Taken from the General Forum. How many fights would it have affected? Would the sport have been better off?
I'm against open scoring for the same reason I'm against the 12 round limit for championship bouts, multiple champion, women boxing, rap music played as ring entrances, fighters ranting and running their moutrhs as a camera is stuck in their faces after a victory, ***goty looking skirt-like, frilled boxing trunks, huge entourages in the ring with their fighters, fighters allowed to fight with big, rope-like dreadlocks and other dreadful things that threaten to drag boxing down the path of professional wrestling. Too much crap and shenanigans are allowed to happen with open scoring. The drama of the sport suffers, and prevents a fighter from sucking it up and pulling out all the stops when he isnt sure of how he stands in the scoring.
I don't think anyone can accurately say how many fights it would have affected. Too many variables go into the outcome of a fight. I'm decidedly against open scoring. A huge part of the drama of boxing is the edge-of-your-seat feeling you get in a fight such as Morales-Barrera I, where you knew it was so close anything could be going on with the scorecards, and every round mattered. Besides, say we do get open scoring; if the fight goes on and one judge's bad judging is shown as it happens, what are they gonna do? Invalidate his scorecard? What difference would it make? A judge is still gonna score a fight the way he sees it or the way he thinks he should see it, right or wrong, and he can just as easily be reprimanded or suspended later for an insane scorecard whether or not it's a surprise to anyone at the time. I just don't see the point in it.
I do not see any advantages to open scoring; as a judge may feel even more intimidated going against the local hero every round in a hostile atmosphere. At least with closed scoring, you as judge only **** the crowd off at the end of the fight, when perhaps, you can be out of the arena if there is the potential for trouble.
I'm probably in the minority here but i'm 'for'. I've always been suspicious of cards that are/were 'doctored'.
Hang on guys, I think it could work. For one thing, it could promote closer fights. Say now we had open scoring in Trinidad v DLH, Oscar would have known better than to coast for the last 4 rounds. He would have to fight hard for the remainder of the fight. How many fights have we watched where everyone thinks it's close, but when the scorecards are read, the judges had one guy way out in front? At least the athletes would know exactly where they stand after each round, and what they have to do in the next round. Denying them this chance to know where they are at regarding the scorecards is denying a fighter the chance of making adjustments in the fight he could have made had he known the score. Why should everyone be left in the dark regarding the scoring until after the fight? In some cases it may be a little predictable, but imagine the tension and excitement if two guys are level on points after 9 rounds. We all know the last round is critical. It would be an awesome round because both guys would be going hammer and tongs, trying to win the round. Hopefully, it could lead to increased accountability among the judges too, because everyone could see which judge is giving which fighter what round. Okay, there is the factor of intimidation and I don't know how they'd get around that, but I'm sure there are solutions if we search for them. My proposal is give it a shot in the lower echelons of the sport for a while. What could it hurt? Who knows, it may turn into a great idea.
Boxing is the only sport i can think of where you are completly in the dark in knowing where you stand, score-wise. It is also the only sport where you can easily get robbed from a rightful victory. These two are not unconnected. I think with open scoring, we'd see a lot less before-hand filled in scorecards. Like Euginia Williams scoring that round in Lewis-Holyfield for Holyfield, when Holyfield landed absolutely nothing and got beaten from pillar to post. "Well i faced his back most of the time!".
I'm in favor. And not just because I'm annoyed by the sight of both fighters raising their arms in victory at the end of the fight. Closed scoring just makes it too easy for both fighters to play it safe, and makes it too easy for the loser to offer excuses after he's made the safety-first choice. The boxer runs away, the puncher doesn't chase too hard, and at the end, whichever guy comes out on the short end can say, "What were the judges thinking? Anybody can see that I was winning that fight!" And it's easier for him and his people to defend and recover from an allegedly controversial decision loss than it would be to bounce back from the bad kayo he might have suffered in trying to push for a kayo win. I like the suspense of not knowing the outcome of a close, well-fought battle. But those are too rare these days, especially in big fights. I'd give up that moment of suspense if everybody, in mid-fight, could say to Oscar de La Hoya, "No, the judges aren't here to see you outrun Trinidad, no, you aren't winning the fight, so yes, you'll have to stand and trade at least a little if you want to claim victory. No, the judges don't think you're pressing Mayweather enough, no, you aren't winning the fight, so yes, you'll have to risk taking some more to land a few more if you want to raise your arms at the end."
In EVERY other sport they let the athletes know the score. Boxing is a sport that is very easy to fix. There's so many robberies in boxing where if fans and boxers knew the scorecards the judges would be out of there before the fight was finished. I'm for it.
