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

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. I like your idea of an open forum for the public, I've often thought about that, as have some friends of mine. For that exact purpose we built the website in my sig, eyeonthering.com. It aggregates fan scores. (We don't have a lot of users yet, we just launched.) We were trying to do something about it, in a small way to start. I am not a fan of open scoring, but I like the ideas and keeping the focus on what can be done rather than complaining about how it won't change. I think adding judges has a lot of potential. I don't know about 11, but more than 3. How many judges judge gymnastic events? (That's the only other sport I can think of that has judges right now...)

No because then we will slowly see a robbery happen.

I voted no because within a day of these big fight robberies every curious boxing fan with a computer knows how each judge scored every round and that has not stopped the robberies.

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 retards 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.

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

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.

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

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...

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.

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.

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

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).

Less corruption and less incompetence are the only ways to save boxing. I don't like open scoring, personally.

Open soring changes nothing it merely allows one to know what is going on, does a train wreck change if you watch it happen~ Talk about actual changes~ allow judges to score half points so there is more seperation for dominant rounds or less for very close rounds. Allow the judges to have monitors to review but only allow the current round being scored and it shuts off before the next round starts. Have five judges instead of three, with two watching from tv monitors so they see what the audience sees. If you have issues with how fights are scored think about actual changes~ these are just off the top of my head and none are great or original, but they will actually change the scoring of fights but there would be other consequences.

Absolutely not. What we need to do is put a face on these judges. If HBO and others start interviewing judges after controversial decisions, I think that would go a long way towards putting a stop to these robberies. judges rarely held accountable for their scorecards and it leaves the door open for corruption.

Absolutely not. What we need to do is put a face on these judges. If HBO and others start interviewing these judges after controversial decisions, I think that would go a long way towards putting a stop to these robberies. judges rarely held accountable for their scorecards and it leaves the door open for corruption.

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. But, then again..if everybody knows you're scoring awfully...at least they know as it's going and it becomes more obvious and harder to "sneak" it in. It could be a double edged sword, but as long as they try to do something about it, I'm all for it. Fight your hardest from round 1-12 and youll have your best chance of winning There should be no coasting

Say what? Is a the first question of (LAT) lousy aptitude test? THE ONLY WAY? That gave it away. This question shouldn't even make it in a junior high test?

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. But, then again..if everybody knows you're scoring awfully...at least they know as it's going and it becomes more obvious and harder to "sneak" it in. It could be a double edged sword, but as long as they try to do something about it, I'm all for it.

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?