Open Scorecards...Good idea...bad idea??

without them, the main fight would've probably gone on for longer. which i dont think is necessarily a good thing. depends on the mentality of the fighter overall and on the night. some will just go for broke and come out swinging, while others will just give up.

 

Without them Peter would have not have quit when he did and would have been KTFO in the next round. So for Peter it worked, and I think it is a good idea, as it prevents completely ludricous decisions from happening and gives a fighter with no excuses if they know the score after 4 and then 8 rounds.

 

yep i think they're a great idea, the boxer on the receiving end and his team can then decide wether to fight on or not, and risk an injury, unless they know the fighter has something left in the tank.

 

Generally a bad idea I would say.

 

Bad. I don't see any positives for it. It kills any suspense for the fans, and is likely to force more and more cowardly retirements.

A fighter knows if he's winning or losing in most cases and will go for it if neccessary. It is useless.

 

I think they are a good idea, just a shame we had another pathetic fighter on display last night.

 

(1) I think Peter and his corner would have known that they had lost just about every round without having to hear the cards read out. It just confirmed what they already knew. You can take the opposite view as well, saying that Peter would have known for definite that he needed a KO, and so would have gone all out in the remaining rounds to try and take Vitali out; the kill or be killed mentality. It really depends on the circumstances and the boxers mindset: with some it would depress them to the point of quitting, with others it would spur them on.

(2) I don't see how it would prevent dodgy judges from returning dodgy cards, be it at the end of the 4th, the 8th or the full twelve rounds.

(3) It can work the other way too. Just look at Bell-Mormeck II, were Mormeck knew he had a handy lead after 8 rounds and basically ran the rest of the fight.

 

I'm really against this. I know in the fight last night it probably stopped Peter from shipping any more punishment but generally there are just too many potential downsides.

 

It's a good idea, obviously.

How many times have you been watching a fight and been asked by someone who just walked in "Who's winning?", and you have to say, "This guy looks like he's fighting better, but I can't tell you for sure because it's a secret."

What a crap rule.

You fight a round of boxing, but you only know if you won the round when the fights over and it's too late to do anything about it. :huh Bollocks.

It's not enough that this sport involves two topless men trying to touch each other for the duration, that's not gay enough for 'em, they make the score a secret until the end.

 

IIRC either NBC or ABC TV trialed showing the score every round in USA in the 80s and dropped it because it killed the suspense and lead to fighters "coasting" to wins.

 

Well if one fighter got so far ahead, to the point where they could "coast" to a win, and the opponent knew what the score was throughout. The guy who lost was either useless, or stupid.

 

I'm just telling you what happened when they actually did it. No guessing or conjecture, they tried it and didn't like it.

There are plenty of fights that both fighters/ corners may believe are close enough going into the last couple of rounds that both feel they still have a chance to win. In that situation to know that you can't win without a knockout would be a huge psycological blow.

What about the effect the open scoring has on crowds and their ability to affect judges? If the judge is getting booed all the time for his scores he could well start doubting himself or just scoring for the home fighter to keep the crowd onside.

For every positive you can give for open scoring theres a bigger negative.

 

Knowing what the score is works in every other sport in the world.

And that works the other way if you know the score. There are plenty of fights that one boxer thinks he's way ahead and coasts the final rounds, when he actually isn't; Sprott-Williams, Trinidad-De La Hoya... plus, it stops them moaning about decisions, because they knew and did nothing about it.

Not to mention clear terrible decisions like Holyfield-Lewis or De La Hoya-Sturm... which is the real main reason for open scoring.

If the scoring judges are delicate little things, put them in a soundproof booth give them a blanket. Gimme a break. Every sport has referees or judges, and crowds boo and cheer... boxing is not a unique one-off sport with magic crowds.

Even you don't really believe that. Only reason to keep secret scores is because that's the way boxing has always been, and people hate change. In reality, there are virtually no positives to a sport without scoring.

 

As I said for every positive fight scenario for open scoring theres a negative one. Like it or not judges DO get affected by crowds and open scoring wouldn't help one bit.

Maybe the reason the scoring has always been "closed" in boxing for the last 100+ years is that its actually a good idea, ever thought of that?

Like I said, they tried it in America and canned it. I just hope it never catches on anywhere else besides Germany.