Open Scoring

[MrFactor]

I think many who hate open scoring and the way it was presented in the Canelo/Trout fight may have really hated it because of the horrific scores read in the 8th round. If that score reflected a dead even fight, I dont think there would be as much backlash. I think the score shown after the 8th round that showed Trout trailing badly that pissed everybody off. Many, including Trout(to some degree) thought the fight was pretty much over unless Trout got a KO. Hey, even Stevie Wonder's scorecard had it close after 8.

I think open scoring can be done with success. I think it should be done after each round. I know the crowd may then sway the judges at ringside, just a bit after the scores are read. I also think that maybe there should be 5 Judges. 3 at ringside and 2 in a secluded room with a few monitors watching the fight with no replays or commentary just to balance the sway of the crowd noise. The ringside judges, particularly for this fight may get swayed way too much by the crowd. The secluded judges will see the fight in a more objective way. As it is now, we know judges are only human and dont have the benefit of replay, as we do. So they may see a scoring shot that didnt really score. That was also very evident in Pacquiao/Bradley. I think that happened to the benefit or detriment of both guys in Canelo/Trout.

I think the 8th round score just gave us a preview of what we saw at the end when the scorecards were tallied. The disappointment was the same, just earlier. If they showed the scores after each round, then Trout could have decided to get busier earlier. Of course its going to change the way the guy fights. I dont see anything wrong with that. In football if you are down by 20 points late in the 2nd quarter, you might start passing more. You change your approach to try to score more. In football they dont hold the score until late in the 3rd quarter and you find out the score is 40 to 10. And your team is the one with 10. Outside of some miracle, your not gonna win. Lets the scores be shown after each round. The judges may even be more honest that way.

[BrutalBodyShots]

(04-24-2013 02:13 PM)MrFactor Wrote:  I think many who hate open scoring and the way it was presented in the Canelo/Trout fight may have really hated it because of the horrific scores read in the 8th round. If that score reflected a dead even fight, I dont think there would be as much backlash. I think the score shown after the 8th round that showed Trout trailing badly that pissed everybody off. Many, including Trout(to some degree) thought the fight was pretty much over unless Trout got a KO. Hey, even Stevie Wonder's scorecard had it close after 8.

I think open scoring can be done with success. I think it should be done after each round. I know the crowd may then sway the judges at ringside, just a bit after the scores are read. I also think that maybe there should be 5 Judges. 3 at ringside and 2 in a secluded room with a few monitors watching the fight with no replays or commentary just to balance the sway of the crowd noise. The ringside judges, particularly for this fight may get swayed way too much by the crowd. The secluded judges will see the fight in a more objective way. As it is now, we know judges are only human and dont have the benefit of replay, as we do. So they may see a scoring shot that didnt really score. That was also very evident in Pacquiao/Bradley. I think that happened to the benefit or detriment of both guys in Canelo/Trout.

I think the 8th round score just gave us a preview of what we saw at the end when the scorecards were tallied. The disappointment was the same, just earlier. If they showed the scores after each round, then Trout could have decided to get busier earlier. Of course its going to change the way the guy fights. I dont see anything wrong with that. In football if you are down by 20 points late in the 2nd quarter, you might start passing more. You change your approach to try to score more. In football they dont hold the score until late in the 3rd quarter and you find out the score is 40 to 10. And your team is the one with 10. Outside of some miracle, your not gonna win. Lets the scores be shown after each round. The judges may even be more honest that way.

I disagree. Open scoring sucks. Regardless of if the scores are shown throughout the fight or at the end of the fight the end result is the same. It should be left until the end of the fight.

Your argument about it making the fighter behind take more chances and fight harder may be true, but that's only half the argument and you didn't present the other half: It also makes the guy who has got the fight in the bag do nothing but get on his bike, tie up, clinch, and run out the clock. Any excitement possibly generated by the fighter that is behind will be nullified by the opponent just looking to coast across the finish line.

[MrFactor]

(04-24-2013 06:13 PM)BrutalBodyShots Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 02:13 PM)MrFactor Wrote:  I think many who hate open scoring and the way it was presented in the Canelo/Trout fight may have really hated it because of the horrific scores read in the 8th round. If that score reflected a dead even fight, I dont think there would be as much backlash. I think the score shown after the 8th round that showed Trout trailing badly that pissed everybody off. Many, including Trout(to some degree) thought the fight was pretty much over unless Trout got a KO. Hey, even Stevie Wonder's scorecard had it close after 8.

I think open scoring can be done with success. I think it should be done after each round. I know the crowd may then sway the judges at ringside, just a bit after the scores are read. I also think that maybe there should be 5 Judges. 3 at ringside and 2 in a secluded room with a few monitors watching the fight with no replays or commentary just to balance the sway of the crowd noise. The ringside judges, particularly for this fight may get swayed way too much by the crowd. The secluded judges will see the fight in a more objective way. As it is now, we know judges are only human and dont have the benefit of replay, as we do. So they may see a scoring shot that didnt really score. That was also very evident in Pacquiao/Bradley. I think that happened to the benefit or detriment of both guys in Canelo/Trout.

I think the 8th round score just gave us a preview of what we saw at the end when the scorecards were tallied. The disappointment was the same, just earlier. If they showed the scores after each round, then Trout could have decided to get busier earlier. Of course its going to change the way the guy fights. I dont see anything wrong with that. In football if you are down by 20 points late in the 2nd quarter, you might start passing more. You change your approach to try to score more. In football they dont hold the score until late in the 3rd quarter and you find out the score is 40 to 10. And your team is the one with 10. Outside of some miracle, your not gonna win. Lets the scores be shown after each round. The judges may even be more honest that way.

I disagree. Open scoring sucks. Regardless of if the scores are shown throughout the fight or at the end of the fight the end result is the same. It should be left until the end of the fight.

Your argument about it making the fighter behind take more chances and fight harder may be true, but that's only half the argument and you didn't present the other half: It also makes the guy who has got the fight in the bag do nothing but get on his bike, tie up, clinch, and run out the clock. Any excitement possibly generated by the fighter that is behind will be nullified by the opponent just looking to coast across the finish line.

Isnt the term "run out the clock," a football term? My point in asking is, that it happens in sports other than boxing. The difference with boxing is that you dont have subs you can put in to finish the fight. The way fights end can be tweaked. Perhaps a bonus could be added for the championship rounds or something to incentivise fighting till the end. Or add a an extra point for a knockdown after the 10th. Still the KO part of the sport remains. You can lose 11 straight rounds and stop the other guy in the 12th and walk home winning.

[salvador]

I don't think you would need open scoring if you had good/honest judges.

The only reason anyone wants open scoring is because such a huge number of scorecards are so totally corrupt and honest fighters don't see the robberies coming.

I don't buy the "swayed by the crowd" argument at all either because that is just an excuse for the judges to score the close rounds for the money fighter.

Corruption is the cancer in boxing. Fix that first.

The best fights are close with both fighters going all out in the 12th, which, of course, would change if one fighter knew all he had to do was finish a fight.

[MrFactor]

Open scoring would also light a fire under the promoters. There would be better match ups and fan friendly fights. You'll have a lot fewer 12-0 matchups on paper. There would be more Donaire/Rigoneaux type fights that are competitive til the end if open scoring was instituted. When promoters start seeing guys walk out after the 8th round, they'll promote more even matches. T-shirts and beer get sold after the 8th round too. With better match ups you wont have guys quitting on their stool because of a huge disparity in score.

[Young Bleed]

If a fighter knows for a fact that he's behind and fails to go for it, than he doesn't deserve to win

[JD]

I loathe open scoring. Competent judges are all we need - open scoring kills the flow of too many fights.

[and the NEW]

(04-24-2013 06:27 PM)MrFactor Wrote:  Isnt the term "run out the clock," a football term? My point in asking is, that it happens in sports other than boxing. The difference with boxing is that you dont have subs you can put in to finish the fight. The way fights end can be tweaked. Perhaps a bonus could be added for the championship rounds or something to incentivise fighting till the end. Or add a an extra point for a knockdown after the 10th. Still the KO part of the sport remains. You can lose 11 straight rounds and stop the other guy in the 12th and walk home winning.

Simply put, open scoring is anti-climactic.

I hope it is never used again, ever!

It doesn't work to stop corruption if the scoring is shown after every round. It doesn't help if the scoring is shown after every punch. HECK, look at amateur boxing!!!!

---

(04-24-2013 07:30 PM)MrFactor Wrote:  Open scoring would also light a fire under the promoters. There would be better match ups and fan friendly fights. You'll have a lot fewer 12-0 matchups on paper. There would be more Donaire/Rigoneaux type fights that are competitive til the end if open scoring was instituted. When promoters start seeing guys walk out after the 8th round, they'll promote more even matches. T-shirts and beer get sold after the 8th round too. With better match ups you wont have guys quitting on their stool because of a huge disparity in score.

lol, Rigo vs Donaire is a bad example, that was nearly a shutout!

And your idea could work in reverse. Guys could quit on their stool because the cards are BS and a shutout when in reality the fight is close. Again, reference amateur boxing. Open scoring will do fukc all to stop corruption. Again, reference the fight that started this debate, Alvarez vs Trout. Those judges were blind!

[MrFactor]

(04-24-2013 08:19 PM)and the NEW Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 06:27 PM)MrFactor Wrote:  Isnt the term "run out the clock," a football term? My point in asking is, that it happens in sports other than boxing. The difference with boxing is that you dont have subs you can put in to finish the fight. The way fights end can be tweaked. Perhaps a bonus could be added for the championship rounds or something to incentivise fighting till the end. Or add a an extra point for a knockdown after the 10th. Still the KO part of the sport remains. You can lose 11 straight rounds and stop the other guy in the 12th and walk home winning.

Simply put, open scoring is anti-climactic.

I hope it is never used again, ever!

It doesn't work to stop corruption if the scoring is shown after every round. It doesn't help if the scoring is shown after every punch. HECK, look at amateur boxing!!!!

---

(04-24-2013 07:30 PM)MrFactor Wrote:  Open scoring would also light a fire under the promoters. There would be better match ups and fan friendly fights. You'll have a lot fewer 12-0 matchups on paper. There would be more Donaire/Rigoneaux type fights that are competitive til the end if open scoring was instituted. When promoters start seeing guys walk out after the 8th round, they'll promote more even matches. T-shirts and beer get sold after the 8th round too. With better match ups you wont have guys quitting on their stool because of a huge disparity in score.

lol, Rigo vs Donaire is a bad example, that was nearly a shutout!

And your idea could work in reverse. Guys could quit on their stool because the cards are BS and a shutout when in reality the fight is close. Again, reference amateur boxing. Open scoring will do fukc all to stop corruption. Again, reference the fight that started this debate, Alvarez vs Trout. Those judges were blind!

My point was that it was a great Matchup til the end because Donire was athreat all fight long. That fight could have changed at any moment with a KO punch from really either guy. Its just that Donaire needed it more. If open scoring was around for DLH/Trinidad, DLH may not have biked it for the last few caus the scores were closer than the fight.

[BrutalBodyShots]

(04-24-2013 06:27 PM)MrFactor Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 06:13 PM)BrutalBodyShots Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 02:13 PM)MrFactor Wrote:  I think many who hate open scoring and the way it was presented in the Canelo/Trout fight may have really hated it because of the horrific scores read in the 8th round. If that score reflected a dead even fight, I dont think there would be as much backlash. I think the score shown after the 8th round that showed Trout trailing badly that pissed everybody off. Many, including Trout(to some degree) thought the fight was pretty much over unless Trout got a KO. Hey, even Stevie Wonder's scorecard had it close after 8.

I think open scoring can be done with success. I think it should be done after each round. I know the crowd may then sway the judges at ringside, just a bit after the scores are read. I also think that maybe there should be 5 Judges. 3 at ringside and 2 in a secluded room with a few monitors watching the fight with no replays or commentary just to balance the sway of the crowd noise. The ringside judges, particularly for this fight may get swayed way too much by the crowd. The secluded judges will see the fight in a more objective way. As it is now, we know judges are only human and dont have the benefit of replay, as we do. So they may see a scoring shot that didnt really score. That was also very evident in Pacquiao/Bradley. I think that happened to the benefit or detriment of both guys in Canelo/Trout.

I think the 8th round score just gave us a preview of what we saw at the end when the scorecards were tallied. The disappointment was the same, just earlier. If they showed the scores after each round, then Trout could have decided to get busier earlier. Of course its going to change the way the guy fights. I dont see anything wrong with that. In football if you are down by 20 points late in the 2nd quarter, you might start passing more. You change your approach to try to score more. In football they dont hold the score until late in the 3rd quarter and you find out the score is 40 to 10. And your team is the one with 10. Outside of some miracle, your not gonna win. Lets the scores be shown after each round. The judges may even be more honest that way.

I disagree. Open scoring sucks. Regardless of if the scores are shown throughout the fight or at the end of the fight the end result is the same. It should be left until the end of the fight.

Your argument about it making the fighter behind take more chances and fight harder may be true, but that's only half the argument and you didn't present the other half: It also makes the guy who has got the fight in the bag do nothing but get on his bike, tie up, clinch, and run out the clock. Any excitement possibly generated by the fighter that is behind will be nullified by the opponent just looking to coast across the finish line.

Isnt the term "run out the clock," a football term? My point in asking is, that it happens in sports other than boxing. The difference with boxing is that you dont have subs you can put in to finish the fight. The way fights end can be tweaked. Perhaps a bonus could be added for the championship rounds or something to incentivise fighting till the end. Or add a an extra point for a knockdown after the 10th. Still the KO part of the sport remains. You can lose 11 straight rounds and stop the other guy in the 12th and walk home winning.

Regardless of what term it is, you get my point. The bottom line is that regardless of the sport we're talking, once the team or in the case of boxing individual knows they've got the game or fight won all they have to do is everything in their power to be lackluster and just get over the finish line. By not having open scoring it's a big gamble to fight like that so generally speaking guys dont, and those that do might end up getting burned ala DLH against Trinidad.