I want open scoring, but after 4 and 8 is BS.
Scoring after each round is best.
After 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 is good too.
What do you think?
Hate it?
Like it?
Don't care?
Don't think it adds anything to boxing?
Want to give it a try?
Printable View
I want open scoring, but after 4 and 8 is BS.
Scoring after each round is best.
After 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 is good too.
What do you think?
Hate it?
Like it?
Don't care?
Don't think it adds anything to boxing?
Want to give it a try?
Horrible idea can affect the fight to much, also instead of being pissed of with a shit decision just at the end you would be pissed off with the scores the entire fight if its shitty/corrupt judges.Quote:
Originally Posted by beenKOed
i think open scoring is a rubbish idea too
its like knowing what the sex of your baby is before its born
As a fan I don't like it, because it takes away the suspense of the decision at the end. Much more anticlimactic.
For the boxer I think it's a good idea though. I kinda think the boxer deserves to know where he stands in the fight so he can adjust his tactics accordingly.
there's no incentive to getting a ko... why risk it? even with open scoring, if ther was an incentive, like say"bonus money"... then...
I'm against it. Fight the whole fight. If you've dominated, you'll know... at least you should know. Then fight accordingly in the last rounds. But no slam-shut scoring where the guys knows he's lost the fight already in the 8th round.
I hate it, the boxer should not adjust his tactics accordingly he should try to win the fight by doing his best. If a fighter is ahead and cut then the trainer could deliberately make the injury worse to win. That is a very sick scenario, there are better ways to stop bad decisions.
Really its a gimmick brought on initially to 'improve scoring and ensure fairness' or such. I remember King pushing it at the same time he was putting forth an aditional round if the fight ended in a draw. They had open scoring and still had a 118-109..so much for that idea.
It also deflates the atomsphere and as stated, the drama and the unknown. It can and has been manipulated. A fighter doesn't need a update on if hes ahead and how hes doing by some overhead mic. In a perfect world that is why they have a competent and thorough corner and trainer between rounds. Assume nothing and take nothing for granted. Bottomline is accountability and the judges have zero. They need reviews done and a rotation so as not to have a 'hometown' judge determining the same boxers outcome 10,12 times if it can be helped. Also put them on camera..shit introduce them exactly as the ref is before the bell, in the ring.
I don't like it nor do I dislike it. It doesn't really matter to me. But I will say this. Open scoring is a good indicator to find out which fighters are truly great, complete fighters. As well as which really want it. Case in point. The Alvarez-Trout fight. Lot of people complained that open scoring ruined the fight and also cost Trout the fight. There's no way around it. Them people are fucking idiots. Open scoring didn't cost Trout the fight. The better fighter Alvarez cost Trout the fight. Trout is a good fighter. But he's a one-dimensional fighter. He knew he was behind after the 8th. That gave him 4 rounds to try and go for the win. And he didn't. He increased his output a little. But at no time did he really seem to be going for the knock out. He accepted his loss. Open scoring gave him a chance. It gave him 4 rounds to prove his greatness. And he didn't. People claiming Alvarez coasted at the end are just fucking clueless. If he would of coasted than he would of most likely lost the last 4 rounds. Which he did not. Trout just never went for it
Yes I know some of the predictable, less knowledgeable posters will counter with knocking out fighters isn't Trout style and he shouldn't be expected to do so. I say shut the fuck up and go learn some boxing. Pernell Whitaker possessed even less knock out power than Austin Trout. And knocking out people was diffidently not his style. That sure as hell didn't stop him from almost killing Diobleys Hurtado when he saw the fight and a huge payday against De La Hoya slipping away did it? No it did not. He scored the knock out cuz that's what great fighters do.
Definitely against it. Has too much influence in the Championship rounds. Especially with some of this scoring going on. Scoring should not be released until the end of the fight. Kind of takes the thrill out of it for some of the spectators.leave the influence up to the corners, not the judges.
If it aint broke don't fix it.
Boxing scoring is broke and open scoring fixes squat.
Clouds things even further.
Lets dummy it down for those playing Bingo at home during the fight.
Lets tell them what they are not watching.
Lets grab the nepotism and broadcast it during the fight.
Pathetic.
I can understand why some fans are against open scoring. It's something different, untested, a change that puts them on unfamiliar ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by Violent Demise
I want open scoring because it tells the losing fighter, in concrete terms, he has to do more or something different, instead of listening to a line of BS from his corner.
I want to give it a chance, it could turn out to be bad for boxing, but it could go the other way.
It's not going to be perfect, the thing I worry about most is the referee. Knowing the score could influence the ref. to stop a fight or let it go on.
It's one of the reasons I don't mind it.Quote:
Originally Posted by beenKOedI can understand why some fans are against open scoring. It's something different, untested, a change that puts them on unfamiliar ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by Violent Demise
I want open scoring because it tells the losing fighter, in concrete terms, he has to do more or something different, instead of listening to a line of BS from his corner.
I want to give it a chance, it could turn out to be bad for boxing, but it could go the other way.
It's not going to be perfect, the thing I worry about most is the referee. Knowing the score could influence the ref. to stop a fight or let it go on.
Lets keep this civil. Its the reason I do mind it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Violent DemiseIt's one of the reasons I don't mind it.Quote:
Originally Posted by beenKOedI can understand why some fans are against open scoring. It's something different, untested, a change that puts them on unfamiliar ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by Violent Demise
I want open scoring because it tells the losing fighter, in concrete terms, he has to do more or something different, instead of listening to a line of BS from his corner.
I want to give it a chance, it could turn out to be bad for boxing, but it could go the other way.
It's not going to be perfect, the thing I worry about most is the referee. Knowing the score could influence the ref. to stop a fight or let it go on.
If a guy settles for or blames a bs corner for not knowing hes losing doesn't he deserve what he gets?
If a fighter knows for a fact he's behind and fails to go for it, it's kind of hard to feel sorry for his assQuote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
Judging needs a rewrite but it's not open scoring. Take them away from ring side and give them the same camera angles we get.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
That KING 13 you brought up earlier is not all that bad. Like an extra inning.
There's a big difference watching a fight from ringside and behind a camera. They need to ringside. Give them monitors or something. But you can't not have them ringsideQuote:
Originally Posted by IamInuitJudging needs a rewrite but it's not open scoring. Take them away from ring side and give them the same camera angles we get.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
That KING 13 you brought up earlier is not all that bad. Like an extra inning.
Open scoring was the drizzling $#!ts when it was brought up years ago; it's still the drizzling $#!ts now...
I'm with that I just don't think a fighter needs a nanny. A quality corner and fighter can read the scene and fight and should never relax in hopes of judges. Judges will screw them regardless of open or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Violent DemiseIf a fighter knows for a fact he's behind and fails to go for it, it's kind of hard to feel sorry for his assQuote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
True enough. Maybe placed differently. Lots of blind spots for the ref let alone the judges. Locked up and away from all the distractions with a 360 view has some appeal. After all if you have to judge something you want to see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Violent DemiseThere's a big difference watching a fight from ringside and behind a camera. They need to ringside. Give them monitors or something. But you can't not have them ringsideQuote:
Originally Posted by IamInuitJudging needs a rewrite but it's not open scoring. Take them away from ring side and give them the same camera angles we get.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
That KING 13 you brought up earlier is not all that bad. Like an extra inning.
Intro them as the ref, and have them ring center at announce. Put faces on the map.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuitJudging needs a rewrite but it's not open scoring. Take them away from ring side and give them the same camera angles we get.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
That KING 13 you brought up earlier is not all that bad. Like an extra inning.
Not sure about the 13th either. There are fights that 'feel' or come out draws. Plus at end of 12 a guy comes off high, its all a massive finale only to have go cold, restart after a discussion etc.
How about shit can the whole works and start over again based on a 10 point must system from a spot w/o distraction? Boxing needs a total refit judging wise. I lament 15 rd title fights.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpicoliIntro them as the ref, and have them ring center at announce. Put faces on the map.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuitJudging needs a rewrite but it's not open scoring. Take them away from ring side and give them the same camera angles we get.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
That KING 13 you brought up earlier is not all that bad. Like an extra inning.
Not sure about the 13th either. There are fights that 'feel' or come out draws. Plus at end of 12 a guy comes off high, its all a massive finale only to have go cold, restart after a discussion etc.
A good shit canning is def overdue! But as long as the judges have some crooked jr. Jabba like Sullied'man watching over the shoulder they will always be distracted..and worse ;D. They need third party judge-ref reviews and evaluations.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuitHow about shit can the whole works and start over again based on a 10 point must system from a spot w/o distraction? Boxing needs a total refit judging wise. I lament 15 rd title fights.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpicoliIntro them as the ref, and have them ring center at announce. Put faces on the map.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuitJudging needs a rewrite but it's not open scoring. Take them away from ring side and give them the same camera angles we get.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
That KING 13 you brought up earlier is not all that bad. Like an extra inning.
Not sure about the 13th either. There are fights that 'feel' or come out draws. Plus at end of 12 a guy comes off high, its all a massive finale only to have go cold, restart after a discussion etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpicoliI'm with that I just don't think a fighter needs a nanny. A quality corner and fighter can read the scene and fight and should never relax in hopes of judges. Judges will screw them regardless of open or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Violent DemiseIf a fighter knows for a fact he's behind and fails to go for it, it's kind of hard to feel sorry for his assQuote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
Why would any fan object to a fighter knowing the official score as the fight moves along? What's the big problem?
I don't want them to have a nanny, I want them to know the score or you could say the truth.
Knowing the running score hasn't seemed to hurt other pro sports, I don't see why it would have a negative effect on boxing.
If the scores are going the wrong way, you know when to start booing.
;DQuote:
Originally Posted by beenKOedQuote:
Originally Posted by SpicoliI'm with that I just don't think a fighter needs a nanny. A quality corner and fighter can read the scene and fight and should never relax in hopes of judges. Judges will screw them regardless of open or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Violent DemiseIf a fighter knows for a fact he's behind and fails to go for it, it's kind of hard to feel sorry for his assQuote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
Why would any fan object to a fighter knowing the official score as the fight moves along? What's the big problem?
I don't want them to have a nanny, I want them to know the score or you could say the truth.
Knowing the running score hasn't seemed to hurt other pro sports, I don't see why it would have a negative effect on boxing.
If the scores are going the wrong way, you know when to start booing.
Against!!!!
I'm against it. Sam Peter quit on his stool against Vitali because of it. Now if he hadn't have known the score, he may have kept trying for the KO. Because he was so far behind, he just accepted it and quit, robbing the fans of their money's worth.
Canelo is a come forward fighter and people pay to see him because he brings KO power but knowing he was so far ahead he didn't even attempt to utilize it in the last few rounds because he knew the fight was in the bag.
Boxing is an entertainment business and for me open scoring has only had a negative affect on the entertainment factor of a fight.
Can someone give an example were open scoring has encouraged a boxer to turn the fight around?
I'm not in favour of this but if they (WBC) still want to use it would be better just to have it at the half way point. This at least allows the fight to play out better than after 4 & 8 rounds.
Sam Peter stayed on his stool because he was getting his ass kicked.Quote:
Originally Posted by bzkfn
Every pro sport is entertainment.
You weren't watching the same Canelo vs Trout fight I was, when Trout learned the official score his intensity jumped and if that fight had been 15 rounds I think he would have won.
Open scoring might be wrong for boxing, but I want to see it get a real trial.
A poll on this would've been nice. So far there's
12 - against
1 - for
2 - straddling the fence
I wonder how this compares to the general public.
My argument was that Alvarez' took away the entertainment factor and boxed off the back foot rather than in his usual come forward style. If he hadn't have known, he wouldn't have coasted and would have continue to press for the finish. You want to see fighters try for 12 rounds, and open scoring often elimanates this.Quote:
Originally Posted by beenKOed
I guess the only pro. I can think of is that a boxer will now when he's being robbed and knows that if he has no hopes of winning on scorecard he can go all out and try to get a KO.
That being said I much rather if no robbery were to take place and open scoring gives a whole new meaning to 4 corner post offense. So.....I'm against it.
Sir, how can one fighter kickback and relax when the other fighter is stepping up his intensity, now that's the beauty of open scoring. When the losing fighter starts fighting harder, the only thing the winning fighter can do is fight harder. Oh, hell yes brother, that's the beauty of open scoring.Quote:
Originally Posted by bzkfnMy argument was that Alvarez' took away the entertainment factor and boxed off the back foot rather than in his usual come forward style. If he hadn't have known, he wouldn't have coasted and would have continue to press for the finish. You want to see fighters try for 12 rounds, and open scoring often elimanates this.Quote:
Originally Posted by beenKOed
Open scoring, a beautiful thing!!!!
Give me one example of that happening in a fight? It certainly did not happen Saturday night. Once Trout was told that he was behind 6 rounds in round 8 he mentally folded and did not step up his intensity.It may have appeared that way a bit but its only because Alvarez stopped trying to impose his will.Oh hell no brother,that's the danger of open scoring and its a double edged sword and especially the guy who actually believed he was in the fight and possibly winning it. I can see the example you raised had they told Trout he was behind a point or two but that's not what happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by beenKOedSir, how can one fighter kickback and relax when the other fighter is stepping up his intensity, now that's the beauty of open scoring. When the losing fighter starts fighting harder, the only thing the winning fighter can do is fight harder. Oh, hell yes brother, that's the beauty of open scoring.Quote:
Originally Posted by bzkfnMy argument was that Alvarez' took away the entertainment factor and boxed off the back foot rather than in his usual come forward style. If he hadn't have known, he wouldn't have coasted and would have continue to press for the finish. You want to see fighters try for 12 rounds, and open scoring often elimanates this.Quote:
Originally Posted by beenKOed
Open scoring, a beautiful thing!!!!
Totally against
We were not watching the same fight--I've said this before--I did not see Trout fold up, slow down, or do anything except intensify his efforts after the KD in the 7th, after the 8th he was pushing Alvarez hard. Alvarez was tired, but he stepped up and intensified his own efforts. If the fight went 15, I think Trout had a very good chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuitGive me one example of that happening in a fight? It certainly did not happen Saturday night. Once Trout was told that he was behind 6 rounds in round 8 he mentally folded and did not step up his intensity.It may have appeared that way a bit but its only because Alvarez stopped trying to impose his will.Oh hell no brother,that's the danger of open scoring and its a double edged sword and especially the guy who actually believed he was in the fight and possibly winning it. I can see the example you raised had they told Trout he was behind a point or two but that's not what happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by beenKOedSir, how can one fighter kickback and relax when the other fighter is stepping up his intensity, now that's the beauty of open scoring. When the losing fighter starts fighting harder, the only thing the winning fighter can do is fight harder. Oh, hell yes brother, that's the beauty of open scoring.Quote:
Originally Posted by bzkfnMy argument was that Alvarez' took away the entertainment factor and boxed off the back foot rather than in his usual come forward style. If he hadn't have known, he wouldn't have coasted and would have continue to press for the finish. You want to see fighters try for 12 rounds, and open scoring often elimanates this.Quote:
Originally Posted by beenKOed
Open scoring, a beautiful thing!!!!
That's the fight I saw.
Open scoring could be a good thing for boxing, let's give it try.
If that's the case than didn't deserve to win and doesn't deserve to be call champion. After the 8th he had 4 rounds to go all out for the knock out. And didn't. He should of done what Pernell Whitaker did to Diobleys Hurtado when he was behind. And keep in mind Whitaker was even less of a knock out fighter than TroutQuote:
Originally Posted by IamInuitGive me one example of that happening in a fight? It certainly did not happen Saturday night. Once Trout was told that he was behind 6 rounds in round 8 he mentally folded and did not step up his intensity.It may have appeared that way a bit but its only because Alvarez stopped trying to impose his will.Oh hell no brother,that's the danger of open scoring and its a double edged sword and especially the guy who actually believed he was in the fight and possibly winning it. I can see the example you raised had they told Trout he was behind a point or two but that's not what happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by beenKOedSir, how can one fighter kickback and relax when the other fighter is stepping up his intensity, now that's the beauty of open scoring. When the losing fighter starts fighting harder, the only thing the winning fighter can do is fight harder. Oh, hell yes brother, that's the beauty of open scoring.Quote:
Originally Posted by bzkfnMy argument was that Alvarez' took away the entertainment factor and boxed off the back foot rather than in his usual come forward style. If he hadn't have known, he wouldn't have coasted and would have continue to press for the finish. You want to see fighters try for 12 rounds, and open scoring often elimanates this.Quote:
Originally Posted by beenKOed
Open scoring, a beautiful thing!!!!
I guess so because I saw a noticeable difference in Trout like a bag with the air let out after the eighth. I do not like the system or what it does to the fighters even though I think judging needs a refit. There is no sense going on about it. People can watch the fight for themselves and give it a grade on its influence. To me its as dimwitted as the half point idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by beenKOedWe were not watching the same fight--I've said this before--I did not see Trout fold up, slow down, or do anything except intensify his efforts after the KD in the 7th, after the 8th he was pushing Alvarez hard. Alvarez was tired, but he stepped up and intensified his own efforts. If the fight went 15, I think Trout had a very good chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuitGive me one example of that happening in a fight? It certainly did not happen Saturday night. Once Trout was told that he was behind 6 rounds in round 8 he mentally folded and did not step up his intensity.It may have appeared that way a bit but its only because Alvarez stopped trying to impose his will.Oh hell no brother,that's the danger of open scoring and its a double edged sword and especially the guy who actually believed he was in the fight and possibly winning it. I can see the example you raised had they told Trout he was behind a point or two but that's not what happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by beenKOedSir, how can one fighter kickback and relax when the other fighter is stepping up his intensity, now that's the beauty of open scoring. When the losing fighter starts fighting harder, the only thing the winning fighter can do is fight harder. Oh, hell yes brother, that's the beauty of open scoring.Quote:
Originally Posted by bzkfnMy argument was that Alvarez' took away the entertainment factor and boxed off the back foot rather than in his usual come forward style. If he hadn't have known, he wouldn't have coasted and would have continue to press for the finish. You want to see fighters try for 12 rounds, and open scoring often elimanates this.Quote:
Originally Posted by beenKOed
Open scoring, a beautiful thing!!!!
That's the fight I saw.
Open scoring could be a good thing for boxing, let's give it try.
Oh and I also noticed a difference in Alvarez around the same time. If his fans didn't so be it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Violent DemiseIf that's the case than didn't deserve to win and doesn't deserve to be call champion. After the 8th he had 4 rounds to go all out for the knock out. And didn't. He should of done what Pernell Whitaker did to Diobleys Hurtado when he was behind. And keep in mind Whitaker was even less of a knock out fighter than TroutQuote:
Originally Posted by IamInuitGive me one example of that happening in a fight? It certainly did not happen Saturday night. Once Trout was told that he was behind 6 rounds in round 8 he mentally folded and did not step up his intensity.It may have appeared that way a bit but its only because Alvarez stopped trying to impose his will.Oh hell no brother,that's the danger of open scoring and its a double edged sword and especially the guy who actually believed he was in the fight and possibly winning it. I can see the example you raised had they told Trout he was behind a point or two but that's not what happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by beenKOedSir, how can one fighter kickback and relax when the other fighter is stepping up his intensity, now that's the beauty of open scoring. When the losing fighter starts fighting harder, the only thing the winning fighter can do is fight harder. Oh, hell yes brother, that's the beauty of open scoring.Quote:
Originally Posted by bzkfnMy argument was that Alvarez' took away the entertainment factor and boxed off the back foot rather than in his usual come forward style. If he hadn't have known, he wouldn't have coasted and would have continue to press for the finish. You want to see fighters try for 12 rounds, and open scoring often elimanates this.Quote:
Originally Posted by beenKOed
Open scoring, a beautiful thing!!!!
You "go for the knockout"..... and it's sometimes the quickest way to get knocked out yourself. Knockouts are like homeruns in baseball. They come by themselves. To be forced to abandon your gameplan because you have to go for the homerun is just stupid. For someone who likes to accuse everyone of "not knowing shit about boxing"...... you certainly know even less than shit.