Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Open Scoring: Poll Added!
FightHype Community > BOXING HYPE > Boxing
The Original 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.
Jack 1000
No!

Boxing got along just fine for 50-100 years without open scoring. The same issues show the negatives outweigh the positives:

  • Boxers going into track meets knowing they are ahead
  • Boxers giving up knowing they are behind.
  • Fan's will stop watching when a fight is so one-sided. I stopped scoring, and didn't care anymore with the Alvarez-Trout scores were read. (round 8)
  • Fighters could get a head-butt from an accidental head-butt, know they are ahead on the cards, QUIT AFTER the fourth round-win a technical decision.
  • Judges may be inclined to question thir scores if not in synch with the others.
  • All suspense is lost. Instead of one fight, with closed-scoring, you have a series of four-round mini-fights. Too wired.
  • Crowd security is an issue. There was a riot in a WBC fight in Italy where a champ lost due to Open Scoring.
  • Open Scoring, which is a violation of Unified Rules is not allowed in the USA. Apparently, Texas who uses it has no regard for its own rules.
  • Open Scoring was tried in the 70's-90's failed every time.
  • Most commissions have nullified this WBC rule, exceptions are Japan, Texas, a few regions of Mexico, perhaps a few others.
  • Open Scoring does not make judging account ability better. Instead provide better review for judges with controversial cards after the fight.

The video below that I also put in the Alvarez-Trout Spoiler thread outlines these points, beautifully.

http://fightnetwork.com/news/38070:fn-vide...ng-robbed-fans/

Jack
The Original MrFactor


Boxers going into track meets knowing they are ahead====> Doesnt this happen now? Ask Oscar how that worked out for him.
Boxers giving up knowing they are behind----> Unless you hit like Tim Bradley, the home run is always a possibility. Michael Nunn/James Toney is one that comes to mind.
Fan's will stop watching when a fight is so one-sided. I stopped scoring, and didn't care anymore with the Alvarez-Trout scores were read. (round 8)---I think this changes if the scores are announced after EACH round. Fight plans can get altered after each round. Mosley?Alvarez and Mosley/Pacquiao were that way. After the 7th, we were ready for them to be over.
Fighters could get a head-butt from an accidental head-butt, know they are ahead on the cards, QUIT AFTER the fourth round-win a technical decision.--Rules can be changed to reflect the times. I remember 15 rounders like they were yesterday...
Judges may be inclined to question thir scores if not in synch with the others. ---They do that according to crowd noise, now.
All suspense is lost. Instead of one fight, with closed-scoring, you have a series of four-round mini-fights. Too wired.= It should be after every roud, as in other sports. It would promote better match ups
Crowd security is an issue. There was a riot in a WBC fight in Italy where a champ lost due to Open Scoring.---The risk you run in any sports event. Let the refs make a bad call in the Falcons/Saints rivalry.
Open Scoring, which is a violation of Unified Rules is not allowed in the USA. Apparently, Texas who uses it has no regard for its own rules.----Again, rules and laws can be changed.
Open Scoring was tried in the 70's-90's failed every time. Was it the way I described or every 4 or 5 rounds?
Most commissions have nullified this WBC rule, exceptions are Japan, Texas, a few regions of Mexico, perhaps a few others.[/===It can be un-nullified.
[b]Open Scoring does not make judging account ability better. Instead provide better review for judges with controversial cards after the fight.
------Having 5 judges, 3 ringside and 2 backroom monitor with no commentary, may offset some of the crazy scores we see.

The video below that I also put in the Alvarez-Trout Spoiler thread outlines these points, beautifully.

daprofessor
QUOTE (Jack 1000 @ Apr 24 2013, 03:28 PM) *
No!

Boxing got along just fine for 50-100 years without open scoring. The same issues show the negatives outweigh the positives:

  • Boxers going into track meets knowing they are ahead
  • Boxers giving up knowing they are behind.
  • Fan's will stop watching when a fight is so one-sided. I stopped scoring, and didn't care anymore with the Alvarez-Trout scores were read. (round 8)
  • Fighters could get a head-butt from an accidental head-butt, know they are ahead on the cards, QUIT AFTER the fourth round-win a technical decision.
  • Judges may be inclined to question thir scores if not in synch with the others.
  • All suspense is lost. Instead of one fight, with closed-scoring, you have a series of four-round mini-fights. Too wired.
  • Crowd security is an issue. There was a riot in a WBC fight in Italy where a champ lost due to Open Scoring.
  • Open Scoring, which is a violation of Unified Rules is not allowed in the USA. Apparently, Texas who uses it has no regard for its own rules.
  • Open Scoring was tried in the 70's-90's failed every time.
  • Most commissions have nullified this WBC rule, exceptions are Japan, Texas, a few regions of Mexico, perhaps a few others.
  • Open Scoring does not make judging account ability better. Instead provide better review for judges with controversial cards after the fight.

The video below that I also put in the Alvarez-Trout Spoiler thread outlines these points, beautifully.

http://fightnetwork.com/news/38070:fn-vide...ng-robbed-fans/

Jack


this.
The Original MrFactor
Do people stop watching football games that are blowouts at the end of the 3rd quarter? Of course they do. In football, basketball and baseball, there isnt a home run that can make up for huge point deficits. Boxing has that. You can still get knocked out with 1 second to go in the 12th round. Ala Mosley/Mayorga.

If the Saints are down 50-0 to the Falcons at the 2minute warning in the 2nd half, there's no coming back. In boxing there can always be a KO. I think open scoring after each round will work.
BrutUalBK
QUOTE (Jack 1000 @ Apr 24 2013, 02:28 PM) *
No!

Boxing got along just fine for 50-100 years without open scoring. The same issues show the negatives outweigh the positives:

  • Boxers going into track meets knowing they are ahead
  • Boxers giving up knowing they are behind.
  • Fan's will stop watching when a fight is so one-sided. I stopped scoring, and didn't care anymore with the Alvarez-Trout scores were read. (round 8)
  • Fighters could get a head-butt from an accidental head-butt, know they are ahead on the cards, QUIT AFTER the fourth round-win a technical decision.
  • Judges may be inclined to question thir scores if not in synch with the others.
  • All suspense is lost. Instead of one fight, with closed-scoring, you have a series of four-round mini-fights. Too wired.
  • Crowd security is an issue. There was a riot in a WBC fight in Italy where a champ lost due to Open Scoring.
  • Open Scoring, which is a violation of Unified Rules is not allowed in the USA. Apparently, Texas who uses it has no regard for its own rules.
  • Open Scoring was tried in the 70's-90's failed every time.
  • Most commissions have nullified this WBC rule, exceptions are Japan, Texas, a few regions of Mexico, perhaps a few others.
  • Open Scoring does not make judging account ability better. Instead provide better review for judges with controversial cards after the fight.

The video below that I also put in the Alvarez-Trout Spoiler thread outlines these points, beautifully.

http://fightnetwork.com/news/38070:fn-vide...ng-robbed-fans/

Jack



I agree with Jack, why try and fix something that isn't broken. We were far better off without knowing the scores until after the fight was done...despite the recent pisspoor job done in the Canelo vs Trout fight especially by Stanley Christoudolou i still liked it the way it was.
Amandla
I think its an all around thumbs DOWN for open scoring. Stick it in the bin.
mikE11
It doesn't really need to be debated.

If you haven't seen open scoring, but have seen maybe 10 distance fights, you can figure out that it would suck.

If you have seen open scoring in practice, you would know it sucks worse than you suspected it would.

Exceptions don't change the rule, they prove the rule.
Plah
Am I the only one with Factor here? I think it should be after each round. Fighters quitting because they are behind are just that, quitters. They aren't going to accomplish much in the sport anyways. I also liked the idea of having extra judges watching and scoring from different angles. And how dare everybody say that the way the fights are scored now isn't broken? (Well not the way but the people really).
aTYpicalTYrant
QUOTE (Plah @ Apr 24 2013, 09:06 PM) *
Am I the only one with Factor here? I think it should be after each round. Fighters quitting because they are behind are just that, quitters. They aren't going to accomplish much in the sport anyways. I also liked the idea of having extra judges watching and scoring from different angles. And how dare everybody say that the way the fights are scored now isn't broken? (Well not the way but the people really).


I think you are.... Even if the scoring was done after every round it still isn't guaranteed to prevent the issues expressed by @Jack earlier. It also could open the doors for winners via cheating. Can't it? It's safe to say that both fighters should be playing to WIN at ALL TIMES! That need is removed with Open Scoring. I honestly believe open scoring could/would prove to be a hindrance rather than not. I do like your idea of judges watching the fights from different angles though.
The Original MrFactor
QUOTE (aTYpicalTYrant @ Apr 24 2013, 09:28 PM) *
I think you are.... Even if the scoring was done after every round it still isn't guaranteed to prevent the issues expressed by @Jack earlier. It also could open the doors for winners via cheating. Can't it? It's safe to say that both fighters should be playing to WIN at ALL TIMES! That need is removed with Open Scoring. I honestly believe open scoring could/would prove to be a hindrance rather than not. I do like your idea of judges watching the fights from different angles though.



Please explain what you mean by "open door for winners via cheating." Using the present system, dont fighters still coast when they think they have it in the bag. Didn't DLH coast because he thought he had it won? It didnt turn out well fo him. However if each round was scored openly, he may have known that he still had work to do.
Jack 1000
No boxing problem has or will ever be fixed with open scoring. What needs fixed is greater accountability for judges who render controversial decisions. You also can't compare boxing to other sports where scores are known, such as team sports verses one-on-one combat. It's an apples are oranges scenario. Boxing has very little tradition left. Let's hold on to what we have.

I can't see any way that judging would be made better with open scoring. All you get is the opportunity to see bad scores before the end. If open scoring showed any hope of success it would not have been voted down when it was tried even as far back as the 40's. From the 40's to the present it has been voted own overwhelmingly. This is because the experiments have shown that Open Scoring does not fix bad scoring , I am in no way convinced that closed scoring is broken. Instead, it's the lack of accountability for poor judging that is broken and needs changing, not the scoring system itself.

A five judge panel? UGGHHHH! Don't they have that in the Olympics with the computer scoring and headgear? Olympic boxing is more fucked up and has sunk faster than the Titanic with the computer system and knockdowns counting for no more than clean scores. And if judges can't hit the button in time, the scores don't count. We will see how this changes with the next Olympics with head-gear abolished, and the 10-point must system. Hopefully they will use traditional three judge and closed scoring. Pro boxers will compete for the first time, which I think hurts the integrity and spirit of the Games.

Closed Scoring is like the 10-point must system. It may not be perfect, but its longevity shows it is the best model out there. I will consent to the use of more dominate rounds scored as a 10-8 without a knockdown, and more even rounds scored 10-10. This would produce more realistic scorecards. Currently, the 10-9 model has no distinction between a fighter who barely wins a round 10-9, and a fighter who dominates a round without a knockdown also scored 10-9. And if a round really feels even, why is it wrong to score it 10-10? I do that.

Jack


mrchitown
I've never liked open scoring and I feel it needs to be done away with. I could careless about how it went down in the fight this past weekend. It's just another unnecessary rule in the sport..how can you have open scoring when you haven't even implemented a judge accountability rule? It's issues that need to be fixed withing the scoring system and their just adding shit on top of shit
mgrover
I DONT LIKE IT. that is all
aTYpicalTYrant
QUOTE (The Original MrFactor @ Apr 24 2013, 09:36 PM) *
Please explain what you mean by "open door for winners via cheating." Using the present system, dont fighters still coast when they think they have it in the bag. Didn't DLH coast because he thought he had it won? It didnt turn out well fo him. However if each round was scored openly, he may have known that he still had work to do.


That's the point I am making. Thinking and knowing are totally different. There is not much incentive for a fighter way ahead on the scorecards to maintain activiTY in a fight. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "cheating" but it is still unfair none the less. Not only to the fighters but also to the fans....
Cshel86
I'm in the minority here, I voted for unsure.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, open scoring sucks and I hate, BUT there are some other pressing and bun-chapping issues in the sport I'd like to see disappear. Choose one.

There will ALWAYS be bad score cards in boxing...they've seemed to turn a blind eye to it since day one. However, open scoring only seems to be horrible when the Austin Trouts of the world, would much rather pitty-pat and pussyfoot his way through a fight that he KNEW he had a big chance of getting shafted in, had it gone to the cards.

The other kicker with open scoring, is the effect that it takes out of the fight. We all saw it last weekend...why take any chances in the final round, if you already know that you've "won" the fight?

Open scoring wouldn't be such a bad thing if the judges weren't so horrible. Again, there are other things that I'd like to see leave the sport, before open scoring.
Cshel86
QUOTE (The Original MrFactor @ Apr 24 2013, 04:32 PM) *
Do people stop watching football games that are blowouts at the end of the 3rd quarter? Of course they do. In football, basketball and baseball, there isnt a home run that can make up for huge point deficits. Boxing has that. You can still get knocked out with 1 second to go in the 12th round. Ala Mosley/Mayorga.

If the Saints are down 50-0 to the Falcons at the 2minute warning in the 2nd half, there's no coming back. In boxing there can always be a KO. I think open scoring after each round will work.

I almost made that mistake during the Eagles/Giants Week 15, when Philly came alllll the way back to beat NY. Classic game!
mgrover
QUOTE (Cshel86 @ Apr 25 2013, 02:39 PM) *
There will ALWAYS be bad score cards in boxing...they've seemed to turn a blind eye to it since day one. However, open scoring only seems to be horrible when the Austin Trouts of the world, would much rather pitty-pat and pussyfoot his way through a fight that he KNEW he had a big chance of getting shafted in, had it gone to the cards.


So what your saying is that fighters should always go for a KO and forget boxing principles just because fear of the cards? I'd rather fix the root of the problem. Fire judges and bring in some fresh meat.
daprofessor
hate is not in my vocabulary...but i do not want or like it.
Cshel86
QUOTE (mgrover @ Apr 25 2013, 01:44 PM) *
So what your saying is that fighters should always go for a KO and forget boxing principles just because fear of the cards? I'd rather fix the root of the problem. Fire judges and bring in some fresh meat.

Didn't Salido do it? Twice? Didn't JMM just do it, after being shafted 2 or 3 times? I mean sheesh, I know these fighters fight for a living and dont care much about watching other fights, but they should really consider taking pages from other fighters' books.

I cant remember the scores from the first Salido/Lopez fight when the stoppage occurred, but the fix was definitely in for the second fight...before Salido scored yet another TKO.

I agree with firing the judges, but that's in a perfect world. These guys are fighters, and they should take things into their own hands when they have the control to do it (fighting). A judge cant get in there and fight for the favored fighter. A crooked promoter cant get in there and throw a punch for the favored fighter. Only the fighters can do this, but what do they? They leave it in the hands of somebody who hasn't put in ANY hard to compete that night.

Was Trout going balls to wall before he got dropped? Nope. He was boxing, or prepared to box anyway. I understand that neglecting boxing skills can spell "trouble", but being too cautious and naive about the judges scoring it fairly when you're fighting a clear favorite with 38k fans and promoters backing him up, is crazy.

Trout's talk leading up to the fight, told us all that we needed to know. All of that "If this fight is close, they wont give it to me" nonsense, is EXACTLY what happened. From what I understand, Trout's team wanted different judges, but they're request was denied, so he should've known how to approach the fight. NOW, he can talk on and on about how good of a boxer he is, but fact is, he's now in the back seat, he has NO rematch clause, and Canelo is about to land some big money fights.

My first thought is, if some of these guys were as good a boxer as they claimed to be, then they wouldn't be on the "deal with it" end of decisions this often. LOL
mgrover
QUOTE (Cshel86 @ Apr 25 2013, 07:36 PM) *
Didn't Salido do it? Twice? Didn't JMM just do it, after being shafted 2 or 3 times? I mean sheesh, I know these fighters fight for a living and dont care much about watching other fights, but they should really consider taking pages from other fighters' books.

I cant remember the scores from the first Salido/Lopez fight when the stoppage occurred, but the fix was definitely in for the second fight...before Salido scored yet another TKO.

I agree with firing the judges, but that's in a perfect world. These guys are fighters, and they should take things into their own hands when they have the control to do it (fighting). A judge cant get in there and fight for the favored fighter. A crooked promoter cant get in there and throw a punch for the favored fighter. Only the fighters can do this, but what do they? They leave it in the hands of somebody who hasn't put in ANY hard to compete that night.

Was Trout going balls to wall before he got dropped? Nope. He was boxing, or prepared to box anyway. I understand that neglecting boxing skills can spell "trouble", but being too cautious and naive about the judges scoring it fairly when you're fighting a clear favorite with 38k fans and promoters backing him up, is crazy.

Trout's talk leading up to the fight, told us all that we needed to know. All of that "If this fight is close, they wont give it to me" nonsense, is EXACTLY what happened. From what I understand, Trout's team wanted different judges, but they're request was denied, so he should've known how to approach the fight. NOW, he can talk on and on about how good of a boxer he is, but fact is, he's now in the back seat, he has NO rematch clause, and Canelo is about to land some big money fights.

My first thought is, if some of these guys were as good a boxer as they claimed to be, then they wouldn't be on the "deal with it" end of decisions this often. LOL


It seems to come down to, if Trout had some power his punches would of looked more impressive and potientally stopped Canelo but if Canelo had no power he'd be in the same boat but would of clearly lost the fight. I thought it was about who was the better boxer not go could land the harder shots. You say Trout landed pitter patter yet he backs Canelo onto the ropes in the round he was dropped I think
Cshel86
QUOTE (mgrover @ Apr 25 2013, 08:33 PM) *
It seems to come down to, if Trout had some power his punches would of looked more impressive and potientally stopped Canelo but if Canelo had no power he'd be in the same boat but would of clearly lost the fight. I thought it was about who was the better boxer not go could land the harder shots. You say Trout landed pitter patter yet he backs Canelo onto the ropes in the round he was dropped I think

I can dig most of your post. Really, I can.

As a matter of fact, I wont even dispute it. You're right, if Canelo had no power, then he'd be in the same boat...cant argue with that. The fact is, Canelo "appeared" to want the rounds more than Trout.

If Trout knew that he didn't have the power to hurt Canelo, then he should've been waaaay more busier than he appeared to be. It may seem like I'm asking Trout to do something that he may not be capable of, but hell, we've fighters with less power, take as much command of a fight as they could possibly take.

For instance, Paulie knows his identity in the ring. He knows that he doesn't have the power to hurt (or stop) his opponent, so what does he do? He goes out there, tries to jab the guy to death, slips as many punches as he can, uses good head movement, and goes from there.

Trout was just in a bad situation here.
sduck
There's some big cons about open scoring, how the judges can be easily swayed by the press and crowd during the fight. But they have the best viewing of the fight from the side of the rings, plus the notifications from the ref. If they scored it from a remote location, there could still be swindling in the judging, even made easier behind the lines.

On scoring the fight, you have to look at who is in control of the round, you can't just look at "skill" (this guy is more skilled so I'm picking him), you have to look at who's in control. And Canelo looked like he had greater control in the fight, that's what the judges and Showtime saw. Facial expressions do play a factor as well, when a guy (Trout) looks frustrated and in non-control he gives the other guy (Canelo) more respect to the eyes of the viewers.
Franchize
I don't get the purpose of it. It's not like it's ended bogus score cards (see Alvarez/Trout). It's not like it makes the fans feel more involved in the fight. All it does is kill the suspense and completely change fighter's psyche going into the championship rounds.
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.