Open Scoring

It's really 50/50 to me.

 

lame..

they made it clear that they were getting ready to rob Trout, forcing him to fight more aggressively and risk getting KO'd..

 

it takes away the surprise factor of a decision, and the unknown element of the final round. it makes a fighter change how he would normally fight. even when a decision is surprising, it's still good when a fighter thinks he is winning (even if he is actually losing) because not knowing for sure keeps the fight unpredictable and gives both fighters an incentive to try for a knockout since they can't be sure they will win. at the very least, it makes them attempt to win the last round as opposed to giving away the last round if you know you are more then a point up.

 

Open scoring is the worst idea in Boxing ever!!

Absolute shite!!

 

Open scoring is ****ing terrible, ruins the whole fight

 

Total dog**** idea. It completely changes the fighter's tactics, and for the fans themselves, it robs them of the drama of the event.

The idea of the whole thing is basically to hold the judges accountable and embarass them into a more honest scorecard... but it's incredibly obvious that in practice this is not the case. Judges in boxing are never, ever held accountable.

Absurdly horrendous idea.:verysad

 

it sucks

 

well that's true, but it's a difference between *thinking* you won it, and *knowing* you've won it. Canelo *knew* from the open scoring that he could give away the last round and still win. (heck he knew that in the 10th, he could have give away the last 3 rounds and still won) but when you don't know the actual score, you can't just coast like you have it in the bag. even if you suspect you are winning, you still kinda try to win the round just to be sure.

you can't assume anything if you don't know the score. if you take off the last round assuming your winning and you get robbed, well then you shouldn't have taken off the last round. it was your own fault for thinking you had the fight in the bag when really it was closer. bottom line, open scoring lead to some anti-climactic boring final rounds. not only that, but it affects the strategy of the fight when you hear the scores.

boxing isn't like soccer or basketball or something where you score goals and you know when you scored and exactly how many points YOU scored. (not what a judge says you scored) in boxing someone's opinion determines the score based on who they thought won the round. which is why it is best when it is only annoucned after the fight is complete IF a fight goes the full distance. by announcing the scores throughout the fight, I think it increases the probability of a decision becuase the person ahead will not take as many risks.

 

I'm not completely against it, but I can see where it would **** up fights now. Ex. Olympics, when a fighter knows they're ahead..what do they do? Turn the fight into a track meet.

 

open scoring could be a great way to set up the final rounds of a fight...but not while there is clear corruption in the scoring process

this was one fight that a lot of people were looking forward too, because it was so hard to predict, and it would have been a shot in the arm for boxing if the scoring had been AT LEAST semi-respectable

 

I always was in favor of it. With a judge scoring it as wide as they did 118 for canelo, in my mind someone would have cracked the judge over the head with a beer bottle at that point. But it didn't happen so open scoring was a failure. The judges aren't being held accountable.

 

I think it's a good thing as if a fighter is losing, he can step the **** up and make it a great action fight.