Are you in favor of it? They've tried it here and there in an apparent effort to quell the claims of inept or worse, corrupt judging. While this is indeed a real issue, open scoring flies in the face of reason and dramatically alters the very nature and flow of a bout. Additionally, a huge part of the drama of a big bout going to a close decision is the anticipation and stress of waiting for the cards to be read. One of my favorite memories in watching boxing is listening to the announcer read the decision in the first Randall-Chavez bout, the way the drama built as the split decision was metered out piece by piece, ending in the euphoric leap of celebration from the Randall camp. Priceless. Open scoring robs us of that too, rendering it to little more than a tennis match. Besides, if a fighter knows he's behind and everyone in the arena knows it, it might alter the fight plan of both guys unnaturally. I'd rather see a bout unfold the way the fighters dictate not some ongoing scorecard everyone is privy to. You?
good question and I would like to see it tried more extensively. There are pros and cons but in my opinion it is a fairer system. Someone on here yesterday replied to me and it's a fair point, they said, if you were judging a Canelo fight and you had 20,000 mexicans ready to have at you if you score rounds against Canelo you may well be swayed in his favour, and it's true. But I think If it was used more widely it would come to be accepted by the majority of fans as a better system, less open to corruption than the current method. There will be no more, for example Adelaide Bird, scorecards where the judge has blatantly awarded many questionable rounds to one fighter and just cannot be held accountable because the scoring is not transparent. I accept the point about leaving it to the boxers/trainers to judge the fight for themselves but the system is just too open to abuse. If both fighters know for a fact they're tied going in to the final round It would make for some pretty epic finale's as well. I suppose one drawback is if someone knows they're winning 7 rounds to 0 they could just coast completely through the last 5 rounds if they thought a knockdown was not likely. All things considered I'd still like to see it tried again.
Im for it..too many corrupt judges giving the fight to the wrong man. To me thats more important than the anticipation of a close fight.
But there's more to it than just the anticipation...…..what about the unnatural way it would alter the flow and ebb of a fight?
The local (name) fighter would get even more of an advantage as judges are human too, and would be affected by the atmosphere in the arena, and what is best for their safety if the crowd sees their card at the end of every round.
I don't care much either way. I don't see how open scoring would stop bad decisions, but atleast if a fighter knows they are in the process of being robbed, they can take a chance if they want.
It was tried for Ali-Shavers. It removes from the game the excitement of reading the scorecards at fights end. Thus very anticlimactic. Not a fan.
The fight was open scoring and therefore allowed Canelo to cruise in championship rounds, knowing he had it. Open scoring sucks.
Yes u have a valid point im just sooo tired of some of these awful cards with fighters getting ripped off. I think judges should be under more scrutiny ..retraing and demoted to 6 rounders until they prove themselves again. Also no more of this BS of the promoters taking these guys out to dinner like ive read about befor a big event. Just too much BS going on.
I believe i remember that now. Definitely has its pros and cons. I tried to explain more in my last post