Heavyweights Samuel Peter and Oleg Maskaev fought Saturday night in Cancun, for all those who missed it. The fight wasn’t as much exciting as it was progressive in procedure. Michael David Smith points out at FanHouse that the judges used open scoring, meaning their scores were announced after each round. If you recall, I had an interview with renowned boxing judge, Chuck Giampa, and I asked him that very question. Giampa was against the practice, as were Jim Lampley and Max Kellerman (both were commentating for the fight). MDS points out that the fight went just fine with the procedure, and that the fighters paused to hear the score before each round. He says Peter was even the aggressor after knowing he was already winning.
Though Lampley and Kellerman didn’t give reasons why they were against the open scoring system according to MDS, I can come up with a few. For one thing, though it might not have in this case, a fighter can purposely avoid contact if he knows he’s already winning. Secondly, maybe the judges could be influenced by the scores of the other judges, perhaps beginning to second guess themselves. Remember, judges see the fights from different angles, logically resulting in varying scores. Still, I believe the open scoring would help to keep the judges in check, and it would allow a fighter the conscious opportunity to win a fight he’s losing on the cards. Say the fighter knows he’s losing on the cards though he believes he’s winning, he then can resort to head-hunting for a K.O. I really think the benefits of this system would outweigh the negatives.Google+