Re: Three changes to help boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jdonaher1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jdonaher1
What’s so great about 15 round fights? Fights are going to be the same no matter what the distance is. Without a 15 round fight Hearns would have beaten Leonard in the first fight and Chavez would have KO'd Taylor in round 13. Big deal, it goes both ways. Some fights would have changed but also fighters would have fought and trained differently. It’s like when fans complain boxing would be better when it was on network TV. Unless you over 40 you grew-up watching boxing on HBO, Showtime, ESPN, USA etc etc. Boxing is all about its stars. When Tyson was God and boxing was at peak time, where were all his fights? HBO or PPV.
What is great about fifteen round fights is they are longer. Fighters have remain tough longer. Fighters have to maintain technique longer. Fighters have to perform while tired longer. Fighters have to accept pain longer. Fighters have to concentrate longer. It is inarguably a stiffer physical and mental test.
It is also arbitrary. But it seems through trial and error boxing, over about 100 years found close to an ideal mix of stamina and pace in the fifteen round distance.
Then why not 20 rounds? 50 rounds? Or just fight to the death? Just because something is longer doesn't make it better.
And that the samething I've been telling my wife for 15 years :lickish:
12 rd fights lead to bullshit. Fighters cruise.
Re: Three changes to help boxing
It has been widely cited that the reason of the change to 12 rds was that there were studies that showed fighters taking too much damage in those 3 extra rounds. I haven't seen the study yet, but boxing has been known to be a very physically debilitating sport, this is an undeniable fact that can't be refuted.
Well the people that want 15 rounds usually aren't the ones inside the ring taking damage. So I think it's ridiculous to want them to take even more damage when it's not necessary. It reminds me of when NFL fans want to go back to the rule of the 60s to 80s with those nasty hits. Yeah it's easy to say you want more boxing, but you are not the one in the ring taking the punches.
The safety of the fighter comes first period.
Re: Three changes to help boxing
1) instant replay to confirm rulings on head buts if they are accidental or if cuts were from a punch.
2) Boxing needs an outside organization that will train and review and randomly assign judges to score fights. The random assignments will be audited by another outside party.
3) Ban Joe Cortez
Re: Three changes to help boxing
And I can find studies converse. Seriously man cut the bullshit. It comes down to a matter of math and who can be weaned the longest. 12 Rd title fights fit perfectly into that plan.
Re: Three changes to help boxing
Re: Three changes to help boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jdonaher1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jdonaher1
What’s so great about 15 round fights? Fights are going to be the same no matter what the distance is. Without a 15 round fight Hearns would have beaten Leonard in the first fight and Chavez would have KO'd Taylor in round 13. Big deal, it goes both ways. Some fights would have changed but also fighters would have fought and trained differently. It’s like when fans complain boxing would be better when it was on network TV. Unless you over 40 you grew-up watching boxing on HBO, Showtime, ESPN, USA etc etc. Boxing is all about its stars. When Tyson was God and boxing was at peak time, where were all his fights? HBO or PPV.
What is great about fifteen round fights is they are longer. Fighters have remain tough longer. Fighters have to maintain technique longer. Fighters have to perform while tired longer. Fighters have to accept pain longer. Fighters have to concentrate longer. It is inarguably a stiffer physical and mental test.
It is also arbitrary. But it seems through trial and error boxing, over about 100 years found close to an ideal mix of stamina and pace in the fifteen round distance.
Then why not 20 rounds? 50 rounds? Or just fight to the death? Just because something is longer doesn't make it better.
And that the samething I've been telling my wife for 15 years :lickish:
12 rd fights lead to bullshit. Fighters cruise.
So fighter cruise in 12 round fights but they'll fight harder knowing there will be 3 more rounds LOL. Some good logic there.
Re: Three changes to help boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jdonaher1
What’s so great about 15 round fights? Fights are going to be the same no matter what the distance is. Without a 15 round fight Hearns would have beaten Leonard in the first fight and Chavez would have KO'd Taylor in round 13. Big deal, it goes both ways. Some fights would have changed but also fighters would have fought and trained differently. It’s like when fans complain boxing would be better when it was on network TV. Unless you over 40 you grew-up watching boxing on HBO, Showtime, ESPN, USA etc etc. Boxing is all about its stars. When Tyson was God and boxing was at peak time, where were all his fights? HBO or PPV.
I once said the same thing about Hearns Vs Leonard but now feel different. There is no way of telling what would have happened but Leonard could have just started sooner. They try to pace for whatever rounds are scheduled. By today's rules and Hearns height he could have outweighed Leonard by a good amount.
I agree with the first post, weigh in the same day as the fight, 10, 12 and 15 rd fights.
I think it was the USBA title that was 12 rds, if a draw occurred they fought one more rd to get a winner.
Re: Three changes to help boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
It has been widely cited that the reason of the change to 12 rds was that there were studies that showed fighters taking too much damage in those 3 extra rounds. I haven't seen the study yet, but boxing has been known to be a very physically debilitating sport, this is an undeniable fact that can't be refuted.
Well the people that want 15 rounds usually aren't the ones inside the ring taking damage. So I think it's ridiculous to want them to take even more damage when it's not necessary. It reminds me of when NFL fans want to go back to the rule of the 60s to 80s with those nasty hits. Yeah it's easy to say you want more boxing, but you are not the one in the ring taking the punches.
The safety of the fighter comes first period.
That is COMPLETE bullshit. If THAT were true there'd be no sport. Or we'd have headgear in the pros and they wear 20oz gloves and a single knockdown or drawing blood would stop a fight.
Boxing is bloodsport.
Re: Three changes to help boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jdonaher1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jdonaher1
What’s so great about 15 round fights? Fights are going to be the same no matter what the distance is. Without a 15 round fight Hearns would have beaten Leonard in the first fight and Chavez would have KO'd Taylor in round 13. Big deal, it goes both ways. Some fights would have changed but also fighters would have fought and trained differently. It’s like when fans complain boxing would be better when it was on network TV. Unless you over 40 you grew-up watching boxing on HBO, Showtime, ESPN, USA etc etc. Boxing is all about its stars. When Tyson was God and boxing was at peak time, where were all his fights? HBO or PPV.
What is great about fifteen round fights is they are longer. Fighters have remain tough longer. Fighters have to maintain technique longer. Fighters have to perform while tired longer. Fighters have to accept pain longer. Fighters have to concentrate longer. It is inarguably a stiffer physical and mental test.
It is also arbitrary. But it seems through trial and error boxing, over about 100 years found close to an ideal mix of stamina and pace in the fifteen round distance.
Then why not 20 rounds? 50 rounds? Or just fight to the death? Just because something is longer doesn't make it better.
And that the samething I've been telling my wife for 15 years :lickish:
Fights used to go to a finish or 45 rounds etc. 15 rounds seems to be the best possible mix of length and possible pace. Or put another way, it seems like the longest a fighter can go at a whirlwind pace. And yes, longer IS better in a test of toughness, concentration, fitness etc as long as technique and pace needn't be sacrificed.
Re: Three changes to help boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jdonaher1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jdonaher1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jdonaher1
What’s so great about 15 round fights? Fights are going to be the same no matter what the distance is. Without a 15 round fight Hearns would have beaten Leonard in the first fight and Chavez would have KO'd Taylor in round 13. Big deal, it goes both ways. Some fights would have changed but also fighters would have fought and trained differently. It’s like when fans complain boxing would be better when it was on network TV. Unless you over 40 you grew-up watching boxing on HBO, Showtime, ESPN, USA etc etc. Boxing is all about its stars. When Tyson was God and boxing was at peak time, where were all his fights? HBO or PPV.
What is great about fifteen round fights is they are longer. Fighters have remain tough longer. Fighters have to maintain technique longer. Fighters have to perform while tired longer. Fighters have to accept pain longer. Fighters have to concentrate longer. It is inarguably a stiffer physical and mental test.
It is also arbitrary. But it seems through trial and error boxing, over about 100 years found close to an ideal mix of stamina and pace in the fifteen round distance.
Then why not 20 rounds? 50 rounds? Or just fight to the death? Just because something is longer doesn't make it better.
And that the samething I've been telling my wife for 15 years :lickish:
12 rd fights lead to bullshit. Fighters cruise.
So fighter cruise in 12 round fights but they'll fight harder knowing there will be 3 more rounds LOL. Some good logic there.
That's right Aristotle. They all fight once or twice a year under weight to get a power advantage. Translation= Lazy hoes.
Re: Three changes to help boxing
I know it makes my stomach hurt when I hear rounds 11 and 12 called 'the championship rounds.'
Re: Three changes to help boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
It has been widely cited that the reason of the change to 12 rds was that there were studies that showed fighters taking too much damage in those 3 extra rounds. I haven't seen the study yet, but boxing has been known to be a very physically debilitating sport, this is an undeniable fact that can't be refuted.
Well the people that want 15 rounds usually aren't the ones inside the ring taking damage. So I think it's ridiculous to want them to take even more damage when it's not necessary. It reminds me of when NFL fans want to go back to the rule of the 60s to 80s with those nasty hits. Yeah it's easy to say you want more boxing, but you are not the one in the ring taking the punches.
The safety of the fighter comes first period.
That is COMPLETE bullshit. If THAT were true there'd be no sport. Or we'd have headgear in the pros and they wear 20oz gloves and a single knockdown or drawing blood would stop a fight.
Boxing is bloodsport.
That is true boxing is a bloodsport just like American football is a collision sport. But guess what changes are done to ensure the safety of the college and NFL players today. Just like horse collar tackling is banned, trying to suplex the QB isn't allowed anymore, other sorts of tackling aren't allowed, and leather helmets has been replaced with plastic ones and now there are mandatory face bars for all of the helmets, etc.
In boxing many of the changes has come to at least make it a little safer and not some complete blood bath. So what do you want? Go back to bare knuckling and have all those rounds where boxing goes to 45rounds? Or how about fighting to the death like the old Roman Colliseum? Since you did say it's a blood sport?
And I find it ridiculous to suggest 12 round fights you have lazy fighters cruising or whatever. Meldrick Taylor fought in the 12 round era and still came out punch drunk/brain damage. Gerald McClellan fought in the 12 round era and came out basically a vegetable. Z Gorres a Filipino fighter fought in this era and came out of a bout with massive brain swelling and almost died. Riddick Bowe fought in the 12 round era and is now brain damage/punch drunk. Fernando Vargas is now punch drunk and brain damage. Boxing is a brutal sport already with 12 rounds. And what's the point of adding another 3 rounds for championship matches? To satisfy the inherent lust of bloodthirsty fans?
I like the sport and understand the risk associated with it, but that doesn't mean I want to see a guy dead, become a vegetable, punch drunk, which having 15 rounds add to more of that risk.
I just got done watching Ali-Patterson 2 where Patterson was taking a tremendous beating and looked drunk on his feet before the ref stopped it, you know what was the crowd's reaction? They were booing. The crowd wasnt happy and wanted to see Floyd Patterson get killed in the ring or get severely damaged for laughs, giggles, and entertainment. I ain't part of that crowd but I guess some people are.
Re: Three changes to help boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
It has been widely cited that the reason of the change to 12 rds was that there were studies that showed fighters taking too much damage in those 3 extra rounds. I haven't seen the study yet, but boxing has been known to be a very physically debilitating sport, this is an undeniable fact that can't be refuted.
Well the people that want 15 rounds usually aren't the ones inside the ring taking damage. So I think it's ridiculous to want them to take even more damage when it's not necessary. It reminds me of when NFL fans want to go back to the rule of the 60s to 80s with those nasty hits. Yeah it's easy to say you want more boxing, but you are not the one in the ring taking the punches.
The safety of the fighter comes first period.
That is COMPLETE bullshit. If THAT were true there'd be no sport. Or we'd have headgear in the pros and they wear 20oz gloves and a single knockdown or drawing blood would stop a fight.
Boxing is bloodsport.
That is true boxing is a bloodsport just like American football is a collision sport. But guess what changes are done to ensure the safety of the college and NFL players today. Just like horse collar tackling is banned, trying to suplex the QB isn't allowed anymore, other sorts of tackling aren't allowed, and leather helmets has been replaced with plastic ones and now there are mandatory face bars for all of the helmets, etc.
In boxing many of the changes has come to at least make it a little safer and not some complete blood bath. So what do you want? Go back to bare knuckling and have all those rounds where boxing goes to 45rounds? Or how about fighting to the death like the old Roman Colliseum? Since you did say it's a blood sport?
And I find it ridiculous to suggest 12 round fights you have lazy fighters cruising or whatever. Meldrick Taylor fought in the 12 round era and still came out punch drunk/brain damage. Gerald McClellan fought in the 12 round era and came out basically a vegetable. Z Gorres a Filipino fighter fought in this era and came out of a bout with massive brain swelling and almost died. Riddick Bowe fought in the 12 round era and is now brain damage/punch drunk. Fernando Vargas is now punch drunk and brain damage. Boxing is a brutal sport already with 12 rounds. And what's the point of adding another 3 rounds for championship matches? To satisfy the inherent lust of bloodthirsty fans?
I like the sport and understand the risk associated with it, but that doesn't mean I want to see a guy dead, become a vegetable, punch drunk, which having 15 rounds add to more of that risk.
I just got done watching Ali-Patterson 2 where Patterson was taking a tremendous beating and looked drunk on his feet before the ref stopped it, you know what was the crowd's reaction? They were booing. The crowd wasnt happy and wanted to see Floyd Patterson get killed in the ring or get severely damaged for laughs, giggles, and entertainment. I ain't part of that crowd but I guess some people are.
Think I sort of overreacted there? Sorry about that. But the idea that we boxing fans REALLY care about the health of these fighters just isn't credible. Boxing isn't good for any fighter's health, ever. Anyone who pays money for fights is part of a culture that sees five or so men killed every year, year in and year out for our entertainment. There is no escaping that you're part of it.
One major reason we have these feeling for these fighters is they choose to be warriros, to embrace the rsik involved. It takes a certain kind of man.
As for 15 rounders, as you note, there is simply no reason to believe that those three rounds raise the risk in a significant way. The risk is there from round one of fight number one. As I said, it would be good for the sport to again tier fights the way we used to at 10-12-15 rounds.
And no, you don't escape ANY of the guilt you ascribe to "bloodthirsty" fans just because you'd like to see fights stopped sooner. The equation is simple. People who REALLY carew about the health of boxers support abolition of the sport.
