This has irked me for quite some time, so people, please chime in with your thoughts and opinions.

These are the FOUR criteria for judging a fight, apparently: clean punching, effective aggressiveness, ring generalship and defense.

Now, have these ever been clearly delineated? If so, I would like to read it.

I understand what it means for a fighter to score a clean punch, but what about effective aggressiveness? What does this constitute exactly? If Paulie Malignaggi lands 10 effective punches to his opponent, he has effectively done no damage...

Ring generalship, I mean, WTF is ring generalship? To me, it sounds like a load of bologne. A fighter either scores on his opponent or he doesn't, right? So you're going to score favorably for Ali because he does the Ali shuffle and dances around the ring, having the APPEARANCE of winning the round? I mean, WTF.

And finally, defense. I have a problem with this one all together. How the hell do you incorporate defense in your scoring a round, and SHOULD it really be incorporated? The way I look at things sometimes to see if they are fair is to look at them first in absolute terms - so, you're telling me a fighter can throw 100 punches in a round, his opponent forces him to miss them all without throwing back, and so according to the criteria of DEFENSE, the fighter who threw nothing has to be awarded the round without even inflicting an iota of damage to his opponent? And what's more, the fighter who threw the punches is penalized for his effort??? Isn't this fighter inherently penalized (rendering negative scoring by the judges unnecessary) because he has already hurt himself by lowering his stamina (and consequently, what follows is usually decreased output and less power on his punches)? IMO, a round like this should be scored a draw, and possibly for the defensive fighter due to RING GENERALSHIP(?) But, doesn't this seem a bit odd to you, the defensive fighter having not landed a single punch?

I would like these questions answered, please. It has bugged me for too long and I am not even sure the commission or boxing fans have really taken a deep look at this. Here is another concern I have: do all judges score unfavorably for a fighter who clinches too much, or do they believe it is up to the referee to decide and deduct a point? If some judges do look at clinching unfavorably, then where do you draw the line? What constitutes too much clinching? If a judge scores a round unfavorably for the fighter who clinches AND the referee deducts a point, isn't the fighter being doubly penalized? The main point I am trying to make is that each of the only THREE judges should share the same view on matters such as this, and I do not believe they do. When the sample size is so small, and a boxer's future earnings and consequently their own future and family's future are at stake on 3 judges' scoring, the criteria for judging a fight better be clearly delineated to each of the judges.

I mean, we have the nerve to complain about outrageous judging without asking why the judge scored a fight a certain way? Um, maybe because the judges have different ways of looking at the same criteria? Just maybe, judges are given "guidelines" rather than a strict and clear way of looking at things? Maybe, one judge is rewarding a defensive fighter, while another of the 3 judges is favoring the offensive one? I mean, doesn't this sound outrageous to you guys? Shouldn't a judging panel be uniform in the way they look at things, just as any other professional panel or committee is?

And then, the commission wants to fire judges who give bad decisions without asking their opinion, going back and looking at the video footage, and asking them to PROVE why they came up with the decision they did so that their possibly flawed view can be corrected? Firing a few judges is not going to solve the problem of better scoring by judges in general. The impression I have is that maybe, just maybe, the judges are not properly outlined on how exactly to judge a fight. How then could you explain such a wide disparity in scoring in some outrageous decisions we have seen in boxing throughout the years? Yes, scoring a fight is NOT AN EXACT SCIENCE and there will always be some disparity among the 3 judges, but if we can be more clear on how to judge a fight, maybe the decision on who wins a fight will be much more clear and less controversial...