Opinions, please

Now there's a reasonable editor.

 

Honestly, I'm ok with either one. I guess, if I had to pick, I'd say I want 55-55.

 

I don't think any of the points are wrong, but I prefer "tied at 55," but nobody is writing, "The score was 55."

"Tied at 55" does give both scores. But like sportschick, I don't consider the other way wrong, so I wouldn't change it.

EDIT: Spelling error.

 

What about?: "Tied at double-nickel."

 

You will die.

 

You will die a lonely, agonizing death, and once you're dead you will spend all eternity sandwiched in between Stuart Scott and Chris Berman.

 

What he said.

 

Wow, what a great array of responses to my question.

I guess my answer is that either is correct, and maybe a paper should identify a style if it has two writers each going in different directions with this. I only brought this up because a young copy editor circled it on a proof the other night as if it were wrong - and he wrote "tied it at 55." I didn't think it was necessary to change it to that, but I wanted to see what everyone thought.

I definitely prefer the 55-55 angle, but I won't be losing any sleep over it.

Thanks to everyone who answered.

 

You're welcome.
I thought my contribution was instrumental in the success of this thread.

 

How would it be less accurate? Tied at 55 is the same as 55-55

 

Well, fish, it should go without saying that this thread was all about you.

 

Geez, what a silly issue. Don't you think a reader might be able to figure out that it's a tie at 55? It's tighter, and you can move the play-by-play to whoever takes the lead smoothly in the next sentence.
Play-by-play is overrated anyway.