Open Scoring

Does anyone else think this ruins a fight?

I mean, we always get controversy in boxing, but is it best to have this explode after the fight or rather like during Solis vs Thompson at the weekend when the scores where announced at one point, a judge had Solis in front and it was being openly ridiculed by the commentators etc.

The judge himself must have felt a right prat and maybe started scoring the fight to try and match the other judges scoring....

So should be just wait until the end to hear the robbery being announced or should we realise during the fight it is going to be one...

The open scoring must also blow game-plans out of the water at times. Should a fighter go in with a defensive plan only to find out after a good few rounds that his plan isn't being appreciated by aggressive friendly judges. It must leave some fighters lost if they haven't been planning to fight in a different manner...

Whats the thoughts on this?

Don't like it....Fans think the home boy is losing...It could turn ugly.....

Also takes the excitement away of guessing who's won in a close fight..

Keep some things sacred I say

Yea agreed.

It ruined Alvarez vs Trout as well, as Trout realised he needed the KO after the 9th. Alvarez then gets on his bike and then what should be the most exciting rounds become nonsense.

Always great to hear the crowds reaction at the end as well (if the scoring is a surprise).

big fan of it for two reasons.

If a robbery is looking like taking place, then the fighter who is being robbed can at least try and go for a knockout. It also means that judges are more likely to judge fairly if they know they are being scrutinised as the even goes on.

Secondly, if a fighter is on the end of a hammering and is never going to win, then his corner can pull him out to save further damage. Not great for the fans but at least good for the health of the boxer. The fight that jumps to my mind was Peters vs Klitschko where it was open scoring.

You can see why some are in favour of it. Boxing is a sport were the participants have no knowledge of who is in front. That's what makes the sport so unique to me. Should a fighter have the right to know if he is being robbed by three people at ringside?

How would it have impacted Pacquiao - Bradley, for example?

Personally I just think a better standard of judging is all that's needed.

If he's on the end of a hammering then he should be pulled out anyway..

If a non punching boxer is being robbed then we could see the farce of an away fighter on top quitting because he can't win..

and Boxing looks even more stupid..

But you argued your case well...

Fair judging is the answer but how do we get it..

Adam D wrote:

If a robbery is looking like taking place, then the fighter who is being robbed can at least try and go for a knockout. It also means that judges are more likely to judge fairly if they know they are being scrutinised as the even goes on.

I don't like the fact that a fighter has to change his tactics and go for a KO when he, and the rest of the world, may believe he is doing really well. By changing tactics and going for KO he could end up being stopped himself, whereas if it goes to points and he loses a decision that only three people at ringside saw, he has the respect of the fans and canbelieve he won the fight (Lewis/Holyfield I )

Adam D wrote:Secondly, if a fighter is on the end of a hammering and is never going to win, then his corner can pull him out to save further damage. Not great for the fans but at least good for the health of the boxer. The fight that jumps to my mind was Peters vs Klitschko where it was open scoring.

That is a good example but my response to that fight would be it was obvious that Peter had lost every round. He was getting easily beaten and he and his team would have known that. Same in most fighters we watch where one guy gets a hiding.

I hate it. Get rid please.

Not a fan of it, personally. Appreciate what guys like Adam are saying in a lot of respects, but those kind of problems should really be solved by having competent judges / corner men in the first place.

As Reborn has just said, the Trout-Alvarez fight is a decent example of open scoring just ruining the whole spectacle. After eight rounds, most see the fight as being on the razor's edge, with either man potentially up by a point or so. Instead, Trout learns that the judges have basically no interest in rewarding his style of boxing, so he has to adapt and try to chase / walk Alvarez down, which isn't his style. Would also surely have had an adverse effect on his focus and mindset knowing that, essentially, he was out of the fight by that stage when he really shouldn't have been.

Alvarez, in contrast, can just take it easy and play it safe in the late stages, which the fans aren't going to be too keen on.

Takes away some of the excitement from a spectator point of view, and arguing that it might prevent fighters from being jobbed on the cards if they know what they have to do in the final few rounds is just too convenient a way of alleviating responsibility from the judges who produce those cards in the first place.

Not one of Sulaiman's best ideas, the only saving grace being that he left it up to each individual athletic commission to decide if they wanted to use open scoring in their state. Credit to those who have so far refused!

Agreed also factor in with stinkers like Paulie...Once he realises he's up more rounds than are left..

It's survival mode x 2