Open scoring, are you for or against?

[erics44]

i think open scoring is a rubbish idea too

its like knowing what the sex of your baby is before its born

[Beanflicker]

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.

[bigstinkybug]

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...

[TitoFan]

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.

[Master]

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.

[Spicoli]

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.

[Violent Demise]

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.