Are You in Favor or Against Open Scoring in Boxing? Results of a TSS Survey

(PART ONE: A-L): It’s time for the Quarterly TSS Survey and this time we asked our panel of noted boxing buffs how they felt about open scoring

Share The Sweet Science experience!

Published

6 years ago

October 3, 2018

Ted Sares

(PART ONE: A-L): It’s time for the Quarterly TSS Survey and this time we asked our panel of noted boxing buffs how they felt about open scoring. Specifically, they were asked, “Are you in favor of open scoring whereby the scores of the judges would be revealed after each round or at one or more intervals during the fight? If so, why? If not, why not?” Based on the large number who weighed in, our findings are being published in two parts.

While it was anticipated that most would be against open scoring, there were some interesting inputs that favored it. And some who were against it left no doubt as to their feelings. This will be expanded upon in the Observations Section of Part Two.

The respondents are listed in alphabetical order:

JAMES AMATO–author, writer, collector and historian: I’m not a fan of open scoring. I like the element of surprise at the end of a bout. Who won? Then hearing the decision of the judges. Then followed by shock, disappointment and sometimes sheer rage.

RUSS ANBER–elite cornerman and owner of Rival Sports Equipment: My gut reaction would be to NOT reveal the scores to the fans. Having said that, however, I think in a perfect world the scores could be revealed to the corners. This allows the corners to know the status of their fighter in the heat of the action, yet allows the fans to still watch the fight in a certain amount of excitement, suspense and tradition.

MATT ANDRZEJEWSKI–TSS writer: I used to staunchly oppose any type of open scoring. However, watching the first round of the WBC welterweight tournament earlier this year where scores were revealed one time, halfway through the fight, I began to become more open to the concept. The scores revealed at the halfway point did not take away from any suspense or cause fighters to extremely alter their strategy as we have seen in the past with certain types of open scoring. I think this concept could be beneficial in that cornermen sometimes have a distorted view of how a fight is going but if they hear their fighter is way down may be more apt to pull the plug later on, saving their fighter from unnecessary punishment.

DAVID AVILA—TSS West Coast Bureau Chief: It’s a perplexing question. Open scoring could lead to better scoring by judges. But it could lead to more running by boxers who know they are ahead on the scorecards. I’m leaning toward open scoring because it has not been tried 100 percent.

BOB BENOIT–former pro fighter and current referee: NO I am not in favor of it. Thirty years ago I tried it at a pro show and it took all the ‘mystery’ away. It ruined the show. It sucks. Try it and see. I did.

JOE BRUNO—former New York City sportswriter; prolific author: Bad idea. Then fighters will know when to coast; knowing they are ahead in the scoring. Plus, the mystery that leads to bad decisions makes them more upsetting when they happen. I don’t want to know who’s winning until the fight is over. And if it’s a bad decision, that’s my cue to get pissed.

STEVE CANTON—author, historian, and President of Florida Boxing Hall of Fame: I am not in favor of open scoring and never have been. In fact, in my opinion, most rule changes in boxing in the last several years have had a major negative impact such as day before weigh-ins and going from 15 rounds to 12 in world title fights. I am “Old School” and will remain that way, good or bad. If a fighter knew he was way ahead with a few rounds to go he could conceivably stay away, not take chances and not fight at all knowing he (or she) will win the decision anyway. If a fighter was behind in a fight he might become reckless trying for a knockout and get knocked out himself. What if the fighter who was behind kept boxing and didn’t get reckless and the fighter who was winning either got tired or injured? The outcome of the fight might have been decided because the fighters knew the scorecards rather than by the natural flow of the fight. What if a strong local fight crowd started rioting during the fight when they heard scorecards they didn’t agree with and the fight couldn’t be completed? Leave things alone with our sport and go back to some of things that were changed when our sport was good.

BILL CAPLAN–legendary boxing publicist: I’m in favor of the WBC plan of having open scoring after the 4th and 8th rounds.”

CHARLIE DWYER—former fighter and pro referee: I’m against open scoring simply because it takes away the suspense of waiting for the decision. Also it may cause a boxer to ease up or opt out of a bout once he realizes he’s ahead.

STEVE FARHOOD— Showtime announcer, former editor of The Ring magazine and 2017 IBHOF inductee: I am not, nor have I ever been, in favor of open scoring. I believe it places undue pressure on the judges and eliminates one of the most dramatic moments in boxing–when the ring announcer reads the final scores in a close fight.

BERNARD FERNANDEZ—lifetime member of BWAA and TSS mainstay: Open scoring is something that sounds sort-of feasible to those unfamiliar with boxers and boxing. Communism also sounds sort-of feasible to some people, too. But if history tells us anything, it is that neither concept works. If a world-class fighter believes he has banked enough early rounds to build enough of a lead, he might decide to play keep-away in the “championship” rounds, cheating the fans and possibly himself. (Think Oscar De La Hoya’s failed strategy against Felix Trinidad.) If two fighters have an inadvertent clash of heads in the third or fourth round, and the one who presumably is ahead on the scorecards is leery of the other fighter’s potential to close the gap or score a KO, he might instruct his corner to open the cut wider instead of closing it, in the hope of winning an abbreviated technical decision. Bad decisions will always be a part of boxing, but open scoring can only make things worse.

PEDRO “PETE” FERNANDEZ—former boxer and manager of Ring Talk: You can’t lay the base for a revolution because a close fight is just that. As for posting the scores, I’ve seen guys dog it with that system down the stretch. Just get better judges. I’m an ABC approved judge; if more people sat through a seminar with esteemed Judge Steve Weisfeld, they, the masses, would be in a better position to complain. Posting scores is hokey.

JEFFREY FREEMAN–(aka KO Digest): Open scoring has never worked and it never will. What I’d be more in favor of though is giving the judges a chance to review the fight on tape and to make use of a legitimate, virtual reality-based punch counting device before making their final judgments on who really earned the decision

JERRY FORTE–former Massachusetts Chief Deputy Boxing Commissioner; active amateur and professional judge: NO! We had that system in place here in Massachusetts in the early 90s. We had a red and a blue corner with lights attached. At the end of each round the light would turn on for the fighter that won that particular round. Well, it turned out to be a nightmare If the crowd did not agree with a judge’s decision, they would yell and make threats and in some cases it got physical. Finally the commission ended that way of scoring within a year.

CLARENCE GEORGE–boxing writer and historian: Open scoring adversely affects the quality of fights. If a fighter knows, for instance, that the judges have him ahead, he may very well take his foot off the gas. Two thumbs down (which is my curmudgeonly reaction to most so-called innovations).

LEE GROVES–author, writer and CompuBox wizard: I’m generally not in favor of it because there have been cases where the course of a fight has been changed by that knowledge. Fighters who knew they were so far ahead that they couldn’t lose a decision went into the four-corners defense and fighters who were so far behind have opted to quit in the corner. Such scenarios cheat the audiences that have paid to see the event live, both in the arena and on pay-per-view. I may be portraying old-school thinking, but I’d rather keep the mystery for these reasons.

HENRY HASCUP–historian; President of the New Jersey Boxing Hall of Fame: I was for it once, but I think it would take away from the drama of the fight if we knew what the score was before the end. Another reason is that if fighter A was winning by several points he might coast the rest of the way. Finally, the judges would have more pressure on them as everyone would be looking at their scores and the reaction of the fans might not be too nice!

BRUCE KIELTY–boxing matchmaker, manager, and historian: Open scoring is perhaps the most moronic idea ever advanced by the sanctioning body scumbums. It is similar to showing the end of a movie before the beginning of a movie. If a boxer knows that he is way ahead on points, he simply coasts for three or four rounds to avoid being knocked out. It takes all of the drama out of an event. The answer is hiring quality judges, not incompetent ones or those “on the take.” On the level of stupidity, I would compare this to rules (like in California) where a boxer can be knocked unconscious at 2:51 of the last round and still win the decision

STUART KIRSCHENBAUM—boxing commission emeritus, state of Michigan: I am not in favor of open scoring. The old argument that boxing is the only sport where one does not know the score does not hold any weight. Boxing is the only subjective sport, other than gymnastics and diving to name some, where scores are not earned as runs, baskets, goals, touchdowns and can be objectively calculated. Having been a professional boxing judge, I understand firsthand the pressures and influences this would have on officials and boxers. If an official notes that he is “watching another fight” than the other two judges there might be pressure for him to tighten up his score not to be on the other side of a split decision. In addition, having judged many world championships, there exists the sucking up to promoters and world boxing organization officials to gain their favor to be assigned for expensive trips and lucrative paydays and open scoring would cause further manipulation.

The other negative aspect would occur with the boxers and cornermen. If a boxer knew he was ahead on points he could coast and be virtually non-competitive for as long as needed. The losing boxer, if he knew he was so far behind on points and did not have the ability to knock out his opponent, could either quit or fake a knockdown and this would be considered “throwing a fight”.

As a commissioner, it is our job to weed out bad officials, stop favoritism among officials and understand that professionalism, honesty, integrity of judges would be the most important safeguard to non-open scoring.

JIM LAMPLEY–linchpin of the HBO announcing team; 2009 IBHOF inductee: Opposed. Always have been. Kills suspense for fans, places fighters at risk if they fall behind and take risks not warranted by their abilities, encourages leading fighter to take fewer risks—-and risk is the heart of the sport—-just think it is a bad idea in virtually every way possible.

ARNE LANG–TSS editor-in-chief, author, historian: I’m a traditionalist, so I’m perfectly okay with the current system. If I was watching a fight and to my eyes it was very close, I wouldn’t want to know the scores heading into the final round. The judges might not be seeing it my way and that would spoil it for me — like giving away the “whodunit” before I had the chance to read the last chapter of the mystery novel.

RON LIPTON–world class referee: I have an opinion on this but have to refrain as I am still an active official. (Note: a number of officials responded this way and I included Ron’s as being representative.)

CHECK BACK FOR PART TWO (M-W)

Ted Sares is one of the oldest active power lifters and is the oldest Strongman competitor in the United States. He recently won the Maine State Championship in his class. He is a member of Ring 4 and its Boxing Hall of Fame.

Check out more boxing news on video at The Boxing Channel

To comment on this article at The Fight Forum, CLICK HERE.

Post Views: 0

Share The Sweet Science experience!

Ted Sares

Up Next

Open Scoring in Boxing: Yes or No? Part Two of a TSS Survey

Don't Miss

Three Punch Combo: A Fond Farewell to HBO Boxing and More

Fast-Rising Omar Trinidad KOs Slavinskyi at the Commerce Casino

Published

4 hours ago

July 26, 2024

David A. Avila

Fast-Rising-Omar-Trinidad-KOs-Slavinskyi-at-the-Commerce-Casino

East L.A.’s Omar Trinidad knocked out Ukraine’s Viktor Slavinskyi to retain the WBC Continental America’s featherweight title on Friday in a strategic but entertaining contest.

Fighting in front of frenzied crowd of supporters Trinidad (16-0-1, 13 KOs) defeated southpaw Slavinskyi (15-3-1, 7 KOs) with a measured and careful attack at the Commerce Casino in Commerce, Calif.

Fans familiar with Trinidad (pictured over the right shoulder of promoter Tom Loeffler) are familiar with his aggressive pressure fighting style, but the Boyle Heights pugilist took a careful approach against Slavinskyi. Instead of a pounding assault Trinidad kept the fight at a distance and used his reach advantage to perfection.

It was reminiscent of long-armed fighters of the past like the late great Mando Ramos of the late 1960s who could punch or box. Pick your poison.

Trinidad employed a constant jab and well-placed counter shots. The right hand, in particular, was especially effective.

“I couldn’t miss with the right,” said Trinidad

For seven rounds Trinidad dominated with counter-punching. Then, Slavinskyi increased the pressure and forced the East L.A. fighter to come along. He did.

“If I could get a knockout I’d put him in the blender,” Trinidad said.

From the eighth round until the end Trinidad engaged in his usual fast and furious style and was especially effective with uppercuts in ninth round. Slavinskyi walked into a right uppercut that sent him across the ring and into the ropes. Referee Ray Corona ruled it a knockdown.

In the final round Trinidad wasted no time in looking to unload with an uppercut and Slavinskyi walked into a right hand version. There was no escape as he was ruled unable to continue by Corona at 2:31 of the 10^th and final round.

Trinidad keeps the title.

“The left hook and right uppercut was the money shot,” said Trinidad. “It was well-timed and it was a money shot.”

Welterweights

A fight between buddies from the same Armenian amateur team saw Aram Amirkhanyun (16-0-1, 4 KOs) defeat Gor Yeritsyan (18-1, 14 KOs) by split decision after 10 hard-fought rounds in a welterweight fight for a regional title.

The judges scored it 96-94 Yeritsyan and 96-94 twice for Amirkhanyun. No knockdowns were scored.

Iyana “Right Hook Roxy” Verduzco (2-0) proved that adapting into a pro style was not a problem in soundly defeating Pittsburgh’s Colleen Davis (3-2-1) after six featherweight rounds. Her best weapon was accuracy.

Verduzco, who is trained by her mother Gloria Alvarado, had been one of the most decorated amateur boxers for many years. In just her second pro fight the tell-tale signs of the amateur style were gone.

While the taller Davis circled rapidly to the left, Verduzco calmly waited for the openings and blasted away with pinpoint shots to the body and head. Her right hook was deadly accurate and the left found openings whenever they appeared.

Davis was able to land rights but just not enough to offset the incoming fire from the Southern California fighter. After six rounds all three judges scored it 60-54 for Verduzco.

In a firefight, Abel Mejia (5-0, 4 KOs) barely survived a second round knockdown against Tijuana’s rugged Jose Correa (6-10, 4 KOs) and rallied to remain relevant in the super featherweight match. In the fourth and final round Mejia beat Correa to the punch with a left hook that knocked out the tough Mexican challenger at 55 seconds as referee Ray Corona stopped the fight.

A super featherweight fight saw Hawaii’s Jaybrio Pe Benito (5-0, 4 KOs) power past Texan Michael Land (1-5-1) for a knockout win at 1:30 of the second round. Benito was too powerful and busy for Land who tried but was unable to slow down the assault.

Photo credit: Lina Baker

Ro comment on this story in the Fight Forum CLICK HERE

Post Views: 0

Share The Sweet Science experience!

Avila Perspective, Chap. 289: East LA, Claressa Shields and More

Published

2 days ago

July 25, 2024

David A. Avila

Avila-Perspective-Chap-289-East-L.A.-A-Fight-Town-Claressa-Shields-and-More

Avila Perspective, Chap. 289: East LA, Claressa Shields and More

East Los Angeles has long been a haven for some of the best fighters around if you can keep them out of trouble. For every Oscar De La Hoya or Seniesa Estrada there are thousands derailed by crime, drugs or drinking.

Boxing has always been a favorite sport of East L.A. Every family has an uncle or two who boxes.

On Friday, 360 Promotions’ Omar Trinidad (15-0-1) fights Viktor Slavinskyi (15-2-1) in the main event at Commerce Casino, in Commerce, CA. UFC Fight Pass will stream the fight card.

The City of Commerce used to be part of East L.A. until 1960 when it incorporated. It’s still considered to be part of East Los Angeles, but informally.

Plenty of fighters come out of East L.A. but few make it all the way like De La Hoya and Estrada. Will Trinidad be the one?

The first world champion from East L.A. or “East Los” as some call it, was Solly Garcia Smith back in the late 1800s. Others were Richie Lemos, Art Frias and Joey Olivo. There is also 1984 Olympic gold medalist Paul Gonzalez.

Once again 360 Promotions brings its popular brand of fights to the area. On this fight card includes two female bouts. One features Roxy Verduzco (1-0) the former amateur star fighting Colleen Davis (3-1-1) in a featherweight fight.

All that action takes place on Friday.

Elite Boxing

The next day, also in East L.A., Elite Boxing stages another boxing card at Salesian High School located at 960 S. Soto Street in the Boyle Heights area of East Los Angeles.

Elite Boxing has promoted several successful boxing cards at the Catholic high school grounds. The area is saturated by many of the best eateries in Los Angeles. Don’t take my word for it. Check it out yourself and grab some of that delicious food.

Boxing has long been a favorite sport of anyone who lives in East L.A. It’s a fight town equal to Philadelphia, Brooklyn or Detroit. There’s something different about the area. For more than 100 years some of the best fighters continue to come out of its boxing gyms. Some will be performing on these club shows.

For tickets or information go to www.eliteboxingusa.com

Claressa Shields in Detroit

Speaking of fight towns, pound-for-pound best Claressa Shields who won two Olympic Gold Medals in boxing, moves up another weight division to tackle the WBC heavyweight world champion Vanessa Lepage-Joanisse on Saturday, July 27, at Little Caesars Arena in Detroit, Michigan.

DAZN will stream the heavy-duty fight card.

Shields (14-0) cleaned out the super welterweight, middleweight and super middleweight divisions and now wants to add the big girls to her conquests. She will be facing Canada’s Lepage-Joanisse (7-1) who holds the WBC belt.

The last time Shields gloved up was more than a year ago when she fought Maricela Cornejo. Don’t blame Shields. She loves to fight. She loves to win. The last time Shields lost a fight was in the amateurs and that was three presidential administrations ago.

Shields doesn’t lose.

I wonder if Las Vegas even takes bets on her fights?

The only fight she may have been an underdog was against Savannah Marshall who was the last opponent to defeat her. And that was in 2012 in China. When they met as pros two years ago, Shields avenged her loss with a blistering attack.

Don’t get Shields mad.

Perhaps her toughest foe as a pro was in her pro debut when she clashed with Franchon Crews-Dezurn in Las Vegas. It was four rounds of fists and fury as the two pounded each other on the undercard of Andre Ward and Sergey Kovalev in November 2016.

That was a ferocious debut for both female pugilists.

Assisting Shields on this fight card will be several intriguing male bouts. One guy you should pay special attention is Tito Mercado (15-0, 14 KOs) a super lightweight prospect from Pomona, California.

Many excellent fighters have come out of Pomona including Sugar Shane Mosley, Shane Mosley Jr., Alberto Davila and Richie Sandoval who just passed away this week.

Sandoval was best known for his 15-round war with Philadelphia’s Jeff Chandler for the bantamweight world title in 1984. Read the story by Arne K. Lang on this link: https://tss.ib.tv/boxing/featured-boxing-articles-boxing-news-videos-rankings-and-results/81467-former-world-bantamweight-champion-richie-sandoval-passes-away-at-age-63 .

Fights to Watch

Fri. UFC Fight Pass 7 p.m. Omar Trinidad (15-0-1) vs Viktor Slavinskyi (15-2-1).

Sat. ESPN+ 12:30 p.m. Joe Joyce (16-2) vs Derek Chisora (34-13).

Sat. DAZN 3 p.m. Claressa Shields (14-0) vs Vanessa Lepage-Joanisse (7-1), Michel Rivera (25-1) vs Hugo Roldan (22-2-1); Tito Mercado (15-0) vs Hector Sarmiento (21-2).

Omar Trinidad photo by Lina Baker

To comment on this story in the Fight Forum CLICK HERE

Post Views: 0

Share The Sweet Science experience!

Arne’s Almanac: Jake Paul and Women’s Boxing, a Curmudgeon’s Take

Published

3 days ago

July 24, 2024

Arne K. Lang

Arne's-Almanac-Jake-Paul-and-Women's-Boxing-a-Curmudgeon's-Take

Jake Paul can fight more than a little. The view from here is that he would make it interesting against any fringe contender in the cruiserweight division. However, Jake’s boxing acumen pales when paired against his skill as a flim-flam artist.

Jake brought a 9-1 record into last weekend’s bout with Mike Perry. As noted by boxing writer Paul Magno, Jake’s previous opponents consisted of “a You Tuber, a retired NBA star, five retired MMA stars, a part-time boxer/reality TV star, and two undersized and inactive fall-guy boxers.”

Mike Perry, a 32-year-old Floridian, was undefeated (6-0, 3 KOs) as a bare-knuckle boxer after forging a 14-8 record in UFC bouts. In pre-fight blurbs, Perry was billed as the baddest bare knuckle boxer of all time, but against Jake Paul he proved to have very unrefined skills as a conventional boxer which Team Paul undoubtedly knew all along. Perry lasted into the eighth round in a one-sided fight that could have been stopped a lot sooner.

Jake Paul is both a boxer and a promoter. As a promoter, he handles Amanda Serrano, one of the greatest female boxers in history. That makes him the person most responsible (because the buck stops with him) for the wretched mismatch in last Saturday’s co-feature, the bout between Serrano and Stevie Morgan.

Morgan, who took up boxing two years ago at age 33, brought a 14-1 record. Nicknamed the Sledgehammer, she had won 13 of her 14 wins by knockout, eight in the opening round. However, although she resides in Florida, all but one of those 13 knockouts happened in Colombia.

“We found that in Colombia there were just more opportunities for women’s boxing than in the United States,” she told a prominent boxing writer whose name we won’t mention.

The truth is that, for some folks, Colombia is the boxing equivalent of a feeder lot for livestock, a place where a boxer can go to fatten their record. The opportunities there were no greater than in Hot Springs, Arkansas, in 1995. It was there that Peter McNeeley prepped for his match with Mike Tyson with a 6-second knockout of professional punching bag Frankie Hines. (Six seconds? So it would be written although no one seems to have been there to witness it.)

Serrano vs Morgan was understood to be a stay-busy fight for Amanda whose rematch with Katie Taylor was postponed until November. Stevie Morgan, to her credit, answered the bell for the second round whereas others in her situation would have remained on the stool and invented an injury to rationalize it. Thirty-eight seconds later it was all over and Ms. Morgan was free to go home and use her sledgehammer to do some light dusting.

The Paul-Perry and Serrano-Morgan fights played out in a sold-out arena in Tampa before an estimated 17,000. Those without a DAZN subscription paid $64.95 for the livestream. Paul’s next promotion, where he will touch gloves with 58-year-old Mike Tyson (unless Iron Mike pulls a Joe Biden and pulls out; a capital idea) with Serrano-Taylor II the semi-main, will almost certainly rake in more money than any other boxing promotion this year.

Asked his opinion of so-called crossover boxing by a reporter for a college newspaper, the venerable boxing promoter Bob Arum said, “It’s not my bag but folks who don’t like it shouldn’t get too worked up over it because no one is stealing from anybody.” True enough, but for some of us, the phenomenon is distressing.

—

The next big women’s fight happens Saturday in Detroit where Claressa Shields seeks a world title in a third weight class against WBC heavyweight belt-holder Vanessa Lepage-Joanisse.

A two-time Olympic gold medalist, undefeated in 14 fights as a pro, Shields is very good, arguably the best female boxer of her generation which makes her, arguably, the best female boxer of all time. But turning away Lepage-Joanisse (7-1, 2 KOs) won’t elevate her stature in our eyes.

Purportedly 17-4 as an amateur, the Canadian won her title in her second crack at it. Back in August of 2017, she challenged Cancun’s Alejandra Jimenez in Cancun and was stopped in the third round. Entering the bout, Lepage-Joanisse was 3-0 as a pro and had never fought a match slated for more than four rounds.

Vanessa Lepage-Joanisse

True, on the women’s side, the heavyweight bracket is a very small pod. A sanctioning body has to make concessions to harness a sanctioning fee. Nonetheless, how absurd that a woman who had answered the bell for only 11 rounds would be deemed qualified to compete for a world title. (FYI: Alejandra Jimenez was purportedly born a man. She left the sport with a 12-0-1 record after her win over Franchon Crews Dazurn was changed to a no-contest when she tested positive for the banned steroid stanozolol.)

Following her defeat to Jimenez, Vanessa Lepage-Joanisse, now 29 years old, was out of action for six-and-a-half years. When she returned, she was still a heavyweight, but a much slender heavyweight. She carried 231 pounds for Jimenez. In her most recent bout where she captured the vacant WBC title with a split decision over Argentina’s Abril Argentina Vidal, she clocked in at 173 ¼. (On the distaff side, there’s no uniformity among the various sanctioning bodies as to what constitutes a heavyweight.)

Claressa Shields doesn’t need Vanessa Lepage-Joanisse to reinforce her credentials as a future Hall of Famer. She made the cut a long time ago.

To comment on this story in the Fight Forum CLICK HERE

Post Views: 0

Share The Sweet Science experience!