WBA: No Open Scoring!

[amat]

WBA: No Open Scoring!
"After this unfortunate situation, the WBA wants to make it clear that it has not approved or supported the implementation of this system..."
The Panama-based World Boxing Association has issued a release to inform boxing fans, media and public in general that it did not approve the implementation of the “open scoring” system during the WBA Welterweight championship fight between Miguel Cotto and Oktay Urkal, last Saturday in Puerto Rico. According to the WBA: “Without any prior official communication, during the rules meeting that took place after the weigh-in ceremony, Jose Peñagaricano, president of Puerto Rico Boxing Commission, informed the WBA supervisor, Mr. Jose Oliver Gomez, that the open scoring system would be in effect, which was taken with great surprise by the WBA. Mr. Peñagaricano said that such system was a rule of the Puerto Rico Commission, after what Mr. Gomez formally requested to have a copy of such rules, which never happened. After this unfortunate situation, the WBA wants to make it clear that it has not approved or supported the implementation of this system last Saturday, as it simply is not part of our rules.”

From Fightnews...

[amat]

Open scoring could be the worst idea in the history of boxing. How in the hell could something like this make it out of the suggestion box?

[Galaxy]

It's the 2nd worst idea, right behind the idea of having numerous alphabet groups!!!

[shza]

Open scoring could be the worst idea in the history of boxing. How in the hell could something like this make it out of the suggestion box?

To play devil's advocate:

1. Lampley was way over the top on Saturday with his non-stop criticism of open scoring and blaming Urkal's corner's throwing in the towel on it. He's just making excuses for the bullshit fight HBO put on. Merchant was right: in that fight it made absolutely no difference. Do you think Urkal wouldn't have known he had lost every round if the announcer hadn't told him? And the only other fight in which we've seen open scoring recently was Taylor vs. Ouma, which was also an obvious shutout. Neither fight would have been any different in the absence of open scoring.

2. This is the same with lots of fights. Everyone involved knows they're not close on the cards, so if you're PBF (I love him, but he does fight "smart"), you don't go crazy going for a KO in the 10th round because you know the fight's already in the bag as long as you don't fuck up. Or if you're Miranda, even when you know the fight's in the bag, you go for the KO anyway. For these fights, it makes no difference.

3. if you have a fight where the fighters think its a foregone conclusion who's winning, although (unbeknownst to them) the judges see it as a close fight, you end up (without open scoring) with one guy running the last three rounds when he should have been pressing the action, and making it a more exciting fight. Think ODH-Trinidad. That fight would have been better with open scoring. As would other fights like that.

4. In fights where both fighters think it's close, but (again, unbeknownst to them) the judges have it fairly (possibly unreasonably) wide, the guy who is behind is just going to keep fighting his same fight, not changing up tactics drastically or going for the KO, both of which would make for a more interesting fight. Think Toney-Peter I. That fight also would have been better with open scoring. I think both Hopkins-Taylor sleepers would have benefited from open scoring for this same reason (i.e., Hopkins would have gotten off his ass a little earlier and done something).

4b. This "the fighter deserves to know he's actually way behind despite he and the fans thinking it's even so he can do something about it before it's too late" aspect sounds in fairness, and is the general rule in every other sport. One can certainly distinguish these other sports (chiefly, that they have more hard-and-fast rules on what scores points--e.g., "you get 6 points in NFL football when the ball you have in your possession crosses the goal line"; not "you get points when the umpire deems that you've made a sweet enough spin move to break a couple tackles"). But I don't think the fairness point can be dismissed altogether. It has to be weighed against whatever extra excitement you think you're getting out of blind scoring.

5. True that in some other fights, open scoring would make them less exciting. Toney-Peter I *could* have been this way--if Peter was a runner. I'm sure we could come up with tons of other examples where each round was close, but the judges were giving all of the close rounds to one guy, and had that guy known, he would have gotten on his bike for the last 3 rounds of the fight instead of KTFO the other guy. The objective question is "how many fights are there in this category versus in categories 3 and 4"?

As I said, this is all devil's advocate. I still lean toward blind scoring just for the thrill of the announcement in a good, close fight. But I don't think it's the worst idea in the history of boxing. Allowing multiple sanctioning organizations to extort money for parallel tracks of bullshit mandatories was a much, much worse idea, for instance.

[shza]

It's the 2nd worst idea, right behind the idea of having numerous alphabet groups!!!

Haha! You posted as I was finishing my post up with the same sentiment. Haven't seen you in a while, but I figured if you were around you'd be with me on that note anyway. CC 97.

[Violent Bob]

Open scoring could be the worst idea in the history of boxing. How in the hell could something like this make it out of the suggestion box?

To play devil's advocate:

1. Lampley was way over the top on Saturday with his non-stop criticism of open scoring and blaming Urkal's corner's throwing in the towel on it. He's just making excuses for the bullshit fight HBO put on. Merchant was right: in that fight it made absolutely no difference. Do you think Urkal wouldn't have known he had lost every round if the announcer hadn't told him? And the only other fight in which we've seen open scoring recently was Taylor vs. Ouma, which was also an obvious shutout. Neither fight would have been any different in the absence of open scoring.

2. This is the same with lots of fights. Everyone involved knows they're not close on the cards, so if you're PBF (I love him, but he does fight "smart"), you don't go crazy going for a KO in the 10th round because you know the fight's already in the bag as long as you don't fuck up. Or if you're Miranda, even when you know the fight's in the bag, you go for the KO anyway. For these fights, it makes no difference.

3. if you have a fight where the fighters think its a foregone conclusion who's winning, although (unbeknownst to them) the judges see it as a close fight, you end up (without open scoring) with one guy running the last three rounds when he should have been pressing the action, and making it a more exciting fight. Think ODH-Trinidad. That fight would have been better with open scoring. As would other fights like that.

4. In fights where both fighters think it's close, but (again, unbeknownst to them) the judges have it fairly (possibly unreasonably) wide, the guy who is behind is just going to keep fighting his same fight, not changing up tactics drastically or going for the KO, both of which would make for a more interesting fight. Think Toney-Peter I. That fight also would have been better with open scoring. I think both Hopkins-Taylor sleepers would have benefited from open scoring for this same reason (i.e., Hopkins would have gotten off his ass a little earlier and done something).

4b. This "the fighter deserves to know he's actually way behind despite he and the fans thinking it's even so he can do something about it before it's too late" aspect sounds in fairness, and is the general rule in every other sport. One can certainly distinguish these other sports (chiefly, that they have more hard-and-fast rules on what scores points--e.g., "you get 6 points in NFL football when the ball you have in your possession crosses the goal line"; not "you get points when the umpire deems that you've made a sweet enough spin move to break a couple tackles"). But I don't think the fairness point can be dismissed altogether. It has to be weighed against whatever extra excitement you think you're getting out of blind scoring.

5. True that in some other fights, open scoring would make them less exciting. Toney-Peter I *could* have been this way--if Peter was a runner. I'm sure we could come up with tons of other examples where each round was close, but the judges were giving all of the close rounds to one guy, and had that guy known, he would have gotten on his bike for the last 3 rounds of the fight instead of KTFO the other guy. The objective question is "how many fights are there in this category versus in categories 3 and 4"?

As I said, this is all devil's advocate. I still lean toward blind scoring just for the thrill of the announcement in a good, close fight. But I don't think it's the worst idea in the history of boxing. Allowing multiple sanctioning organizations to extort money for parallel tracks of bullshit mandatories was a much, much worse idea, for instance.

Excellent post, mate. Very well reasoned. CC 155.

[Galaxy]

It's the 2nd worst idea, right behind the idea of having numerous alphabet groups!!!

Haha! You posted as I was finishing my post up with the same sentiment. Haven't seen you in a while, but I figured if you were around you'd be with me on that note anyway. CC 97.

cc to you too bro, been pretty busy lately. But yeah I'm with you.

[amat]

All very good points Shza and honest to god, when the open scoring thing was announced I also played devil's advocate. I think it was in a thread smashup made but I made a post similar to yours.

But now that it has been implemented, I think it's pretty clear that it just doesn't work. It takes away from the fight. I mean a fighter I'm sure has a pretty clear idea of what rounds he lost and what rounds he won. When a fighter hears the scorecards, and he thinks a fight is scored 1 round off, that is going to get into his head. And it is going to irk him a bit regardless of who that fighter is imo. And that's one dimension of boxing that really does not need to be introduced DURING a fight. Releasing the cards to the press and to the cornermen is fine imo. They did that throughout the 80's.

But to openly announce the cards before the fighters, fans ect is just wrong imo. It adds another element to the fight that really is unneeded. Plus it takes away from the drama of the fight. One of the most tense moments in my boxing life was the scorecards being announced after the Wright - Taylor fight. Would have been considerably less dramatic if open scoring was implemented for that one.

A+ post Shza it really was, CC, but I think the argument made is applied well on paper but not live for the fight.

[Taeth]

I think they should show the score after every round. Its like in soccer or football. It lets you know where you are. Way too many fighters think they are doing better than they are, and maybe knowing the actual score cards would stoke them to fight better. Castillo was the best example I can think of in the recent past against his opponent. He was very lucky to win that fight, and though I felt he was easily winning because he was landing the better shots he didn't look like was hitting the other guy more than he was being hit.

[shza]

All very good points Shza and honest to god, when the open scoring thing was announced I also played devil's advocate. I think it was in a thread smashup made but I made a post similar to yours.

But now that it has been implemented, I think it's pretty clear that it just doesn't work. It takes away from the fight. I mean a fighter I'm sure has a pretty clear idea of what rounds he lost and what rounds he won. When a fighter hears the scorecards, and he thinks a fight is scored 1 round off, that is going to get into his head. And it is going to irk him a bit regardless of who that fighter is imo. And that's one dimension of boxing that really does not need to be introduced DURING a fight. Releasing the cards to the press and to the cornermen is fine imo. They did that throughout the 80's.

But to openly announce the cards before the fighters, fans ect is just wrong imo. It adds another element to the fight that really is unneeded. Plus it takes away from the drama of the fight. One of the most tense moments in my boxing life was the scorecards being announced after the Wright - Taylor fight. Would have been considerably less dramatic if open scoring was implemented for that one.

A+ post Shza it really was, CC, but I think the argument made is applied well on paper but not live for the fight.

While (as I said) I agree with you emotionally here, I'm not sure why you say "now that it has been implemented, I think it's pretty clear that it just doesn't work." What fights have we seen it implemented in other Taylor-Ouma and Cotto-Urkal? Those fights don't prove to me that it doesn't work--they were both total shutouts any way you see it.

The other thing you said that got my attention there was the announcement at the end of Taylor-Wright would have been much less dramatic if there had been open scoring. I don't have the cards in front of me, so I don't know what the score was after 8, but I'm guessing it was pretty close then. So it seems like all you'd know at the end of the fight, prior to the announcement, is that the scores would be close. Which (a) you probably knew anyway and (b) if anything, would add to the excitement. No?

[Kev]

Open scoring could be the worst idea in the history of boxing. How in the hell could something like this make it out of the suggestion box?

To play devil's advocate:

1. Lampley was way over the top on Saturday with his non-stop criticism of open scoring and blaming Urkal's corner's throwing in the towel on it. He's just making excuses for the bullshit fight HBO put on. Merchant was right: in that fight it made absolutely no difference. Do you think Urkal wouldn't have known he had lost every round if the announcer hadn't told him? And the only other fight in which we've seen open scoring recently was Taylor vs. Ouma, which was also an obvious shutout. Neither fight would have been any different in the absence of open scoring.

2. This is the same with lots of fights. Everyone involved knows they're not close on the cards, so if you're PBF (I love him, but he does fight "smart"), you don't go crazy going for a KO in the 10th round because you know the fight's already in the bag as long as you don't F*** up. Or if you're Miranda, even when you know the fight's in the bag, you go for the KO anyway. For these fights, it makes no difference.

3. if you have a fight where the fighters think its a foregone conclusion who's winning, although (unbeknownst to them) the judges see it as a close fight, you end up (without open scoring) with one guy running the last three rounds when he should have been pressing the action, and making it a more exciting fight. Think ODH-Trinidad. That fight would have been better with open scoring. As would other fights like that.

4. In fights where both fighters think it's close, but (again, unbeknownst to them) the judges have it fairly (possibly unreasonably) wide, the guy who is behind is just going to keep fighting his same fight, not changing up tactics drastically or going for the KO, both of which would make for a more interesting fight. Think Toney-Peter I. That fight also would have been better with open scoring. I think both Hopkins-Taylor sleepers would have benefited from open scoring for this same reason (i.e., Hopkins would have gotten off his a** a little earlier and done something).

4b. This "the fighter deserves to know he's actually way behind despite he and the fans thinking it's even so he can do something about it before it's too late" aspect sounds in fairness, and is the general rule in every other sport. One can certainly distinguish these other sports (chiefly, that they have more hard-and-fast rules on what scores points--e.g., "you get 6 points in NFL football when the ball you have in your possession crosses the goal line"; not "you get points when the umpire deems that you've made a sweet enough spin move to break a couple tackles"). But I don't think the fairness point can be dismissed altogether. It has to be weighed against whatever extra excitement you think you're getting out of blind scoring.

5. True that in some other fights, open scoring would make them less exciting. Toney-Peter I *could* have been this way--if Peter was a runner. I'm sure we could come up with tons of other examples where each round was close, but the judges were giving all of the close rounds to one guy, and had that guy known, he would have gotten on his bike for the last 3 rounds of the fight instead of KTFO the other guy. The objective question is "how many fights are there in this category versus in categories 3 and 4"?

As I said, this is all devil's advocate. I still lean toward blind scoring just for the thrill of the announcement in a good, close fight. But I don't think it's the worst idea in the history of boxing. Allowing multiple sanctioning organizations to extort money for parallel tracks of bullshit mandatories was a much, much worse idea, for instance.

Excellent defense of what seems to be an unworkable system in practice. I actually applaud the governing bodies for trying something different. When the announcement was made a few months ago I was on the fence.

It is a fact that the two fights thus far to have open scoring were totally one sided and would probably have been better without.

But you do make a good point about fights like De La Hoya Trinidad or Hopkins Taylor.

As to Amat's point that the scoring could get inside a fighters head and mess him up I agree but what is wrong with that? Every football player, tennis player, formula one driver and basketball player has to cope with coming from behind.

I'm starting to think its a bad idea in practise but it could be useful in some fights.

[TitoFan]

If this is a vote, I'm voting "no open scoring." Forget the argument that: "It would've been good for this fight... or that fight." A rule's a rule. You either have it for ALL fights, or you don't have it at all. And when it works against a fight, it really sucks. And I'll tell you why:

Fans like to see fighters give their all until the final bell. It's bad enough when a fighter thinks he's winning... then blatantly coasts through the last three or four rounds. What happens if he KNOWS he's winning, say... a four-point lead with three rounds to go. Why should they even keep on fighting? Let's do like in chess, and have the guy on the losing end resign.

Point is... the suspense is not only good for the fans. It encourages the fighters to keep fighting until the end.

What I DO favor is making sure the scores after each round are locked in, with no possibility of tweaking or reconsidering after the fight. Too many times after a close fight, the collecting of the cards takes WAY too long. And when they finally read the results, it's almost always a convenient "draw." If I weren't so cynical, I might be OK with that. Scores from the previous 11 rounds (or 9, as the case may be), should already be tallied and tucked away, awaiting the judges scores for the last round. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist for this process to take only a few seconds.

So "NO" to open scoring, but I definitely think the scoring system can be improved overall.

[sexydarin]

They should fine the corner, of the fighter, who threw the towel in. Whoever hrows the towel in, just because his fighter is losing, should be penalized severely.

[Kev]

They should fine the corner, of the fighter, who threw the towel in. Whoever hrows the towel in, just because his fighter is losing, should be penalized severely.

Why? Only the referee can stop the fight, if he wanted it to continue he could have thrown it back at them.

Wouldn't happen? Watch Earl vs Katsidis last weekend

[The Boxer]

i don't see why people are against it so much. i can understand why people don't like it but to say it on of the worst idea's in boxing history is going overboard. it think its a good attempt at trying clean up boxing it's sometimes poor scoring. maybe having the judge have to have his scores announced after each round will make judges stop giving rounds to the more popular fighter when he's not winning. i really don't know what will happen but to say that it's one of the worst idea in boxing history is alittle over the top. especially when almost every fight you see on TV is a title fight figure that one out.

i personally boxing fans are way to critical. they'll never be happy. they need something to clomplain about. they'll always talk about how things use to be in an era that they weren't even around for ala max kellerman.