Open scoring yes or no

It thought it was an excellent idea but now that I've actually seen it in action I think its terrible.

No reason to use it when it would hurt the quality of most fights. Especially when fighters are just starting out, fighting boxers who may not be as dedicated, open scoring may cause their opponent to call it quits and deprive them of experience or a KO. Johnny Slick is fighting Johnny Power. It's the 10th round, Power is tired and Slick has been popping, moving, and out boxing him all night. He's pitching a shut-out on all cards. Power is trying still, catching him with some solid shots, but not being able to steal a round. In an open scoring world Power's corner can stop the fight, knowing he is getting hit around, taking punishment and will most likely get beat. In the world where a boxer may or may not be ahead on the cards Power, not knowing where he stands, will fight harder as he suspects he is down- but not give up. He'll work his ass off and maybe get a KO in the 11th or 12th against Slick....where as in the open scoring would he may have just called it quits.

I don't like it at all. No need for it.

Besides how does revealing the scores every four rounds stop bum decisions? All it does is take away the whole point of having three judges in the first place as each judge is influenced by decision making of the other two. lol yeah I know, it's absurd. I think it has to do with that whole "Well I at least want to know who is fucking the scores up, so I can point the finger at them" mentality. Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

It was a horrible idea to begin with. They should be trying out things that would actually be useful, like instant replay to see if it was a knockdown or a slip.

It makes one sided fights less exciting. It may make close fights more competitive but I doubt it. We haven't seen it yet. I've seen many quite compelling reasons for having open scoring but none of them have been compelling enough to outweight the reasons against. Besides how does revealing the scores every four rounds stop bum decisions? All it does is take away the whole point of having three judges in the first place as each judge is influenced by decision making of the other two.

i hate it...............

Open scoring sux ball hairs man - Shite idea! I think they will drop it

Yeah... these people saying it will keep judges honest... What the fuck are you smoking? It's not like their cards are kept secret and hidden away from the public. You can access them from any major fight within a couple of days on the web and sometimes on air the announcers will have the official cards w/ them as well that they can compare with or inform the viewers of. FYI: Open scoring does cause global warming.

No, because it takes the suspense out of the fight, and does nothing positive. Judges don't give a shit if people can see their scores or not. Eugena Williams openly stated she was convinced that Holyfield won the first fight against Lennox Lewis........because according to her Holyfield "Hit the other guy more" All it does is start mini controversies within the fight itself. Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

the only fights that had open scoring that i saw were the taylor/ouma and cotto/urkal fights, neither fight was particularly difficult to score. It doesn't help that those 2 fights were 1 sided. In the right conditions it could be great. Like in a DLH/Trinidad or a even fight to the last round.

Honestly Jim Lampley was starting to piss me off with his "this is why open scoring is a bad idea". he just kept repeating himself over and over again and was blaiming everything on open scoring. Global warming was caused by open scoring The twin towers fell b/c of open scoring he beat his wife b/c of open scoring God dude enough we get it you don't like it now shut up.

I would at least like to see it used in a close fight before they get rid of it. We all know that it makes a boring fight more boring but does it make a close fight more exciting? Exactly I mean, obviously cotto's fight wasn't really hard to score but what about the fres oquendo fight with chris byrd which was a robbery no matter how you slice it? There are very open fights that really don't need open scoring but a close fight would be more interesting in my opinion. Knowing you're neck to neck and that any round could lose you the fight. I agree it is very anti-climatic thus taking away from the entertainment we all pay to see. The entertainment factor is the one that brings the money to the fights so you can argue that entertainment factor has to be there. I'd agree with that too however, I think it gives boxing more transparency in the way it is handled. We have to remember that first and foremost boxing is a sport.

It can make a close fight more exciting because then everyone knows the fighters are close "visually" and on paper but how do you know beforehand if a fight is going to be close or not? You don't. From the fans point of view it's terrible. The only time open scoring should have been used was with Roy Jones Jr. at the olympics.

no.... i used think it might help but after tonight, its very anti-climactic....as jim lampley stated through out the night...

I would at least like to see it used in a close fight before they get rid of it. We all know that it makes a boring fight more boring but does it make a close fight more exciting?

no no no and no when i heard it in the 4th round i was like what happen? did urkal quit? lol

Open scoring sucks cause it takes out the suspense in the fight. And it helped Urkal's corner to make the decicion to throw in the towel!

the only fights that had open scoring that i saw were the taylor/ouma and cotto/urkal fights, neither fight was particularly difficult to score.

In the Cotto vs Urkal fight they decided to announce the current score every 4 rounds. Jim Lampley and the announcers didn't think it was a good idea. Although it takes away from the entertainment experience, not really knowing who is ahead, I believe it is fairer to the sport and the fighters. In all sports I can think of you always know how well are you doing at a certain point in the competition. In basketball you just look at the score, in gymnastics the judges let you know how you did right after each routine. My point is, you're fighting what you believe is a good fight, you believe you are winning and you don't change your strategy because you think you're doing well but you really don't know if the judges like what you're doing. Suddenly the fight's over and you find out you lost! The current boxing's closed scheme makes me a little suspicious to tell you the truth and it opens itself to criticism, sometimes deserved and sometimes not. I know it sucks to be watching a fight and right by the 12 round knowing who's winning but most times we already know. I say give the boxers a chance to know how they're doing, let them know they're losing if they are or let them know they are winning, that will open the doors for a more competitive fight and give the boxer a chance to change plans because he know how he is OFFICIALLY doing. Let me know what you guys think. i think open scoring was a bad idea and might of made the difference in the fight.....but obviously the head bunts as well too might of dq urkal anyways