Page 2 of 2
Posted: 17 Apr 2007, 09:42
by jamesmcdonnell
Fekk tradition, it's tradition which has kept boxing in the bloody dark ages whilst other sports have leapfrogged it in popularity.
I applaud this move. It will make if harder for officials to explain away their scorecards in dubious scorelines, and the fans will still have to wait until the end of the fight to hear the scores.
It will also mean that a fighter will have a chance to go for it if they are too far behind to win if they are a puncher, rather than thinking they've done enough to win.
I wonder how different the Trinidad v DLH fight would have been with open scoring, I'll bet the result would have been different.
Boxing needs changes to it's hideously outdated scoring system. A major overhaul is needed with more of the 10 points being awarded in each round, and knockdowns not being given so much importance. At the moment it is virtually impossible to see a round scored 10-8 without a knockdown, and even when one fighter is clearly winning the round, and a flash knockdown is scored, that round almost always goes to his opponent. This is plain stupid. There needs to be more emphasis on dominating the round clearly and 10-8 rounds awarded more often when one fighter CLEARLY carries the round. Close rounds could then be 10-9, and rounds where it is difficult to pick a winner, more routinely scored 10-10.
Posted: 17 Apr 2007, 09:46
by jamesmcdonnell
johnswan1 wrote:Don't like the idea of the change at all.
- There would be an increase in DQ's from not only p1ssed off trainers and cornermen going crazy at the judges, but also from the fighters themselves who just wouldn't be interested in fighting on if they think they are getting raped on the cards.
- It can lead to one judges card being influenced by another if their card is different than the other two after four or eight rounds. Each card should be independent and this independence would be gone if they change.
- I always said that in fights where there is controversial scoring, the fight should be reviewed and scored by a panel of judges, before having poor judges suspended or demoted to smaller fights.
- I have gone on about this before and most of all what I hate is how judges are pressured into scoring a clear winner of every round. If both fighters do fuk all, then it should be a 10-10 round. I don't think anybody should be given a round unless there is a CLEAR winner - just like the rules state. If a round should only be awarded to a clear winner and 10-10 rounds become more frequent, then there would have to be far less discrepancies between cards.
- If the governing bodies insist on picking a winner for each round, then I think judges should be scoring rounds won big at 10-8 (which is within the rules). In tight fights such as Hopkins-Taylor, I think Taylor should have been given 10-9 for the early rounds which were awarded to him by the slightest of margins (but still put him six rounds to nil up), while some of the later rounds where he was dominated by Hopkins should have been awarded 10-8 to Hopkins.
Didn't see this post, couldn't agree more with your statement. In DLH v Mosley for instance, where neither fighter did much for most of the rounds, I scored four or five 10-10 rounds.
10-8 scoring must become more prevalent, but only when it is made clear to judges that it should only be used when one fighter clearly dominates the round, not because they prefer the style of one fighter.
It isn't really the governing bodies' who insist on the picking of a winner in each round, it is the commissions, at least in the united states. The Nevada state athletic commission tend to suspend judges who award even rounds, or don't give them the biggest gigs. This pressure on judges to pick a winner where there is no clear winner, is bound to lead to discrepancies in scoring and score cards which look dodgy to the fans.
Posted: 17 Apr 2007, 12:12
by silkov
No no no no no no no!!.... this idea will take away much of the magic of boxing, ...you only need to look at what has happened to Amateur boxing since a simular system was brought in for that to see what the future could hold... and if you think this idea will eliminate dodgey scoring then again, look at the amateur game... this could be the death knell of pro boxing...
Posted: 18 Apr 2007, 11:42
by jamesmcdonnell
I don't think anyone wants professional boxing to end up like amateur boxing with it's ridiculous 'punch counting' scoring system, but that doesn't mean we should abandon all notions of updating boxing's scoring.
Boxing is the only competitive sport, where both competitors are engaged in the field of play at the same time, that I can think of at any rate, where nobody other than the judges knows the scoreline until the conclusion of the competition.
Posted: 18 Apr 2007, 11:56
by Old bones Ian
jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Boxing is the only competitive sport, where both competitors are engaged in the field of play at the same time, that I can think of at any rate, where nobody other than the judges knows the scoreline until the conclusion of the competition.
I'm now racking my brains trying to think of one.
Posted: 18 Apr 2007, 11:59
by jamesmcdonnell
Bear in mind that I said any sport where 'both competitors are on the field of play at the same time.'
Posted: 18 Apr 2007, 13:29
by silkov
The thing is that the scoring system in pro boxing is sound as it is... the problems of bad decisions usually arise due to the bias for home fighters/or the big draw fighter.... this bias could still happen if open scoring was brought in, as it has in the amutuer boxing...
a better idea would be perhaps if more account was taken of punches landed during rounds and fights... the punch stats could be used to back up/guide judges... but points and decisions should still not be known till the fight is over... to take away the element of not knowing who is winning the rounds of a fight would be to lose one of the fundermental aspects of boxing imo... it would also ruin many possible great fights... just look at the recent Mormeck vs Bell match...
Posted: 18 Apr 2007, 13:31
by jamesmcdonnell
The current scoring system is FAR from sound. There are too many cases where a fighter is well behind on the scorecards but believes it is either close or they are leading clearly.
The stupid 10 point must system is also clearly flawed with too few points difference between fighters for winning or losing a round and drawn rounds hardly ever being given.
Posted: 18 Apr 2007, 13:45
by Old bones Ian
I wasn't in favour of this open scoring when it was first re-introduced, but so far its not caused any problems, i'm giving it an open mind now . Have to see how it goes for a another year or so.
My main concerns were a boxers cornerman getting involved with the judges if after 8 rounds he didn't like the score, also the possibility of crowd trouble , if there fighter isn't winning.
But so far this hasn't happened.
Posted: 18 Apr 2007, 13:49
by jamesmcdonnell
I don't see that being any worse than the kind of shit we saw with Riddick Bowe and Golota fans AFTER the scores.
If anything, if a fighter still has four rounds to turn things around before the decision is announced, then surely this is more likely to DIFFUSE the situation than INFLAME IT.
How often in the history of the sport has a fighter or fan causes trouble after they scores were read out? It's as rare as rocking horse shit and not a good reason to worry about open scoring.
Posted: 18 Apr 2007, 14:38
by lvlarc
Even though WBA never approved of open scoring, it was used in Cotto's fight with Urkal which led to Urkal's corner quitting in the 11th since they knew they were so far behind. Mormeck/Bell was a war until the last 4 rounds in which Mormeck just looked to survive after hearing he was up big on the cards, although fatigue was probably a factor too.
Still not sure if I'd prefer open scoring for Mayweather/Oscar. I think Floyd will win on points but open scoring should make Oscar press extra hard once he finds out he's behind on the cards.
Posted: 18 Apr 2007, 14:57
by silkov
jamesmcdonnell wrote:I don't see that being any worse than the kind of shit we saw with Riddick Bowe and Golota fans AFTER the scores.
If anything, if a fighter still has four rounds to turn things around before the decision is announced, then surely this is more likely to DIFFUSE the situation than INFLAME IT.
How often in the history of the sport has a fighter or fan causes trouble after they scores were read out? It's as rare as rocking horse shit and not a good reason to worry about open scoring.
I'm more worried about open scoring spoiling boxing as a spectacule, the truth is that most of the time the right man wins, there are a load of controversial decisions but much of that is down to the fact that two people can watch the same fight and see two different things, it depends what style/fighter you like best... I dont see how open scoring will solve this, the most it will do is take away a vast part of the remaining excitement in boxing... whats next?... head gaurds?... it wouldnt surprise me...
Posted: 20 Apr 2007, 16:27
by Blue
jamesmcdonnell wrote:Fekk tradition, it's tradition which has kept boxing in the bloody dark ages whilst other sports have leapfrogged it in popularity.
Don’t blame tradition James;
It is the “business of boxing” that has diminished the sport of boxing.
I watched boxing go from competing with baseball for the top US sport in the 40’s & 50’s, to where
we are now, in the “bloody dark ages”. What better example than what recently occurred in Wales?
I miss the simpler times when titles meant something, knowing who the champion was, enjoying the
championship rounds 11-15, keeping track of only 8 divisions and same day weigh-ins.
All these so called remedies for the good of boxing have caused more problems than they've solved.
I’m with Silkov on this one;
How many times has one stood in suspense waiting for a decision to be rendered?
It’s the “magic” that movies are made of. Now we are witnessing boxers quitting
when behind, and stinking out a good fight while ahead.