POLL: Is Open Scoring The Only Way To Save Boxing?

[Light_Speed]

Well, to be honest..open scoring would just let someone know they're being robbed and there's nothing they could do about it. It's not like we don't know who's scoring what in the robberies. We'd probably see more coasting and might even see guys get desperate and KOd as a result.

And trainers throwing the towel when they realize their fighter has no chance to win even though he's not hurt (e.g. Cotto vs Urkal).

[any craic lad?]

Robs the suspense for me plus as one guy said guys will start coasting if they know they have a lead it would lead to the champioship rounds becoming boring rather then closing out strong in some cases

[encino man]

it would make no difference other than ruining the suspense in a close fight, or in a not-so-close fight where the guy winning is getting the shaft. imagine being in a fight knowing you're getting robbed while you're still in there trying to execute a gameplan? and as others said previously, guys coasting/corners throwing in the towel.

if they can't change decisions at the end of a fight, no way it's happening during the fight. i personally turn the volume down on fights with open scoring. i think the official scorecards should be shown at the end of the fight presenting a graphic with all of the rounds and how the judges scored each round.

[mathed]

I think so. I've made a tread about that years ago & got shut down. I mean there needs to be something done. Like open scoring or 3 judges on standby judging just in case the 1st 3 have some wacked out scorecard.

It makes no sense. #1 open scoring is done like every 3 rounds so you will still have a "surprise" at the end

#2 open scoring will change nothing. A judge will still put whatever score he wants and nobody will interfere to him until the scorecards are read. You cant interrupt the flow of the game. There are 1 Min intervals between each round. What are they gonna do when they think a judge scored a round wrong?

I think there needs to be an un-official panel of judges as well and a "public" scoring where the fans at home vote as well or have the audience participate. This way the networks and commission can use these as comparisons so that if the scores are drastically differing from the majority, there can be an investigation like there should be.

This would be the only way to get it in check, have a system of double checking and a means of enforcing consequences.

[-jose-]

There's nothing like a good old fashion KNOCKOUT...!!!

no judges needed...

no disappointed fans...

example:
Salido vs Juanma
don't get it twisted
I'm team Juanma till this day...
but as a boxing fanatic
Salido made me a fan of his...

he was the judge that night...

[bojangles1987]

Open scoring makes it worse. Can't see how people don't understand that.

[-PBP-]

Nope. Boxing needs one authoritative body to regulate the sport. This organization would oversee all boxing events worldwide and take the power away from yhe promoters. Imagine if sports agents organized NFL schedules, player pay, rules, etc. Its essentially what boxing is with promoters holding all of the power. It needs a commissioner and a board that can overturn bad decisions and suspend judges. Judges would have to be licensed and trained and would be employed and paid by the organozation. Lastly the organization would have to regulate promoters and limit the amount of money they can take ftom the fighters.

But this is all wishful thinking and will never happen.

[ИATAS]

Open scoring not only ISN'T the answer but it's horrible! Watch two guys in what could seem as a close fight slug it out, only for the cards to be read and one guy is way ahead and decides to coast for the remaining rounds. See O'Neal Bell vs Mormeck II for an example (the fight was on pace of being Fight of the Year after the first 6 rounds then turned into a complete stinker as Mormeck was way ahead on the scorecards and he just ran).

I've always liked the idea of having a lot more judges, like 11 for example. Balances out the ******s and I'm sure it's a lot more expensive to pay off 6 judges instead of 2.

Think about it. Currently you have 3 judges. All it takes is 2 dumb asses or blind old farts and it's bad decision. If you had 11 judges it would decrease the chances dramatically.

[Russian Crushin]

I think there needs to be an un-official panel of judges as well and a "public" scoring where the fans at home vote as well or have the audience participate. This way the networks and commission can use these as comparisons so that if the scores are drastically differing from the majority, there can be an investigation like there should be.

This would be the only way to get it in check, have a system of double checking and a means of enforcing consequences.

Imagine open "pubic" scoring on Pac-Bradley.

Pac has 10000X more fans and the "public" vote would be way more 1 sided then the judges. Not only that but they arent trained judges

[Light_Speed]

Open scoring not only ISN'T the answer but it's horrible! Watch two guys in what could seem as a close fight slug it out, only for the cards to be read and one guy is way ahead and decides to coast for the remaining rounds. See O'Neal Bell vs Mormeck II for an example (the fight was on pace of being Fight of the Year after the first 6 rounds then turned into a complete stinker as Mormeck was way ahead on the scorecards and he just ran).

I've always liked the idea of having a lot more judges, like 11 for example. Balances out the ******s and I'm sure it's a lot more expensive to pay off 6 judges instead of 2.

Think about it. Currently you have 3 judges. All it takes is 2 dumb asses or blind old farts and it's bad decision. If you had 11 judges it would decrease the chances dramatically.

Hmmm where are those 11 judges going to sit? They can't all sit around the ring, there's not enough room if you count the commissioners, the commentators and whatnot.