A lot has been made throughout the years of how they view and score fights. What is your criteria for judging rounds in boxing matches?

Mines are:

- Clean effective punches (accuracy)

- Defense

- Who is winning the tot-to-toe battle

- Who has the edge in infighting

I never go with the aggressor if he does not meet the above criteria. Aggression is the biggest hoax that there is in boxing. Just because you are throwing a ton of punches and you follow your opponent all over the ring doesn’t mean that you should be awarded the round if you don’t meet these guidelines.

i'm a simple man.

-30-
You know it's drama, but it sound real good.

Here’s the issue that I have with scoring being weighed on power punching...

Too many times a fighter is clearly getting outboxed and then that fighter lands a couple of power punches then people want to award that fighter the round. You can’t land a few power punches and win a round if that’s all that you did. Most observers don’t give credit for body punches. That’s why I like to add infighting into the equation.

if someone gets staggered and visibly hurt by a shot that shot is easily worth half a dozen or more pit-pat 1's and 2's...

Commitment to the jab and commitment to the body are king in my book... slick defense is key too but if you're backing up you had better be countering and throwing it's boxing not biking.

-The Knicks’ coaching search still includes a lone frontrunner, Kurt Rambis, whose qualifications for the position include a strong relationship with Jackson and a willingness to take the job.