Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
I don't think there should because just say that rule would have been in effect, in the the Marquez vs Pacquiao fight we would of missed out on an fantastic fight and one of the greatest comeback's in boxing history. And in the fight with Benn vs Barkley, that was amazing fight and Barkley even though he got dropped 3 times still looked like he could of gone much further because the 1st round was over, but because of the 3 knockdown's rule we missed out on what could of been Hagler vs Hearns type of war but whats your opinion ??
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
If your down 3 times in a round,your obviously in danger,so yes,yes,and hells yes
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
No. It should be the job of the ref to dictate how bad a fighter is physically. And a fighters corner should be able to see how bad their fighter is and can always throw in the towel.
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
If your down 3 times in a round,your obviously in danger,so yes,yes,and hells yes
Not in all cases Barkley wasn't badly hurt.
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
I don't like the 3 knockdown rule at all, because it takes away the ref's ability to do what he's paid to do, and that's make judgement calls.
The rule is designed to prevent a fighter from suffering unnecessary punishment, but isn't that what the ref is in the ring for? If you don't trust your ref to make the right calls, then why is he even out there?
All knockdowns are not created equal. For example, while Marquez's 3 knockdowns were all legit knockdowns on clean hard punches, he never seemed to lose his awareness or his senses. He just was surprised by Pacquiao's speed and power. He deserved the chance to keep fighting.
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPea
I don't like the 3 knockdown rule at all, because it takes away the ref's ability to do what he's paid to do, and that's make judgement calls.
All knockdowns are not created equal. For example, while Marquez's 3 knockdowns were all legit knockdowns on clean hard punches, he never seemed to lose his awareness or his senses. He just was surprised by Pacquiao's speed and power. He deserved the chance to keep fighting.
I totally agree CC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LEGION
No. It should be the job of the ref to dictate how bad a fighter is physically. And a fighters corner should be able to see how bad their fighter is and can always throw in the towel.
Yep agreed here as well CC in 24.
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Maybe there should be a 4 knockdown rule... :o
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricardo "Finito" Lopez
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
If your down 3 times in a round,your obviously in danger,so yes,yes,and hells yes
Not in all cases Barkley wasn't badly hurt.
You want to take that dice roll with another human beings life?
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricardo "Finito" Lopez
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
If your down 3 times in a round,your obviously in danger,so yes,yes,and hells yes
Not in all cases Barkley wasn't badly hurt.
You want to take that dice roll with another human beings life?
They roll the dice every time they get in the ring; that's the life they chose. If they are up on their feet, functioning, and able to converse and walk to the ref without looking like they are failing a sobriety test, then let them fight. This isn't Quilt Knitting 101 ;D
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Yes I believe that there should be a three knock down rule.
If you count the amount of guys who got up to complete a fight after being knocked 3 times in one round, you would have a very short list.
If you listed the guys who's careers or healthe were damaged after continuing after three knockdowns you'd have a longer list.
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by LEGION
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricardo "Finito" Lopez
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
If your down 3 times in a round,your obviously in danger,so yes,yes,and hells yes
Not in all cases Barkley wasn't badly hurt.
You want to take that dice roll with another human beings life?
They roll the dice every time they get in the ring; that's the life they chose. If they are up on their feet, functioning, and able to converse and walk to the ref without looking like they are failing a sobriety test, then let them fight. This isn't Quilt Knitting 101 ;D
Kim looked fine right before he was killed in the ring
They arent "they" theyre someones child
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricardo "Finito" Lopez
I don't think there should because just say that rule would have been in effect, in the the Marquez vs Pacquiao fight we would of missed out on an fantastic fight and one of the greatest comeback's in boxing history. And in the fight with Benn vs Barkley, that was amazing fight and Barkley even though he got dropped 3 times still looked like he could of gone much further because the 1st round was over, but because of the 3 knockdown's rule we missed out on what could of been Hagler vs Hearns type of war but whats your opinion ??
Its a stupid rule as the knockdowns might not be that bad. And if you keep getting up then your ok to continue. i remember Simon Brown knocking Jorge Vaca down four times in a round and four times he got back up. And didnt Ingemar Johannson knock Floyd Patterson down about 7 times in a round.
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEANIE
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricardo "Finito" Lopez
I don't think there should because just say that rule would have been in effect, in the the Marquez vs Pacquiao fight we would of missed out on an fantastic fight and one of the greatest comeback's in boxing history. And in the fight with Benn vs Barkley, that was amazing fight and Barkley even though he got dropped 3 times still looked like he could of gone much further because the 1st round was over, but because of the 3 knockdown's rule we missed out on what could of been Hagler vs Hearns type of war but whats your opinion ??
Its a stupid rule as the knockdowns might not be that bad.
And if you keep getting up then your ok to continue. i remember Simon Brown knocking Jorge Vaca down four times in a round and four times he got back up. And didnt Ingemar Johannson knock Floyd Patterson down about 7 times in a round.
Thats pretty bad Seanie. You can't mean that.
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
The offbalance knockdowns count towards the three and that makes the rule hard to accept. It's fine for some fights but has no place in the big money matchups.
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
no there shouldnt be , it always should be up to the ref or the cornermen
