Scoring question

A few months back (it might have even been a year) I watched a fight with one of the K brothers.

During the fight (which was in Germany), the judges scorecards were announced during the bout as it went along. Is this normal for one of the ogverning bodies or am I dreaming this?

I am sure it was around the 8th round, the boxer (might have been Shannon Briggs or Eddie Chambers) was already losing all of the rounds and looked like quitting.

Do you think that letting boxers know as you go along is a good thing?

It's called ' open scoring, ' Hobo, and has been tried at various times throughout history. Ali v Shavers featured open scoring, for example.

It certainly has its merits, since scoring is more transparent and interactive, but as you imply there are psychological implications for the fighters.

Arguments for both sides, really.

The WBC introduced it, and I really don't like it. You are probably thinking of Vitali vs Peter. Peter basically quit because he knew he was too far behind. It's been proven to be a failure, people just stop engaging if they know they are ahead. Can't remember the last time I saw open scoring though.

It was something introduced by the WBC for the fight with Samuel Peter but hasn't be used since as whenever there's more than one title on the line, the boxing Bodies can't agree on it.

The principle behind it is sound enough. Fighter A thinks, "Round eight and I'm five points behind, I need to knock this guy down or out. Time to go to work" However, all it inspired Peter to do was think, "Wonder if I can still catch that movie at the hotel, if I leave now, I might just make it!"

No...................

1. It could lead to assualt or a riot..especially if you have a mexican judge doing a WBC fight!!

2. It could lead to a guy just spoiling the last few rounds knowing he's miles ahead.

3. You lose the suspense of the decision at the end of a close fight.

That was the fight - cheers guys. Cant believe it was so long ago! It felt like a few months ago that I watched it.

I like the idea as it would spur some fighters on, and it would eradicate bad decisions (or certainly reduce them).

If a fighter quits because he is being badly beaten up (as was Peter in this fight) , is that a bad thing? Maybe for blood hungry fans looking for a knockout but not for the boxers health.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:3. You lose the suspense of the decision at the end of a close fight.

I agree Truss (!), there's nothing quite like that little bit of time when the announcer says "Winner, and..." and you wait for either "new" or "still".

Hobo wrote:
I like the idea as it would spur some fighters on, and it would eradicate bad decisions (or certainly reduce them).

If a fighter quits because he is being badly beaten up (as was Peter in this fight) , is that a bad thing? Maybe for blood hungry fans looking for a knockout but not for the boxers health.

I don't think so. A judge sees his score is off from the others, he will look to balance it with the remaining rounds. You should judge each in isolation and without knowing how anyone else is voting.

I personally think they should go for the knockout if they can't win a decision. It's the world title, should mean a lot to win it.

Union Cane wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:3. You lose the suspense of the decision at the end of a close fight.

I agree Truss (!), there's nothing quite like that little bit of time when the announcer says "Winner, and..." and you wait for either "new" or "still".

Except in Germany, of course, where they could make the announcement at the weigh in.

HumanWindmill wrote:

Union Cane wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:3. You lose the suspense of the decision at the end of a close fight.

I agree Truss (!), there's nothing quite like that little bit of time when the announcer says "Winner, and..." and you wait for either "new" or "still".

Except in Germany, of course, where they could make the announcement at the weigh in.

Or as they call it, a split decision.

With modern methods all the rage it seems, why don't the Germans make use of these new technological advances and simply put the result on Twitter before the fight's even been arranged. Save a lot of time and money and that way, we could all hold a win over everyone else in the world....except Tyson Fury!

As has been said Hobo you are not going crazy as the WBC has brought it back, although it's great in some ways, there are far more disadvantages in my view, it's good to know if we have a judge halfway through the bout that doesn't seem to be watching the same fight as everyone else, means we can just hang him right there and then, but as has been said it's too easy for fighters to take their foot of the gas or quit. Although they don't come much more corrupt than the WBC it should keep the judges on their toes.

Still having a go at the Germans I see...Old insecurites die hard it seems...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Still having a go at the Germans I see...Old insecurites die hard it seems...

Yes, thanks for helping us out there Truss, after all, without you we'd all be sprecking the deutsch wouldn't we.

Now you mention it.........

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Still having a go at the Germans I see...Old insecurites die hard it seems...

Aye, all that genocide and dodgy scoring (be it boxing or disallowed World Cup goals) can really grind one's gears!

So ist es, meine Freunde.

So that's it..It's not the anti-sematic stuff or the genocide that's the problem......

It's the fact they keep turfing you out of the World cup..

Sorry we can help with alot of things like re-arming, supplying submarines etc but scoring penalties is down to you..

Nah, wasn't penalties, it was Lampard's shot that was a good two feet over the line which would have had the Germans rattled (conceding two goals in ten minutes) creating a shift in momentum which would have undoubtedly led to England lifting the World Cup...but we'll never know now will we?!!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!

By the way, Argentina keep doing it to us as well but we don't have any issues with them...no, hang on. What about Lionel Messi?

AAARRRGGGHHH!!!!!!!!

DAVE667 wrote:Nah, wasn't penalties, it was Lampard's shot that was a good two feet over the line which would have had the Germans rattled (conceding two goals in ten minutes) creating a shift in momentum which would have undoubtedly led to England lifting the World Cup...but we'll never know now will we?!!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!

By the way, Argentina keep doing it to us as well but we don't have any issues with them...no, hang on. What about Lionel Messi?

AAARRRGGGHHH!!!!!!!!

But at least there is some solace in our club teams Dave, oh wait

You actually beat Argentina on your own though didn't you...

Personally it should be done away with I believe. Nothing beats the suspense of waitig for a decision, especially during a close fight. Plus the effect it has on a boxer could be damaging during the fight.

In germany everyone knows the scores per round even before the fight anyway so its meaningless there.

I think the theory of it is sound enough as long as they dont announce it after every round. Announcing it after the 4th round and then again in the 8th round I think makes more sense.

In general, a one sided fight is going to be apparent to both fighters and their corners anyhow. I dont think Peter needed an announcement to inform him he was way behind for instance. His corner knew he hadnt won a round.

But if after 8 they announce it and its close then it gives both fighters incentive to try and really go for the last few rounds to get the win. It also doesnt rob the audience of the suspense at the end as they know the fight can still go either way.

If they announce it any later than 8 rounds then it has the potential to cause spoiling and effectively be reading out the result early.

Either announce it twice (4th + 8th) or once (6th). That way the positives are maximise and weaknesses minimised.

I wonder if many bouts ould have gone down differently had they employed scoring in running?

Im thinking if fights like Conn v Louis, De la Hoya v Trinidad, Hagler v Leonard and so on. Would the scoring have changed anything?

Wouldn't have changed a thing!!!

conn got carried away after rocking Louis and still needed to win at least a round anyway..

Leonard-Hagler's fight had already found it's pace and by the ninth Hagler couldn't really up it..

As with the other fight.

With Oscar winning the first eight rounds, it may have proved difficult to give Trinidad the fight just because Oscar got on his bike for the final three.

Of course, maybe maths is different overseas