Open Scoring Trials Divide Opinion in Boxing

Trials of open scoring, in which judges' cards are revealed to corners at intervals during a bout, have produced measurable effects on fighter behaviour and a sharply divided response within the sport.

Under the trialled formats, the running score is announced after specified rounds, allowing corners to advise fighters on whether they need a stoppage or can manage the remaining rounds.

The Case For

Advocates argue open scoring addresses the sport's most damaging recurring problem, which is a fighter believing they are ahead, coasting through the final rounds, and losing a decision they could have won by pressing.

It also introduces accountability. Judges producing eccentric cards are exposed during the bout rather than afterward, when the result is already recorded.

The Case Against

The principal objection is that open scoring can suppress action rather than encourage it. A fighter with a substantial lead has clear information that avoiding engagement secures the win, which is a rational response and a poor spectacle.

Observers of the trials have reported exactly this pattern in some bouts, with the final rounds becoming markedly less competitive once the score was known.

Partial Approaches

Intermediate options have been proposed, including revealing only the round count without margins, or announcing scores only where the bout is close.

Neither has been trialled at sufficient scale to assess. The sport's fragmented regulatory structure means adoption will likely remain patchwork regardless of what the evidence eventually shows.