Glad we don't hear too much about that shit anymore, it would have destroyed the sport. Boxing is not like Baskettball, Hockey, Football or any sports where the length of the contest is guaranteed and always determined by the points. Boxing is from its conception and always will be about the KNOCKOUT. People fight "12 rounds or less". It's not about the decision. Therefore we can't try to "modernize" boxing by having the same mechanics as those other sports. Scoring is subjective in boxing unlike a basketball or football. A fighter shouldn't be aware of the subjective scores as he's fighting because a) it coudl demoralize him if he thinks he's doing well and the judges don't agree b) He could deliberately shut down after 7 rounds and coast to a decision since he knows he can't be caught on the cards. and many other such things that would ruin the game. Thoughts?
I disagree with Sly's principal. Boxing is a sport first and foremost and in all sports, even the basic ones such as running, jumping or whatever, the athlete has the right to know the result during the competition and adjust based on that. That being said I don't like open scoring as a boxing fan. That is because to me boxing is also an art form and the aesthetic pleasure it gives is a big part of why I watch it. This dimension is what separates boxing from running: boxing has rewatch value because it looks good even though the excitement isn't there. Open scoring ruins this artistic element because a fighter knowing the score can start surviving instead of boxing. So, the "right" thing to do would be to have open scoring, but I am very glad it doesn't happen
Open scoring probably isn't the answer but at the same time, praising the sport for its subjective scoring methods is absurd and quite honestly the problem. I also hate the argument that the suspense would be removed from the end of the fight, that we'd be denied "And new/and still." When we start worrying about shit other than what actually occurs between the ropes, then there is a broken system in place. But fighters coasting if they know they have a lead is most certainly an issue and in fact a dealbreaker, which is unfortunate. Neil's lifelong man crush (Marcellus Johnson) even admitted to doing this once in a Showtime fight. I forget against whom, some Thai cat,but he knew he was way up after eight and put it in cruise control for the final four rounds. If a guy like that is willing to compromise a piece of his integrity...
disagree, open scoring imo, is fine, as long as it's not after every round ( every 4 rounds in title fight would be good). And while yes it may happen that a fighter cruise knowing he's so far ahead to lose ( wich could very well happens, it may also mean that a guy thinking he's way ahead while he's not, or just a few points behind, fights harder
Jake, admire you and all that but, I can't agree a couple things in his post. 1. The SUSPENSE is part of the fun of the decision. Nothing wrong with adding "other shit" as long as the other shit is good. But it's not an important point, i agree. 2. No one is praising the subjective scoring methods but IT HAS NO CHOICE OTHER THAN TO BE SUBJECTIVE. It's not like basketball where scoring is clearly defined and could never be. The only way to solve this problem is eliminate scoring altogether...go back to unlimited rounds until KO is scored. Problem with that is that fighters will pace themselves too much and it will be a less exciting sport as a result. We have to live with subjectivity in the scoring, simple as that.
Disagree, there is a choice - better training. Case in point, Tony Crebs absurd scorecard last week in the Broner-PDL fight should have come with a detailed round-by-round explanation as to what he saw that was so different than what the rest of the world witnessed. There will always be subtle differences of opinions that we have to live with. But to say there's no solution in a case like that, or Pac-Marquez I where two judges are EIGHT rounds apart on their cards... I can't co-sign on that.
Agreed, and even some subjectivity is not terrible. Otherwise (if it were scored accurately) boxing scoring would be like that crappy punch count amateur system. However there should never be cases where two judges can be watching the same fight live and have an 8 round discrepancy. It's either incompetance or corruption. Judges' work needs to be scrutinized just like referees or any other officials.
This is one of the few matters that favor open scoring. You can't do this in a regular fight, not after that long of a break - and often after one or both fighters already had their gloves removed.
When you consider that open-scoring is supposed to be some sort of remedy against corrupt scoring on the part of the judges, I think it's clear that it's completely ill-conceived, and does more harm than good. To this day, I still can't conceive why or how open scoring would or could discourage corrupt scoring. So basically, there's no debate here. Open scoring does nothing to achieve its supposed goal of eliminating corrupt scoring and instead disincentivizes fighters who are winning and know they are winning to take chances, and likewise discourages fighters who are behind significantly from doing what they need to do to pull out the victory. My guess is whoever came up with the idea of open scoring is most likely not a boxing fan himself, but rather an arrogant TV executive who throughout his life is more comfortable relying on an under-fed intuition than research conducted that might expose he doesn't know everything.
Put bluntly, the worst idea in sports history. Open-scoring was a farce. I don't think the, "extra-time," of one additional round is such a bad idea for title fights.
Yes that was the guy - was it Ratanopol or Ratanachi? PRetty sure there were two of them. One was a strawweight champ for almost as long as Ricardo Lopez. The other was this guy. And I agree, it seemed like he was on his way to doing that before coasting.
Well I can co-sign. That was a tough fight to score and i think both judges were justified in their scorecards. You can't always score close rounds definitively. There is no scientific method to do this. You can't count punches, for amount of punches landed isn't always relevant. You can't always go by harder punches because that in itself is a very subjective observation. In a close fight like that a huge variance is acceptable.
There does need to be more accountability among boxing judges, but open scoring is certainly not an answer. I absolutely hate the concept. The amateur method is no better either. Unfortunately it seems like once these guys get the jobs, they are lifetime appointments.
This is why I always admire you as a poster. You speak sense. I think title fights should have 13 rounds. An UNEVEN number of rounds reduces the possibility of a draw, for example/
Maybe if they know the rule is in place before the fight, they'd keep the gloves on in case there is an "Overtime". I know a lot of time would have lapsed; however, since when did delays keep a fight from continuing if need be? Remember fan man? Clearing the ring after the Mayweather/Judah dabacle; Ali/Cooper I... Those were some pretty long delays with the exception of Mayweather/Judah. It can be done. I doubt it, but it can be done.
I don't know... I can't see every draw verdict going into overtime. I don't see the need for a 5th round to determine a winner between two new and inexperienced fighters, for example. I guess I should've said, it compromises the integrity of the fight if you have to go through all of that just for one more round. Maybe my problem is that I don't see draw verdicts being more of an issue than bad decisions. Some fights need to end in a draw; no fights need to have bad officiating.
What about reserving the extra-round regulation for title fights, as I posited? Would that be more palatable to you, or not? I can think of very, very few championship bouts which deserved to end without a winner, but plenty which did.
