Is OPEN SCORING the only way to stop these robberies from happening?!

[Mr Giggles]

I feel like open scoring would be a good way to stop these robberies from happening. Firstly, it will ensure that a card isn’t filled out at the end of the fight and that they are actually scoring it during the fight. Also it will let a fighter know if they are about to get robbed so it will then stop them from going into coasting mode and get them back into gear again.

They can show the judges scorecards after every 2 rounds.

I know it will take the suspense away at the end for who has won the decision if it’s a close fight but it’s the only way to stop these robberies.

[deathofaclown]

I feel like open scoring would be a good way to stop these robberies from happening. Firstly, it will ensure that a card isn’t filled out at the end of the fight and that they are actually scoring it during the fight. Also it will let a fighter know if they are about to get robbed so it will then stop them from going into coasting mode and get them back into gear again.

They can show the judges scorecards after every 2 rounds.

I know it will take the suspense away at the end for who has won the decision if it’s a close fight but it’s the only way to stop these robberies.

Would it deter judges?

Canelo v Trout had open scoring and after 6 or 9 rounds or whatever, everybody had it way closer than the judges did. It forced Trout to have to get away from his game plan that was working ok because he needed a knockout.

Obviously he was never getting a decision with or without open scoring, and he never won anyway, but the point is even with open scoring, the judges had no qualms having it way wider than the viewers. Maybe if Trout never knew the scoring and didn’t have to get away from the game plan, He may outbox Canelo for the last few rounds and maybe everybody says he won the fight, regardless of the decision and it forces a rematch or something.

Judges are going to do what they’re going to do anyway and I don’t think open scoring would change that and hasn’t in the past

How about judges have to face a panel and let the public see how they scored rounds the way they did, Maybe that would embarrass them into having to think twice when scoring fights purposely for one guy.

[Zaroku]

Would it deter judges?

Canelo v Trout had open scoring and after 6 or 9 rounds or whatever, everybody had it way closer than the judges did. It forced Trout to have to get away from his game plan that was working ok because he needed a knockout.

Obviously he was never getting a decision with or without open scoring, and he never won anyway, but the point is even with open scoring, the judges had no qualms having it way wider than the viewers.

you can **** my cousin.

you family to me

[gauze]

it would just mean we know there's gonna be a robbery before the fight actually ends.

[PRINCEKOOL]

I don't like open scoring, I think the speculation of the scorecards is? Part of the entertainment.

Open scoring, I also think adds another variable of outside influence and pressures on the judges 'This is not good'.

People will see what they want to see, look how everyone has a different opinion on this forum. Maybe the judges need to be selected and trained more extensively.

What does it take to be a boxing judge? I have no idea.

[Comanche]

Never understood the argument against open scoring. Boxing's needed a shot in the arm to make it more exciting, going on decades now, and this could be it! I feel like everything tells us that this is what we should be doing, so of course, in typical boxing fashion, we do the complete opposite.

[diplo]

What does it take to be a boxing judge? I have no idea.

Money (I don't necessarily mean corrupt money), reputation (I don't necessarily mean good reputations), and connections with sanctioning bodies and promoters. Part of fight negotiations include the headline promoter choosing who the judges are, which is ridiculous, and more often than not. That's why you'll see that for example if for one fight a judge scores a bad card for the promoted boxer, you'll never see that judge working on any of that boxer's fights again. Sounds mad but that's reality. On the other hand, if a judge is favourable towards a particular fighter, it's more likely that the promoter will pick them again. Conflicts of interest all over the place.

A promoter would obviously say that they have nothing to do with the selection of judges, and that it's down to the state commisioning bodies or the sanctioning bodies- ok sure, but who is paying these bodies for the fights to happen in their state or for their belt? The promoter. It's so messed up.