Thread: open scoring, anyone?

your thoughts on open scoring system in boxing?

It would ruin the sport. Hopefully, Sulliman's failed experiment is over.

Ali fought an open scoring fight in the late 70's. Once he put 8 rounds in the bag he stopped fighting and ran for the rest of the fight.

Watch the Olympics right now...

Once the fighter knows they have a comfy lead they are just running... You would be forgiven for thinking that you were watching the track and feild events...

how about the argument that open scoring system helps minimize robbery and fixes?

Originally Posted by AdamGB

Watch the Olympics right now...

Once the fighter knows they have a comfy lead they are just running... You would be forgiven for thinking that you were watching the track and feild events...

Exactly. Knowing the score ruins the fight bigtime. Watch the Olympics right now and it's something that clearly should never even be considered.

Originally Posted by canary

how about the argument that open scoring system helps minimize robbery and fixes?

How would it do that?

Open scorring is BS.

Originally Posted by canary

how about the argument that open scoring system helps minimize robbery and fixes?

It could cause more "home town decisions", because the judge might be more influenced by the crowd if they got to hear the approval/disapproval between rounds.

Originally Posted by Fenster

Originally Posted by canary

how about the argument that open scoring system helps minimize robbery and fixes?

How would it do that?

you know the scores so theres no way some a-holes can fix it somehow at some point of the game. just my thoughts...

Yes, please.

Of course you have the fighters who get on their bikes for the rest of the night to avoid getting KO'd, but that's no different than the Pistons getting a 30 point lead over the Pacers and then going into defensive mode to protect the lead. It may be boring, but it's the responsible thing to do. And that's putting too much onus on the guy who's actually winning. Either a) the guy losing wasn't fighting hard enough in the beginning or b) he was completely out of his league anyway.

People knee-jerk reject any notion to change and it's understandable. But for the most part, you wouldn't notice the difference. Think about fighters who THOUGHT they had it in the bag and it was a lot closer or they were flat-out losing. Wouldn't they fight different than if it had been closed scoring instead? Don't some guys only have an "on" switch and only fight one way regardless of how the fight looks? And other fighters still are actually concerned about crowd-pleasing. A fighter like Floyd Mayweather would only continue fighting the way he's always fought. He's a great assessor of how well he's doing. Against some fighters he starts to cruise and against others he's all out, whether because the fight is close or he wants to teach a lesson (Gatti). But don't be under the mistaken assumption that open scoring would turn the whole sport on its head. That's like saying let's not end slavery because it could hurt the country's economy. Fair is fair and leaving fighters in the dark as to the score is UNfair.

Originally Posted by canary

Originally Posted by Fenster

Originally Posted by canary

how about the argument that open scoring system helps minimize robbery and fixes?

How would it do that?

you know the scores so theres no way some a-holes can fix it somehow at some point of the game. just my thoughts...

Do you mean the judges? Their scores are collected after each round and given to the official scorer.

If a judge was part of a fixed fight, open scoring wouldn't make a jot of difference. In fact.. it would make it easier. Knowing EXACTLY where a fighter stands during a contest would make it easier to prevent yourself from being detected of any wrongdoing

I hate open scoring...they shouldn't know, and hell i don't want to either.

I'm against open scoring. What I support is a training program to show judges how to score a fight.

I do actually quite like it, I understand fighters running to defend a lead but it forces the opposition to press the fight as well.

The majority of fights that are one sided the fighter usually knows he is well ahead anyway, but if a fight is close and the scores are announced as level or close after 8 rounds the fighters know they have to press for the rest of the fight and can't risk running. De La Hoya may have appreciated it a few times.

I don't think it spoils the excitement of a fight it's quite good to be informed on how the judges are seeing it, and if a fighter is 2 down with one to go he knows he needs at least a knockdown in the last round, may make some fights better.

Def think that for every fight it spoils for the leader to defend his lead, it will make one more exciting as they have to press for a knockdown or a stoppage.

Originally Posted by killersheep

I'm against open scoring. What I support is a training program to show judges how to score a fight.

This thread should have ended after this...lol.

Very well put.