punching; 2. Effective aggression; 3. Ring Generalship; and 4. Defense. The emphasis is always on the first element and the other three are arguably equal to each other in secondary importance.
“Clean, effective punching” is the single most important thing to look for in scoring a fight. It is punching that reaches any legal area of an opponent’s body with little or no hindrance along the route. Glancing punches mean much less to a judge than clean, solid ones. And harder punches mean more than softer punches. Subjectivity is often at play when looking for clean effective punching; whether or not to give more credit to hard punches than to a greater number of lighter punches is the issue. Any punch that clearly interrupts the offensive or defensive movement of an opponent should be given more weight in the eyes of a judge than a punch that does little to change the course or rhythm of a fighter. Hard, clean and effective punches that clearly get the attention of the recipient should, likewise, gain the attention of the judge. In fact, one hard punch can mean as much if not more than two or three light punches. But eventually a judge needs to draw the line and give appropriate credit for the shear volume of punches one fighter may register over an opponent. However, it is the responsibility of the lighter but higher volume puncher to overcome the attention being given to his harder punching opponent.
Why should “clean, effective punching” be more important than the other three criteria? Ultimately when judging a fight, the emphasis is placed on clean, effective punching as a tribute to what the sport is ultimately about – an old school notion of attempting to determine who could be the last man standing. The roots of boxing come from an era when no judges were needed – the winner was obvious; he was the last man standing. Without the benefit of having a last man standing at the end of every bout, judging is the most reasonable replacement for determining who would or eventually could become the last man standing. We must never forget that a boxing match is ultimately about determining who can impose his will on another by using only his wits and his fists. The brutality of the sport is rooted in punching an opponent into eventual submission. The most important element of boxing is not who looks like the best dancer or who looks like he did the better job of avoiding a fight. The most important element is who can cleanly and effectively punch. When exclusively looking at what happens inside the ring, the notion of old school can be traced back to the origins of prize fighting and the days of last man standing. Clean, effective punching is the proxy for last man standing and is thus, by far, the most important criteria used by a judge.
The importance of clean, effective punching cannot be overstated. Use your common sense. If a fighter was clearly dominant in clean, effective punching, then in all probability he was also the effective aggressor, the ring general and the better defensive fighter. So why complicate the simple? Give the fighter who dominated in the element of clean, effective punching the round! But what if one fighter was not dominant in the element of clean, effective punching? What if one landed at a materially higher rate but the other was landing harder punches? What if the margin of difference was so small that the objective observer knows that he might be crossing into the area of subjectivity? Then this is where the other three elements of judging come into play.
What is “effective aggression”? Simply stated it is aggression that demonstrates an “imposition of will” or “bringing” a fight to an opponent in the context of the all-important element of clean, effective punching. Aggressively rushing at an opponent while failing to land punches, may look aggressive but it rarely effective. Effective aggression is difficult (but not impossible) to credit to a fighter who is constantly moving backwards as well. The counter-puncher who is moving backwards while also imposing his will may very well be winning the battle of effective aggression in that round. However, one cannot “bring” a fight to an opponent while moving backwards. In a round where the two combatants seem reasonably equal in the element of clean, effective punching, try to observe which of the two appears to be “bringing” the fight to the other or “imposing his will” better. If you can see a clear edge in either area benefiting one fighter over the other, then one is being the more effective aggressor and credit him appropriately.
Ring generalship is about judging which of the combatants is more in control of the “real estate” of the ring (the areas of the ring where the bout is taking place), and equally important, judging which of the combatants is more in control of the pace, tempo or rhythm of the contest. The pace, tempo and rhythm are about how quickly or slowly a fighter gains or loses control over where he would like the contest to take place (the center of the ring, against the ropes, in a corner, etc…). Here the concepts of footwork, cutting-off the ring and work-rate are useful. Also of use is judging the relative comfort or discomfort each combatant seems to display in how slow or fast the pace, tempo and rhythm of the round is being fought at. A backward-moving counter-puncher might have difficulty looking like an “effective aggressor”, but his tactics might very well be controlling the place and the pace of the fight. If the counter-puncher has his opponent constantly chasing him to where he wants the fight to be fought and he is not being effectively cut-off or trapped, then the counter-puncher is demonstrating “ring generalship” at a higher level then his opponent. Certainly if a fighter is initiating rather than counter-punching and is effective in cutting-off the ring, and trapping his opponent, he is controlling the real estate and is therefore in control of “ring generalship” for that round.
Some fighters are more effective when they are slowing the pace, tempo and rhythm of a fight to their benefit. For example, a power-puncher might be more interested in landing hard shots while his opponent might be more interested in landing a high volume of shots. If the power-puncher is successful in slowing the pace, tempo and rhythm of the fight so that it becomes more beneficial to his power than to his opponent’s volume, then here again he is demonstrating ring generalship. And conversely, if a high volume puncher is able to keep the pace, tempo and rhythm at a fast pace, then he is likely to benefit from that pace and should be awarded credit for ring generalship.
Ring generalship can also be subtle. For example, if a judge can observe that one fighter appears to be tiring at a more rapid pace and his loss of stamina can be directly attributed to the excess movement being forced on him by his opponent, then the fighter bringing about a disruption in stamina is demonstrating ring generalship in that round. But subtleties like this are useful if you, as the judge are having difficulty determining who is in control of the “real estate” of the ring. If it is difficult to determine who is controlling the “real estate” of the ring where the bout is taking place, then perhaps some of the subtleties of “pace”, such as examining who is controlling whose stamina, can be useful.
Finally you need to observe who is demonstrating the higher skills of “defense” in each round. Defense in its most simple form is avoiding getting hit. But it is more complex than that. Defense is also about how a fighter takes a punch. This means that even when a fighter is getting hit, he can demonstrate a higher level of defense then his opponent if he is taking the punches in a manner that makes them less effective in any way. We’ve all heard the term “rolling with the punches”. This kind of action is exactly what the subtleties of defense are all about when avoiding getting hit is a virtual impossibility. But be careful! Simply because a fighter can take a punch, it does not mean that he’s demonstrating defensive skills. Never confuse taking a punch with defensively taking something off a punch through the use of a defensive maneuver. However, forcing an opponent to miss entirely is the pinnacle of defense. When punches are being landed, then the total defensive picture needs to be observed. This is where the judge needs to observe the techniques bobbing, weaving, ducking, and stepping out to the side and other defensive skills. If you are able to observe that one fighter is demonstrating higher skills in a round in avoiding punches altogether and/or he’s doing a better job of maneuvering to take something off receiving punches, then you should factor this element into your thinking and credit him with better defense for that round.
These four elements of judging are the foundations of determining who the best fighter is in a given round. But again, be careful. A boxing match does not always determine who the best fighter is over an entire match. The match is in fact a collection of 3 minute fights. Even when properly judged, a bout does not always yield a definitive conclusion. This concept of judging each round as a stand-alone fight could easily be the subject of an entire lesson in judging; as could how to award points in the “Ten Points Must System”; and the role and independence of the referee and each judge.
If there is one and only one thing that you take away from this lesson in judging, let it be that a judge always needs to be respectful of the roots of the sport. Judging is always about observing who can land the most clean, effective punches; all else is secondary. Ultimately the judge is trying to determine which combatant, given enough time would emerge as a potential last man standing. Many fights do not conclude with a last man standing, and the absence of a definitive outcome is exactly what the judge is a replacement for. Without a last man standing the necessity and importance of a judge becomes obvious. For some, this speaks to the very definition of “old school”. For others it is simply a matter of traditional judging emphasis. Either way, a fighter who uses his wits and fists in a manner that shows that he can land clean, effective punches better then his opponent should be declared the winner of any round where this can be reasonably observed by a judge. When it can’t, then the other three elements of “effective aggression, ring generalship and defense” come into play for the judge. If clean, effective punches are reasonably equal in your eyes as a judge, then the winner of the round must be the winner of two of the three remaining judging elements. If you have a need to consider the three elements of “effective aggression, ring generalship and defense”, and neither fighter comes out on top in two of these three remaining elements, the round was a draw.
It takes a long time to become a great judge. There is much that must be observed at the same time and mini-judgments taking place throughout each and every round round. This lesson is not intended to make you a great judge. Instead, it is intended as a means for one fan to help another fan do a better job in putting himself in the shoes of a judge and enjoying watching a fight more because of it.
So judge a fight correctly and you stand on solid ground. There is no need to “back-down” in a debate when you know your stuff. What did the judges see or not see compared to your observations? What did they place appropriate or inappropriate emphasis on? Do you have an opportunity to “school” a friend based on what you now know about how to judge a fight? And be prepared to be “schooled” if you were asleep at the switch. Judge it incorrectly and be prepared to be ridiculed; essentially, judge or be judged!