This is a general boxing poll that has some of its roots here in the Beltway.
During their convention this week, the World Boxing Council approved a rule that would allow open scoring for their world title bouts. The judge's scores would be announced after the fourth and eighth rounds. There is a condition that allows individual national commissions the option to refuse open scoring in their states.
In a statement, WBC President Jose Sulaiman said, "At this moment in time in boxing, one of the most important things is to do something for justice in scoring. We have been doing so many clinics, basic guidelines, booklets and videos, but we still have a problem. I believe that this is gigantic in sports, and will make the judges much more conscientious of their responsibility. It will make them be 100 percent concentrated, and it will also give them a sense of pride, because they have confidence in their scoring and themselves. A good judge should feel very proud. I believe that we have taken a major step in the history of boxing."
However, what everyone seems to forget that this is a step that has recently been taken before -- right here in DC. On April 24, 1999, the WBC, the World Boxing Association (WBA) and the International Boxing Federation (IBF) all tried versions of open scoring at the "Triple Jeopardy" card at the Verizon Center during the three world title bouts. This was done in the wake of the horrible decision in the first Lennox Lewis-Evander Holyfield bout.
The WBC should be credited for being consistent because in their title match on this card (Hacine Cherifi defending the middleweight title against Keith Holmes), the cards were announced after the fourth round (the bout ended in the seventh with Holmes regaining his title).
The IBF title match (Mark Johnson versus Ratanachai Sor Vorapin for the vacant Super Flyweight crown) also had the scores announced after every four rounds.
The WBA title bout (Sharmba Mitchell defending his junior welterweight title against Reggie Green) had the judge's scores announced after EVERY round.
The consensus on this was that open scoring was an abject failure, especially after the Mitchell-Green bout when fans left before the official decision was announced because they already knew who won. Mark Johnson told me that he coasted the final few rounds of his bout because he knew that he was ahead on the scorecards. Most people I talked to on that night, including boxers, managers and broadcasters were against the Open Scoring concept.
But I'm curious to know what the fans think. Please participate in the new poll and PLEASE add comments. This may help shape the future of the sport!
open scoring sounds good at first, but it also puts pressure on the judges. if you are scoring a fight in a guy's hometown and your score is not favorable with the crowd, who knows what could happen; this is boxing you know. judges are already under enough scrutiny. i think it could definitely affect their scoring of bouts. especially major bouts where you have promoters, managers etc.. yelling god knows what in your ear when you have their fighter behind and they feel he is ahead. security would definitely have to be beefed up around judges. :)
ReplyDeletefrom the standpoint of the fighter it is great, it lets them know if they need to pick it up or they can cruise because they are comfortably ahead.
one fight comes to mind when i think of open scoring: oscar de la hoya v. trinidad. had oscar known he was behind he would have had the greatest victory of his career.
great for the fighter, but not so great for the judges....
My vote of no isn't absolutely 100% set in stone - but pretty damn close. I don't like it. And besides, it doesn't really adresss the really issues; i.e. corruption, incomptetence, and sometimes a poor 'line-of-view' for the judges. (I think all judges should have a clear/unobstructed view, and am for 'elevated seating'.)
ReplyDeleteBTW - Good point(s) by SlickWalt.
ReplyDeleteI'm with Slickwalt. My vote is no. another point is that if a fighter knows that he is ahead (comfortably), he might and probably should just run and hold for the remainder of the fight.
ReplyDeleteCruiser,
ReplyDeleteThe obstructed seating was EXACTLY the issue for Eugenia Williams in the first Lewis-Holyfield bout. She couldn't see much sitting behind photographers.
I don't agree with it because you take the. AND NEW or AND STILL. That's something that fighter's say in the gym when they are training for their first a title fight. I like to here that so I don't agree.
ReplyDeleteSlickwalt. That would tell you a lot about a corner. And we wouldn't have got to see that crazy coaching from Oscar corner telling him the wrong instruction. That will make the great corners just average.
ReplyDeleteThat's true Gary. At least that is what she said, and I'm inclined to believe her. It (poor line of viewing) is a bit more of a problem than alot of people realize, including yours truly at the time. Kind of a shame if that's the case, as she was really villified for that. (And yes, I admittedly - and perhaps regetfully - made fun of her a bit and inferred she either had to be incompetent, corrupt, or have a serious vision problem. Well...Perhaps it was indeed the latter, but not in the way originally thought.)
ReplyDeleteAnyways, it was just absurd that she didn't have a seat with optimum viewing no matter how you slice it. That was a world championship fight. Personally, while there is absolutely nothing in the world like a ringside or courtside seat in sports, if I REALLY want to get a proper scope of the action? I'll chose a seat that is close, but slightly elevated. I have season tickets for the Seahawks at right about mid-field and elevated a bit. I was once invited down to the sideline (I banged, err...I mean BEGGED one of their cheerleaders I knew LOL) and while it was the thrill of a lifetime (the former, not the latter) I said to myself - "The sights are awe-inspiring, the sounds graphic, the smells horrible (once again, the former not the latter) but...If I had my choice of what I would prefer on a weekly basis? I would go with the elevated seating. That way, I can see from a better angle, and see coverages and plays develop and such".
Anyways, perhaps they could come up with something kinda similar to the Tennis line judges? Interestingly, I have discovered in recent years one of the following to be a good way of viewing/scoring: Provided the camera work is adequate, and your screen sizeable enough, your computer monitor. I have a number of fights on file & DVD, and I found the you can REALLY 'zoom & zero in' on the punches.
BTW - We had a fight the other night (Briggs-Liahkovich) where open scoring could have had a DRAMATIC impact, if divulged after the 10th or 11th. I still don't like it though.
ReplyDeleteP.S - I still have to hit your audio piece on this and listen to it. Perhaps you will do a 'final thoughts' segment on it this week with all of the viewer feedback and such. Just a thought...;-)
*BB*