I liked the idea of open scoring if the judges where having a nightmare you would know and could do somethng about it and it could also turn good fights into great fights.
but it also works the other way around. Someone who knows they are winning clearly will just backpeddle and not mix it up. But I agree, it could have helped the outcome of certain fights.
it depends on the fight, it does work out well sometimes but there will still be problems as mentioned above.
It also leads to things like Urkal's corner throwing in the towel against Cotto at the end of the 11th round despite being fully capable of going on because he's so far behind on points that there's no point in fighting. Thus, the audience is deprived of a full fight. It's stupid. It adds another factor to strategy that really isn't needed.
Open scoring was a good idea on paper but turned out to be a bad one in use. Controversial scoring or not, in the end everyone will know the names of the bad judges anyway so reading the scores after the 4th and the 8th would not affect the corruption or judge's stupidity (some of them just have no idea how to right down a score if there was a penelty in the round). So in Asia, South America etc., where open scoring is still on in WBC title fights as far as I know, it didn't help to get rid of controversial decisions. And as others have said before me, boxers ahead on the cards can play it safe as they know they just have to hear the final bell and win. Also if 3 judges score the fight 3 way and they are getting the info on the others, it can confuse a good judge who says: Geez, I thought I was doing a fine scoring but the others see it another way. What should I do? Give the next close round to the other boxer to compensate?" No. Expert judging seminars are the answer. Some judges are so dumb that it hurts. Mixing up the two corners, being completley out of the picture (Mijares-Navarro) or just biased or under the pressure of the promoter (Mr. Golden Boy himself in the Hopkins fight) or the fans (it can be pro and contra as well: scoring based upon the crowd's cheers everytime their fighter scores or just going AGAINST the crowd thinking that they are trying to affect him and bad-scoring AGAINST the local fighter because of that. No. The answer is sooooo simple. Better instruction for the judges and unified rules how to score. That's all.
i don't like it one bit. it takes away the suspense. the time before buffer reads the scorecard really exciting and you take all that away
Wasn't there another fight that night or right around the same time, where a fighter just bassicly gave up after hearing the scores?
Jermain Taylor vs Ouma - it had open scoring and when JT knew he was 8 rounds up he put even less effort in!
open scoring sucks!!!!! it would encourage fighter to just chicken **** if they know they are ahead of the scorecard. think dela hoya-trinidad.
In that fight though, had DLH known it was as close as it was, he would have fought differently... though I know what youre saying
the point dude is, delahoya though he was AHEAD of the scorecard so he ran away on the last quarter of the fight (turned out hes wrong haha!)
to me open scoring was terrible. It lets one fighter know he can just coast or run the rest of the fight is he is way ahead. It was a dumb idea.
