Printable View
I am very against it, not only does it drain the drama of a close decision but it gives fighters a reason to either stay away and pull an ODH and basically stop fighting if they know they are well ahead and for the fighter that is loosing, if he is loosing big it can take away his hope and lead to a lot of quitting on the stool once a fighter knows there is really no point in answering the bell.
Open scoring sucks, exactly why boxing wants to do it.
I really think Jose Suliman is secretly trying to destroy boxing. Everyone hates open scoring.
What is the legitimate purpose. So judges can be influenced by the boos of the hometown audience.
personally , i hate it. because of it , there will be more late corner retirements. If a fighter is losing a fight, he still must have some hope that judges are having it closer than it is, but when a fighter hears he's losing 80-72 after 8 , then that must be really crushing, and uninspiring .
It would change the game inside the ring. Some boxers can adapt to what the judges are scoring thus making it a points game. This is a lot more like the armatures.
Worst Idea ever, I hate it.
Open scoring should have no place in boxing. It is likely to affect the tempo of the fight. It removes the suspense of the final moment wherein the winner is about to be announced. The boxer's, their team & their supporter's reactions to the announcement will not be dramatic.
I also don't like the unoffical scoring being shown by HBO after every round. It either gives people a false sense that a certain boxer is winning or a reason to criticize the official judgment if it did not match that of the unofficial scoring.
Everyone else has pretty much voiced my opinion of open scoring with their own opinions. Only thing I can add is to say that open scoring is extremely gay.
Better well regulated judges and officials...less gimmicks.Over sight and accountability is key...open scoring is a placebo
I agree open scoring is pretty bad. During the Valero fight and the fight before it. I could have sworn all four boxers slowed down to hear the scores.
yep it's pointless
It would be nice if ONLY the crowd could see it but even if a trainer sees it then it can adversely affect the action of a fight
What if it's ONLY the TV viewers who can see it? And the boxer's team will be prohibited from using any form of communication device during the fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
They actually tried this for a Muhammad Ali fight in the late 70's. ABC was showing the actual scores of the fight between rounds. Someone from Ali's team ran from the back and advised Ali that he had built an 8-0 lead after 8 rounds. Accordingly, Ali went on the bicycle for the remaining 7 rounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerWhat if it's ONLY the TV viewers who can see it? And the boxer's team will be prohibited from using any form of communication device during the fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
needless to say, the experiment was a disaster.
I gotta play Devil's Advocate here. In every other sport don't all the teams have the right to know how many points they've scored? Saying that boxing is different sounds like an excuse to take away a boxer's right to know how well he's doing. If he gets on a bike and rides the rest of the fight, isn't that the other fighter's fault for not being a better fighter? And sure, a fighter might dial it back if he knows he's ahead, but conversely, might not the other fighter fight harder? Also, if a fighter would have thought he was ahead by several rounds but sees it's only tied up fight harder? If the fight is tied going into the later rounds, is that not impetus for both to do more than they have rather than assume they're being their opponents. To assume that boxers would only fight less if open scoring were available, well, wouldn't that be only a half-assed assumption? It seems to me, a fairer way of giving fans the exact same thing.
And we're only talking about the exceptions. Most times when a fighter assumes he's ahead he really is. You already have guys who will cruise, except with open scoring, at least they won't be deluding themselves. And many fighters who know they're ahead still try to close out the show.
Opponents to open scoring are painting with a broad brush what will only really affect a handful of fights every year.
Mayweather had to have known he was beating Marquez, but he didn't hang back. He banged away at Marquez. Pacquiao probably wouldn't have cared what the scoring cards stated; he took Cotto's head off. Where is this list of fighters everyone is so concerned about coasting?
maybe it would be more difficult for a home fighter to get a undeserved win?
Ppl knock open scoring as if how it stands right now is perfect. We all have seen examples of home town scoring or fights with decisions as if the judges must have been watching with their eyes closed. Don't make it out as if fans booing or cheering would suddenly make judging crooked. It already is. Maybe fans should have an influence, to be the 4th judge, if you will. Sometimes they have it right. How many times have we seen a fight on TV and booed right along with the crowd after it went the other way? Really, what is the problem with open scoring? Every argument you can make against it can be countered and at least if a fighter were being cheated he would know it rather than having to wait until it's too late to do anything about it.
I don't really put it down, I just say it affects the way a fighter acts in the ring. It would also have an affect on the way some judges score. Currently judges do their own thing and we can see over time what the tendencies of a judge are. With open scoring it puts pressure on the judge to follow the crowd and the other judges. I would think that if most felt the current system was not just enough then it would make more sense to additional judges make it 5 instead of 3.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zilla
So if a judge is susceptible to the crowd's influence with open scoring wouldn't he be just as susceptible with closed scoring? Crowds still boo and cheer without knowing who has the lead and as I said before, sometimes the crowd has it right. Most times they cheer because they're cheering on the guy who's winning the fight. Sure, the hometown crowd is more likely to cheer their guy on, but they already do that and it already happens that many fighters get hometown decisions. Assigning that to open scoring is unfair as it is something that already happens under closed scoring. At least be open and honest if you're going to cheat a guy. Give him the opportunity to know where he stands and go for a KO. That's the opposite I'm talking about. Many times fighters know their ahead, but the judges score differently. How many times have we seen fighters cheated by decisions that didn't go their way?Quote:
Originally Posted by ER-101I don't really put it down, I just say it affects the way a fighter acts in the ring. It would also have an affect on the way some judges score. Currently judges do their own thing and we can see over time what the tendencies of a judge are. With open scoring it puts pressure on the judge to follow the crowd and the other judges. I would think that if most felt the current system was not just enough then it would make more sense to additional judges make it 5 instead of 3.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zilla