BoxRec

During the bout?

Thinking about it, it seems a bit unfair that they don't.

In virtually any other sport, it is the case that during the event a participant knows what is required to win , and so can adjust his or her tactics accordingly.

What is the logic behind keeping scores secret? Is it simply to preserve the excitment of the event? Would knowing his colleagues scorecards potentially bias a judge? (Ie if he is going against his fellow judges will that could his opinion.)

Would knowing the score lead to one fighter (who was set to win) using boring defensive boxing, holding tactics etc (To argue back at that- why not? A football team when winning may adopt defensive tactics, for example.)

Topic for discussion- what are people's thoughts?


I'd say its something they could perphas try in England- they would need to find an evenly matched bout, of course, not a "journeyman work out" fight.

NO WAY!

There is enough running in the sport as it is!

Bad idea in my opinion!

DG. wrote:
There is enough running in the sport as it is!

I think it could be more exciting- if a fighter knows he NEEDS a knockout, he will of course go for it.

It's like with cricket- the other day , SA needed to take 5 whichers, and has 130 balls to do it- it got down to 17 balls, they just needed to take 1 whicker.

That was really exciting, in a game that often isn't.

Likewise, knowing the score I found made the Olympic boing great fun to watch- espeically the last round of De Gale.

I could be wrong but do the WBC or WBO not allow scores to be read out over the PA system every four rounds already? Many countries do not implement the system for whatever reason. I have seen it used in Germany [think it was a Klitschko fight] but apart from that I havn't seen it used anywhere.

I know where you are coming from Whicker but if scores are relayed to the boxers I personally think it would ruin the spectaclefor one reason or another.

Can you imagine the scenes if Terry O'Conners scorecard for Fury-McDermott got read out over a PA system with 2/3 rounds left?. The fight could well have been abandoned before it finished due to Maloney pulling McDermott out in protest or something. This sets a precedent then and you would see other boxers walking out in protest if they think a card is dodgy.

Deno1986 wrote:
Can you imagine the scenes if Terry O'Conners scorecard for Fury-McDermott got read out over a PA system with 2/3 rounds left?. The fight could well have been abandoned before it finished due to Maloney pulling McDermott out in protest or something. This sets a precedent then and you would see other boxers walking out in protest if they think a card is dodgy.

Well, if there was a public score system, it would no doubt have been a different fight- as McD adjusted his tactics to try and win etc.

However, judges/refs being affected by the crowds reaction to their score certainly COULD be an issue.

Definitely not, imo. There are many arguments against showing the score, so I'm not going to repeat them, but are there any arguments for showing the score?

whicker wrote:

DG. wrote:
There is enough running in the sport as it is!

I think it could be more exciting- if a fighter knows he NEEDS a knockout, he will of course go for it.

And the one in front willl run even faster!

whicker wrote:

DG. wrote:
There is enough running in the sport as it is!

I think it could be more exciting- if a fighter knows he NEEDS a knockout, he will of course go for it.

It's like with cricket- the other day , SA needed to take 5 whichers, and has 130 balls to do it- it got down to 17 balls, they just needed to take 1 whicker.

That was really exciting, in a game that often isn't.

Likewise, knowing the score I found made the Olympic boing great fun to watch- espeically the last round of De Gale.

But likewise, a fighter who knows he is way down in the scoring might become disheartned and give up as Peter did against
Klitschko.

Asterix wrote: but are there any arguments for showing the score?

I suggested some in the opening post.

1. It lets the boxers know what position they are in, and what is required to win- something that is taken for granted in many other sports, so they can adjust their tactics accordingly.

2. It can, potentially, make for a more exciting contest, for the reason mentioned above, and simply because the person watching the event knows what needs to be done. I enjoyed the Olympic boxing with it's on-screen scores more live amateur boxing where the score is unknown.

Hypothetically, knowing a professional fight was even going into the last round would make thrilling viewing indeed.

3. It allows for the corner, and the referee more scope for judgement to make sensible compasionate/safety decisions. When a horse is far behind in a race, the jockey will often pull it up.

4. It's compatable with the nature of the round-by-round scoring system. After all, the winner of a boxing match is the guy who wins the most rounds- this does not, necessarily, mean he was the better fighter if the fight is taken as a "whole." It isn't illogical to keep score- and display the score- at the end of each. A Boxing match is ALREADY divided into 12, 10 , 6 etc individual rounds, which are in effect scored as individual three minute contests (unlike the Olympic system, where each punch scoring contributes to a grand total.)




These are all valid ARGUEMENTS. I'm not saying they are conclusive, of course, but they all suit the discussion.

crusader wrote:

But likewise, a fighter who knows he is way down in the scoring might become disheartned and give up as Peter did against
Klitschko.

That is certainly true, but the same could be said for any athlete in any even, of course.

Which begs the question- boxing is one of the few sports where the participant genuinly does not know if he is winning or losing. Psychologically, is that a good thing?

And of course, in boxing there are two ways to win, of course.

whicker wrote:

Asterix wrote: but are there any arguments for showing the score?

I suggested some in the opening post.

1. It lets the boxers know what position they are in, and what is required to win- something that is taken for granted in many other sports, so they can adjust their tactics accordingly.

2. It can, potentially, make for a more exciting contest, for the reason mentioned above, and simply because the person watching the event knows what needs to be done. I enjoyed the Olympic boxing with it's on-screen scores more live amateur boxing where the score is unknown.

Hypothetically, knowing a professional fight was even going into the last round would make thrilling viewing indeed.

3. It allows for the corner, and the referee more scope for judgement to make sensible compasionate/safety decisions. When a horse is far behind in a race, the jockey will often pull it up.

4. It's compatable with the nature of the round-by-round scoring system. After all, the winner of a boxing match is the guy who wins the most rounds- this does not, necessarily, mean he was the better fighter if the fight is taken as a "whole." It isn't illogical to keep score- and display the score- at the end of each. A Boxing match is ALREADY divided into 12, 10 , 6 etc individual rounds, which are in effect scored as individual three minute contests (unlike the Olympic system, where each punch scoring contributes to a grand total.)




These are all valid ARGUEMENTS. I'm not saying they are conclusive, of course, but they all suit the discussion.

Sorry, Whicker. I did read your post, but I guess I didn't really digest it.

1. The winner will probably start running and the loser may just quit. I don't think it's an advantage over hidden scoring.
2. As above.
3. The argument, "there's always a chance of a knockout" could come into this. I don't think the referee should stop a contest because someone is losing badly on the scorecards, and if it's because they're hurt, well, the scorecards aren't involved.
4. Are there any comparable sports that use open scoring to good effect? I can't think that any would be similar enough.

Asterix wrote: 4. Are there any comparable sports that use open scoring to good effect? I can't think that any would be similar enough.

I'm not disagreeing with you, or agreeing with you- its all about discussion-

So I'll just look at this point.

In the first instance, we need to find sports that use a similar system- subjective scoring.

"Subjective," in this instance, means scoring based on a judges decision (often going of strict criteria, of course) rather than an objective numerical scoring system. EG darts, snooker, football- objective scoring.

Take, for example, diving.

Each dive is scored after it is done.

This means that people are fully aware of what they need to do.

If the scores are high, a person coming to take his dive may decised to try a difficult, more risky, but potentially higher scoring dive.

There are also similar events like Ice Skating, Show Jumping, floor gymnastics etc.

For sure, these are also solo sports, rather than combat sports.

But even within combat sports, it's typically the case that the score as the event goes along. Thai Kwon Doe (don't fuss me on the spelling), for example, Commonwealth Games wrestling where points are scored for moves, Judo, likewise, where points are given for moves as the event goes along.

Of course, these are slightly different from boxing, in that all of them are scored on a move-by-move basis, and not given as a sum total per round.

I think the issue I have with all of them, is that boxing is too different to be comparable. Firstly, in boxing you could end the contest at any time with a KO. Secondly, in boxing you can almost stop your opponent from having a chance to win by running, if you have enough of a lead. I can't see it being fair.