Could Live Scoring Finally Knock Out Boxing's Biggest Problem?

By Billie Sloane, IFL TV

Imagine this: you’re ringside at a big fight. The atmosphere’s electric, and the fighters are leaving it all in the ring. But with every passing round, one question gnaws at everyone—who’s winning? Fans speculate, trainers shout advice, and commentators guess. Then comes the decision. Boos echo through the arena as the result leaves half the crowd stunned. Was it a robbery or just another example of boxing’s opaque scoring system?

What if, instead of waiting for the judges’ verdict, you knew the score round by round? In other sports—tennis, basketball, football—there’s no guessing who’s ahead. Why should boxing be any different? Could live scoring make the sweet science more transparent and give fighters and fans the clarity they crave? Or would it create more problems than it solves?

The Case for Live Scoring: Transparency and Accountability

Boxing has a long history of controversial decisions. We’ve all seen it—the hometown fighter getting the nod in a close fight, the inexplicable scorecard that leaves even the winning camp scratching their heads. Live scoring could be the antidote to this madness. If judges’ scores were revealed at the end of each round, there’d be no room for shady decisions.

Transparency would be the name of the game. Imagine how much more engaging it would be for fans. Instead of endless speculation, they’d know the stakes in real-time. Fighters, too, could adjust their tactics. If you’re down on the cards, you know it’s time to go for broke. If you’re ahead, you can play it smart, avoiding unnecessary risks.

It’s not just about fairness—it’s about holding judges accountable. A public scorecard means every decision is scrutinized in real-time. No more hiding behind a final tally. If a judge turns in a wildly off-the-mark score, fans and commentators will catch it immediately. And maybe—just maybe—that pressure will force judges to sharpen their game.

Take UFC, for example. Open scoring has been tested in MMA, and while it’s still debated, many fighters have praised the clarity it brings. So, why not boxing? Shouldn’t fighters be given the same advantage—knowing exactly where they stand?

The Downside: Pressure, Risk, and the Loss of Drama

But here’s the flip side. Live scoring could fundamentally change how fighters approach a bout—and not always for the better. Imagine a fighter who’s comfortably ahead going into the later rounds. Would they keep pressing for a knockout, or would they coast, knowing they only need to survive? Fans love boxing for its drama and unpredictability. Live scoring might take some of that magic away.

Worse, it could push fighters into reckless decisions. A fighter who realizes they’re behind might throw caution—and defense—out the window, leading to desperate swings and dangerous situations. Boxing is already a brutal sport. Do we really want to encourage riskier behavior just to chase a last-minute comeback?

And then there’s the mental aspect. Boxing is as much a mental battle as a physical one. Knowing you’re behind could be demoralizing, sapping a fighter’s will to continue. Conversely, a fighter who’s ahead might become complacent, leading to a less competitive contest.

Could Live Scoring Work?

The idea of live scoring is seductive, but implementing it wouldn’t be simple. Would it be shown to the audience in real-time? Or just to the fighters and their corners? What about close rounds—would judges be forced to pick a winner even if it’s razor-thin? And what happens when one judge’s score wildly disagrees with the others?

Let’s face it—boxing isn’t exactly known for embracing change. Even something as seemingly straightforward as standardizing glove sizes has sparked endless debates. Could the sport really adapt to something as radical as live scoring?

What Would It Mean for the Fans?

For fans, live scoring would be a game-changer. No more confusion. No more “who do you have ahead?” debates. But would that take away some of the magic? Part of boxing’s charm is the suspense—the drama that builds with every round. Would live scoring kill that suspense, turning every fight into a math problem instead of a spectacle?

And here’s a bigger question: would live scoring actually solve the problem of bad judging? Or would it just make it more visible? After all, transparency is great, but it doesn’t fix incompetence. What boxing really needs is better training for judges and a more consistent scoring system.

Is Boxing Ready for This Kind of Change?

Here’s where you come in. Would live scoring make boxing fairer, or would it create more chaos? Do you want to see the score after every round, or do you prefer the suspense of waiting for the final bell?

One thing’s for sure—boxing can’t afford to ignore the debate. Fans are demanding more transparency, and the sport must decide whether to evolve or stick to its old-school ways.

So, what do you think? Is boxing ready for this kind of transparency, or are we better off keeping things the way they are?

Let the debate begin. Because if there’s one thing boxing loves, it’s a good fight—inside or outside the ring.

Billie Sloane takes a ‘no holes barred’ approach as he has his say on some of the major talking points in the crazy world that is boxing.