Open scoring yes or no

[The Fix]

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

[TheGoods07]

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.

[nitrokid]

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.

[USA4LIFE]

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.

[LoftyDog]

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.

[STEELHEAD]

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.

the original thought behind open scoreing was to keep the judges honest.

i don't like some of the side effect of letting public know judge scoring and wished that we had one ruling boxing commision that monitored the judges scoring while fight in progress and not public.
i mean the reality has been that a promotor like don king or bob arum can blow into a small cornponed town in iowa or florida or minnisota with a breifcase of money and line up judges and refs with free pinocchia and have them lean for them.
you need this underhandedness controlled somehow.

[psychopath]

In as much as I hate it because it really takes away the thrill and suspense, it will help remove the doubt on BUM SCORING and QUESTIONABLE RESULTS especially on close fights so I'll vote for it.

[Run]

No, because it takes the suspense out of the fight, and does nothing positive.

Judges don't give a **** 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!

[Dirt E Gomez]

Yeah... these people saying it will keep judges honest... What the **** 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.

[The Surgeon]

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