Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Hey WBC! Open Scoring Still Sucks!
FightHype Community > BOXING HYPE > Boxing
Jack 1000
Now the WBC says that if commissions don't use it, the WBC supervisor will convey the scores to the corners after rounds 4 and 8? How is that better? It's still the same b.s. Two questions arise from this whole open scoring:

1.) Why was open scoring brought back when it failed in 1999 per the WBC representative? Was it something that Jose Sulaiman wanted to bring back. Was their a certain fight that led to a discussion of it's optional use at the WBC Convention? Has Jose forgotten that this was tried before? The WBA, IBF, WBO, Association of Boxing Commissions all see the red flags with this system, why can't WBC President Jose Sulaiman?

2.) Please research this. Can the local commission also reject private announcement of the scores to the corners in WBC title fights? Can the Association of Boxing Commissions tell the WBC representative, we don't want ANY announcement of the scores? Public OR Private until the end of the fight.

Here is former ABC head Greg Sirb, showing why Open Scoring does not work:

http://www.fightnews.com/Boxing/former-abc...280#more-104280

The thing is,

Open Scoring was tried several times in the past. And failed. terribly. After Lewis-Hoyfield I, terrible decision in 1999 several commissions experimented with different scoring systems. The WBA did a card in Washington DC with scores after ever round. On the same card, the WBC and IBF had a card with 4th and 8th round open scoring, and it sucked than, and it sucks now. The WBC supervisor at the time presented a report at their annual convention about open scoring's problems. (Canada's Mario Latraverse.) He cited the same reasons that Greg Sirb talked about in the link above. I have DESPISED open scoring for years, and will continue to do everything in my power to opposite it.

This is such a b.s rule. Commissions better keep nullifying this crap!

However, I do support the instant replay rule, so long as it does not detract from the nature of the fight, and the use of neutral officials for all world title fights, including a neutral referee.

Jack
DubC
Why not submitting the cards electronically instead of a piece of paper? If a judge errors, he can explain it to the WBC supervisor and allow him to say "yay or nay". Would take away this nonsense of scribbled out scores, like in the Peterson-Khan fight. It was clearly an error, and anyone who could have actually gave Khan that round (7 I think it was) would have to be a compete idiot.

Have them submitted electronically after each round, hell even have the judge(s) notate why they gave fighter X the round! A method like this would allow the commissions to get a better feel for the judges, and the incompetent ones should lose the privileges of judging a big fight. Demote them to lolfights to hone their skills and\or kick them to the streets.....


thoughts?
Cheesey1
On the surface, I tend to like the idea of open scoring, but as with most things in my life, I haven't given it much thought. Subject to some further thought on my part, my initial answer is that maybe it isn't such a bad thing.

Haha, damn, that was an evasive answer.
Cshel86
QUOTE (Cheesey1 @ Dec 14 2011, 06:44 PM) *
Haha, damn, that was an evasive answer.

Well...it aint easy being...well, Im sure you know the rest.

Cshel86
The good ol' WBC (Wittless Blind Cunts)...they never get the point. I dont know about this open scoring, and as Cheesey said, I haven't put much thought into it myself. Im ALL for the instant replay deal though...it just needs to be quickly conducted, if thats possible. Scoring will always such, no matter which method is used, who scores the fight, whatever.

This is how I look at most of the judges (except the experienced ones), and you can pick whichever of the 3 you'd like...

1. One will always be drunk
2. One will always be overly medicated
3. One will have bad vision
4. One will have some money placed on one of the fighters
5. One probably just had a steak dinner provided by a promoter the evening before
6. One will be a nuthugger
7. One will new to the game, and his/her card never fails the "Im new at this" test.
8. One will have been forced to the event under an unemployment threat so he/she wont even give a damn about the fight from jump.

When was open scoring last used? Was it the Lewis/Holyfield bout? Just curious...
Jack 1000
QUOTE (Cshel86 @ Dec 15 2011, 08:15 PM) *
The good ol' WBC (Wittless Blind Cunts)...they never get the point. I dont know about this open scoring, and as Cheesey said, I haven't put much thought into it myself. Im ALL for the instant replay deal though...it just needs to be quickly conducted, if thats possible. Scoring will always such, no matter which method is used, who scores the fight, whatever.

This is how I look at most of the judges (except the experienced ones), and you can pick whichever of the 3 you'd like...

1. One will always be drunk
2. One will always be overly medicated
3. One will have bad vision
4. One will have some money placed on one of the fighters
5. One probably just had a steak dinner provided by a promoter the evening before
6. One will be a nuthugger
7. One will new to the game, and his/her card never fails the "Im new at this" test.
8. One will have been forced to the event under an unemployment threat so he/she wont even give a damn about the fight from jump.

When was open scoring last used? Was it the Lewis/Holyfield bout? Just curious...


Holyfield-Lewis I's Draw verdict led to the experiment with open scoring and New Jersey's Consensus Scoring System. Even back in the 1940's there was a jurisdiction that did open scoring. In the 80's it was also tried, than for a time in the 90's. The WBC brought it back as an experimental basis at it's 2006 Convention, as if they had totally forgotten it's disasters in the past. Under the current system, the MC gives the scores of the judges after round 4 and 8. Any commission could decide not to use it.

Arkansas tried it with the Taylor-Ouma fight. Nobody liked it except the WBC. The US dumped it like the rotten garbage it is. The same with the United Kingdom. Japan is the country that had the most success with the optional open scoring in WBC fights, and uses it all the time. Germany uses it on and off. They did when Klitschko fought Peter, Peter heard the scores, which were a shutout for Klitschko and quit on his stool. The Association of Boxing Commissions nullified Open Scoring by a 32-1 vote at it's 2007 Convention, with only Arkansas in favor of it. However, majority rules in ABC jurisdictions. Mexico will probably have it more than in the past, because of the WBC's influence there. The WBA, IBF, and WBO have all rejected Open Scoring.

So what is it going to take for the WBC to kill it once and for all? (Any of these:)

1.) Some out of control riot due to a fight with open scoring, or a major crowd control problem.
2.) Getting Jose Sulaiman out of power as WBC President with a new President who opposes it and will get the Board of Governors to vote to reject it. This is unlikely, because Jose's son Mauricio, is likely to just follow Jose's policies when he does step down.
3.) Nullification of this rule before all WBC title fights by the local commission.
4.) Legal enforcement of a closed scoring system through the Association of Boxing Commissions, which the WBC cannot interfere with the scoring system
5.) A favorite son of the WBC, (i.e Chavez Jr.) is somehow on the end of a negative controversy or loss, due to open scoring.

Jack

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.