Open scoring yes or no

[nitrokid]

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 su****ious 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.

[ELPacman]

Definite no.

[Rudyo]

I hate it.

All the fights they've done it have been blowouts and it makes it even more boring, and in close/exciting fights it may ruin it too by making it less exciting.

[brently1979]

I don't like it, but we need ****in' judges that are trained or something and actually understand boxing.

[neils7147933]

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 su****ious 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.

Open scoring is terrible for the fans and in most cases actually does a disservice to the boxers...

[niceguy45]

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 su****ious 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

[TheEvilSaint]

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.

[Chipper]

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!

[GordoMillones]

no no no and no

when i heard it in the 4th round i was like what happen?
did urkal quit? lol

[ejenki]

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?