The scoring implications of styles making fights using film study

It is one of our sport’s most popular clichés. Like most clichés, it takes the place of a thorough explanation and instead provides shorthand to what is a more complex dynamic. Different styles present challenges to judges in that the judges must interpret the action within the scoring framework when what the two boxers are doing what may appear quite different.

To illustrate that, I’m going to use as reference some fighters from the not-too-distant past. Their differences and how they were able to execute can illustrate how their styles affect scoring.

Hector Camacho – Incredible movement and defense, outstanding speed and remarkable counterpunching. As he moved up in weight, his power was sometimes questioned as was his tendency to put safety first.

Julio Cesar Chavez – A dominant power fighter who would wade in on his opponent, sometimes taking punches to land his own. He wore opponents down, was very difficult to hurt and his punches unquestionably did damage.

Tony Baltazar – Fought for the title twice. Waded in with his power and liked to wear his opponents down with volume and power. Could be hit and countered with speed and agility.

Pernell Whitaker – Very hard to hit, even from close in. Excellent defense but did it, unlike Camacho, without always using his feet. Could counterpunch and land punches in combination but his power wasn’t his strong suit.

Now, class, you have some homework to do. I want you to watch the following bouts (or at least the highlights when the full bouts aren’t available.)

In the mid-nineties, when Camacho moved up in weight, he did not bring the power and aggression he showed in his earlier fights at lighter weights. Baltazar was a smart fighter and his strategy was to crowd Camacho, rough him up, bully him and wear him down.

Camacho’s goal was to hit and not get hit, move and counter. This wasn’t a hard fight to score. Camacho wins this fight easily. Why? Why could Camacho impose his strategy when Baltazar couldn’t? When Baltazar moved into the neutral zone to throw, Camacho met him with a jab and then got out of the way. Determined, Baltazar continued to try and continued to get hit and fail to score. Overtime, the aggressor wants to keep pushing but as they get countered, they begin to hesitate which exacerbates the issue. As they hesitate, they are easier to counter and they take more punishment and they lose rounds. Camacho could do this with brawlers and did it throughout the nineties successfully. He certainly did it to Baltazar on this night. But Camacho couldn’t always do it and when he fought the best brawlers with exceptional power he struggled.

Chavez simply didn’t seem to be bothered by Camacho’s jabs and counters. He never hesitated and continued to move forward, almost ignoring Hector’s punches. Julio’s power negated Camacho’s speed and agility. He successfully cut off the ring. The Macho Man couldn’t plant his feet to land anything that would slow Julio down and it was a terrible beating. Why could Chavez do what Baltazar couldn’t? Power, ability to cut off the ring and the ability to take a punch. It wasn’t that there was merely a style that could beat Camacho, it was the power and the ability to do damage. Simply put, Chavez hurt Camacho too much for Hector to execute what he could do against Tony Baltazar.

Whitaker and Camacho had somewhat similar styles with a couple of important differences. Whitaker evaded punches but stayed in position to counter. Camacho moved out of danger which kept him from being a threat to Chavez. Somehow, “Sweet Pea” also could take Chavez’s punishment better than Camacho. Perhaps it was because of the very subtle movement he presented that made it difficult for Julio to land flush. Maybe he landed shots but never the homerun because of Whitaker’s subtle movement. 

The fight ended in a controversial draw but that doesn’t take away what “Sweet Pea” was able to do during the fight. He landed, he countered and he didn’t get hurt. He stayed in position and was able to gain respect with his punches – all things that Camacho couldn’t do.

From a judging perspective we can assess which fighter in these cases is imposing their will effectively and doing damage. What allows them to do it or not do it seems to be because of things like the ability to take a shot, the ability to stay in position to land and the ability to do damage whether that is through accumulation (Camacho vs. Baltazar), through power (Chavez vs. Camacho) or the ability to evade and – this is the important part – make the boxer who misses pay with power (Whitaker vs. Chavez).

In pro boxing, it isn’t merely landing, it is landing and doing damage. It is why we can’t simply say that one style will dominate another. Instead, it is what that style is able to do with that opponent. The brawler won’t always beat the flashy boxer or vice versa. The truly great generational fighters bring a variety of tools to the workshop. Ray Robinson could beat you with speed, power, counterpunching or any of a number of techniques. There was only Ray Robinson and there aren’t many fighters who can beat you in a variety of ways.

You may be a fan of a particular style but while assessing performance you must evaluate the fighter’s ability to execute. That means a fighter can win even going backwards – when you hate that style. A fighter can win by executing perfect defense and landing very clear counters – even if you hate that style. Fighters can have an ugly style to watch and may eat punches on the way in but if they do and they then wreak damage they can win the round – even if you hate that style.

Styles may make fights but doing damage wins fights.