Three changes to help boxing
Our sport is facing myriad challenges. The lowest level of raw talent in 90 years, utterly corrupted sanctioning bodies and a thoroughly uneducated casual fan base. Rather than trying to take on ALL of the sport's issues, I am just going to argue for three all fight as opposed to business related. In no order.
1) A Return to 10-12-15 round fight structure-Prior to the Mancini-Kim fight casual fans were able to identify the importance of a fight simply by the number of rounds. A ten round fight was an ordinary fight between two experienced men but without a championship at stake. Twelve round fights signified that the winner would get a crack at the champ, an eliminator. Fifteen rounds was the championship distance. Now there is nothing magic about round numbers. Throughout boxing history title fights have been as long as "to a finish" and as short as ten rounds.It is the scaling of rounds, 10-12-15 that lets the casual fan make a judgement. As far as safety goes I have seen zero evidence that fifteen round fights actually are more dangerous than twelve round fights.
2. Eliminating the Technical Decision Rule-Prior to this abomination being introduced fifteen/twenty years ago, boxing injuries for 100+ years were simply addressed. As long as there was not a flagrant, obvious, intentional foul? A fighter either continued or lost by TKO. This meant that toughness, perseverance and a warrior ethic was highly prized. There was no incentive to talk a doctor into stopping the fight so you got a "do over" or a premature decision. Indeed, many of boxing's most storied nights are men dealing with terrible cuts (Mancini-Bramble II, Gonzales-Carbajal II, Marciano-Charles II, Arguello-Escalera II). Why did those men continue? Simple. If they didn't? They lost. With this awful technical decision rule, fighters and their corners have incentives to try to end the fight, robbing the fans of what they paid for and the sport of its elemental toughness. Hasim Rachman, James Toney, Robert Guerrero and a bunch of others have behaved badly and fans have rightly thrown up their hands. They should never have had the chance. For those of you who then say referees must be more diligent about calling fouls? I agree! But there is one other thing going on. Most of the time the cuts caused by clashing heads are the result of poor technique. Fighters haven't properly learned how to angle their head to protect their face when closing distance. When Devon Alexander said "one can't train for headbutts?" He was wrong.
3. Going Back to Same Day Weigh-Ins-In what universe is Victor Ortiz a welterweight in the same way Robinson, Basilio and Leonard were? He fights at above middleweight for God's sake. When boxing first broke into divisions? Fighters had to make weight immediately before entering the ring. In other words they FOUGHT at 147. As the sport got bigger and more carefully regulated and cards got longer, fighters weighed-in around noon the day of the fight when they got their physicals. So they fought close to the division in which they fought. Now? Fighting three divisions over the weigh-in isn't uncommon. IT IS CRAZY! It causes several problems. First, it screws with the continuity of the sport. We should NEVER ask how Ray Robinson would do against welters of today. Why? Because with day before weigh-ins? Ray was likely a lightweight. With same day weigh-ins? Today's welters wouldn't have made 147 at noon the day of the fight. Instead Ortiz, Floyd, Berto etc would have been fighting Mike McCallum or Marvin Hagler. Second, weigh-ins as currently structured makes weight cutting a boxing talent. Why is THAT a good thing? That produces devastating mismatches like Gatti-Gamache or size mismatches like Brandon Rios and Anthony Peterson. Sure they both made 135 the day before. But on fight night? A ten pound difference. For those who again argue safety, answer me this. Why is cutting weight the day before safer than simply fighting at one's natural weight? Me? I'd like to see weigh-ins done VERY close to fight time.
Now this one has two major problems. Just about everyone except Manny P. is going to have to jump at least one and probably two divisions. That may have the side benefit of eliminating 105 and maybe 108. The other is that it will eliminate what has become the sports last big pre-fight marketing and press opportunity, the Friday weigh-in.
What say you?
Re: Three changes to help boxing
;D
I guess you'd like to get rid of supermarkets and frozen foods and go back to the days when men were men, built their own houses and went out and hunted and killed their dinner.
I would love to see same day weigh in's brought back. That way Manny could become middlweight champ too.
With modern health and safety legislation however you have exactly fuck all hope of the first two being reversed. It's far more likely that they will introduce more health checks, for example when someone takes a big punch, a nurse will come on, sit him down and ask if he's ok to continue. If he says yes he'll first have to fill in an accident at work form which the referee must also sign. Then his gloves will be put back on and the round will continue.
Re: Three changes to help boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
;D
I guess you'd like to get rid of supermarkets and frozen foods and go back to the days when men were men, built their own houses and went out and hunted and killed their dinner.
I would love to see same day weigh in's brought back. That way Manny could become middlweight champ too.
With modern health and safety legislation however you have exactly fuck all hope of the first two being reversed. It's far more likely that they will introduce more health checks, for example when someone takes a big punch, a nurse will come on, sit him down and ask if he's ok to continue. If he says yes he'll first have to fill in an accident at work form which the referee must also sign. Then his gloves will be put back on and the round will continue.
I'm just gonna keep tilting at my windmills thank you very much!
Re: Three changes to help boxing
id like to go back to the days when men were men and build my own house and caught my own food
Re: Three changes to help boxing
Any of the changes mentioned don't mean shit unless the best are fighting the best bottom line. Till they fix that it doesn't matter how many rounds there are, when they weigh etc.... Aside from that getting rid of stupid catchweights and having these guys fight for a purse would change boxing a lot too. None of these changes will ever happen cause as long as they are pulling in tons of cash with the way boxing is now they have no reason to change anything.
Re: Three changes to help boxing
I like the idea of 15 rounders for title fights.
Ban catch weights.
Somehow or some way have one governing body instead of having about 10 and HBO deciding who fights whom.
I almost want to say go back to the original 8. Oh wait, I just did.
Something has to be done about horrendous judging.
Re: Three changes to help boxing
1. Have a league and set rules...you don't necessarily need to have a set roster for how many fighters can be in the league like UFC does, but just make the rules more universal.
2. 1 title per division...every fight is a bit more meaningful and the title fights hopefully go back to being THE big events
3. Purse bonuses for knockouts and perhaps (in order to be fair) also for rounds won just so the boxing purists out there don't get ripped off. That should either A) Entice fighters to gun for the KO or B) At least help them step on the gas when they can benefit by clearly winning rounds.
....just my 2 cents
Re: Three changes to help boxing
1) Get rid of the WBC
2) Get rid of the WBA
3) Get rid of the WBO
I'm sick of all the belts ;D
Re: Three changes to help boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
;D
I guess you'd like to get rid of supermarkets and frozen foods and go back to the days when men were men, built their own houses and went out and hunted and killed their dinner.
I would love to see same day weigh in's brought back. That way Manny could become middlweight champ too.
With modern health and safety legislation however you have exactly fuck all hope of the first two being reversed. It's far more likely that they will introduce more health checks, for example when someone takes a big punch, a nurse will come on, sit him down and ask if he's ok to continue. If he says yes he'll first have to fill in an accident at work form which the referee must also sign. Then his gloves will be put back on and the round will continue.
You know if the technology gets any better, we might get to see the on-site brain injury scanner.
Reflection of that Lights Out final scene, where Paule M. and John D. were at the table for the start of a boxers union. Promoters could get tagged for providing health insurance.
Re: Three changes to help boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Our sport is facing myriad challenges. The lowest level of raw talent in 90 years, utterly corrupted sanctioning bodies and a thoroughly uneducated casual fan base. Rather than trying to take on ALL of the sport's issues, I am just going to argue for three all fight as opposed to business related. In no order.
1) A Return to 10-12-15 round fight structure-Prior to the Mancini-Kim fight casual fans were able to identify the importance of a fight simply by the number of rounds. A ten round fight was an ordinary fight between two experienced men but without a championship at stake. Twelve round fights signified that the winner would get a crack at the champ, an eliminator. Fifteen rounds was the championship distance. Now there is nothing magic about round numbers. Throughout boxing history title fights have been as long as "to a finish" and as short as ten rounds.It is the scaling of rounds, 10-12-15 that lets the casual fan make a judgement. As far as safety goes I have seen zero evidence that fifteen round fights actually are more dangerous than twelve round fights.
2. Eliminating the Technical Decision Rule-Prior to this abomination being introduced fifteen/twenty years ago, boxing injuries for 100+ years were simply addressed. As long as there was not a flagrant, obvious, intentional foul? A fighter either continued or lost by TKO. This meant that toughness, perseverance and a warrior ethic was highly prized. There was no incentive to talk a doctor into stopping the fight so you got a "do over" or a premature decision. Indeed, many of boxing's most storied nights are men dealing with terrible cuts (Mancini-Bramble II, Gonzales-Carbajal II, Marciano-Charles II, Arguello-Escalera II). Why did those men continue? Simple. If they didn't? They lost. With this awful technical decision rule, fighters and their corners have incentives to try to end the fight, robbing the fans of what they paid for and the sport of its elemental toughness. Hasim Rachman, James Toney, Robert Guerrero and a bunch of others have behaved badly and fans have rightly thrown up their hands. They should never have had the chance. For those of you who then say referees must be more diligent about calling fouls? I agree! But there is one other thing going on. Most of the time the cuts caused by clashing heads are the result of poor technique. Fighters haven't properly learned how to angle their head to protect their face when closing distance. When Devon Alexander said "one can't train for headbutts?" He was wrong.
3. Going Back to Same Day Weigh-Ins-In what universe is Victor Ortiz a welterweight in the same way Robinson, Basilio and Leonard were? He fights at above middleweight for God's sake. When boxing first broke into divisions? Fighters had to make weight immediately before entering the ring. In other words they FOUGHT at 147. As the sport got bigger and more carefully regulated and cards got longer, fighters weighed-in around noon the day of the fight when they got their physicals. So they fought close to the division in which they fought. Now? Fighting three divisions over the weigh-in isn't uncommon. IT IS CRAZY! It causes several problems. First, it screws with the continuity of the sport. We should NEVER ask how Ray Robinson would do against welters of today. Why? Because with day before weigh-ins? Ray was likely a lightweight. With same day weigh-ins? Today's welters wouldn't have made 147 at noon the day of the fight. Instead Ortiz, Floyd, Berto etc would have been fighting Mike McCallum or Marvin Hagler. Second, weigh-ins as currently structured makes weight cutting a boxing talent. Why is THAT a good thing? That produces devastating mismatches like Gatti-Gamache or size mismatches like Brandon Rios and Anthony Peterson. Sure they both made 135 the day before. But on fight night? A ten pound difference. For those who again argue safety, answer me this. Why is cutting weight the day before safer than simply fighting at one's natural weight? Me? I'd like to see weigh-ins done VERY close to fight time.
Now this one has two major problems. Just about everyone except Manny P. is going to have to jump at least one and probably two divisions. That may have the side benefit of eliminating 105 and maybe 108. The other is that it will eliminate what has become the sports last big pre-fight marketing and press opportunity, the Friday weigh-in.
What say you?
Who ARE you?! Your like the Superman of Armchair warriors. My hero!!!! ;D
No seriously, another great post that I am in total agreement with.... What are your thoughts on establishing a Super-Cruiser-weight division? ;D
Re: Three changes to help boxing
I agree 15 rounds and weights the same day of the fight would be good. Also all fights have to be on free to air TV. That would save the game.
Re: Three changes to help boxing
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.
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.
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.
Re: Three changes to help boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jimanuel Boogustus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Our sport is facing myriad challenges. The lowest level of raw talent in 90 years, utterly corrupted sanctioning bodies and a thoroughly uneducated casual fan base. Rather than trying to take on ALL of the sport's issues, I am just going to argue for three all fight as opposed to business related. In no order.
1) A Return to 10-12-15 round fight structure-Prior to the Mancini-Kim fight casual fans were able to identify the importance of a fight simply by the number of rounds. A ten round fight was an ordinary fight between two experienced men but without a championship at stake. Twelve round fights signified that the winner would get a crack at the champ, an eliminator. Fifteen rounds was the championship distance. Now there is nothing magic about round numbers. Throughout boxing history title fights have been as long as "to a finish" and as short as ten rounds.It is the scaling of rounds, 10-12-15 that lets the casual fan make a judgement. As far as safety goes I have seen zero evidence that fifteen round fights actually are more dangerous than twelve round fights.
2. Eliminating the Technical Decision Rule-Prior to this abomination being introduced fifteen/twenty years ago, boxing injuries for 100+ years were simply addressed. As long as there was not a flagrant, obvious, intentional foul? A fighter either continued or lost by TKO. This meant that toughness, perseverance and a warrior ethic was highly prized. There was no incentive to talk a doctor into stopping the fight so you got a "do over" or a premature decision. Indeed, many of boxing's most storied nights are men dealing with terrible cuts (Mancini-Bramble II, Gonzales-Carbajal II, Marciano-Charles II, Arguello-Escalera II). Why did those men continue? Simple. If they didn't? They lost. With this awful technical decision rule, fighters and their corners have incentives to try to end the fight, robbing the fans of what they paid for and the sport of its elemental toughness. Hasim Rachman, James Toney, Robert Guerrero and a bunch of others have behaved badly and fans have rightly thrown up their hands. They should never have had the chance. For those of you who then say referees must be more diligent about calling fouls? I agree! But there is one other thing going on. Most of the time the cuts caused by clashing heads are the result of poor technique. Fighters haven't properly learned how to angle their head to protect their face when closing distance. When Devon Alexander said "one can't train for headbutts?" He was wrong.
3. Going Back to Same Day Weigh-Ins-In what universe is Victor Ortiz a welterweight in the same way Robinson, Basilio and Leonard were? He fights at above middleweight for God's sake. When boxing first broke into divisions? Fighters had to make weight immediately before entering the ring. In other words they FOUGHT at 147. As the sport got bigger and more carefully regulated and cards got longer, fighters weighed-in around noon the day of the fight when they got their physicals. So they fought close to the division in which they fought. Now? Fighting three divisions over the weigh-in isn't uncommon. IT IS CRAZY! It causes several problems. First, it screws with the continuity of the sport. We should NEVER ask how Ray Robinson would do against welters of today. Why? Because with day before weigh-ins? Ray was likely a lightweight. With same day weigh-ins? Today's welters wouldn't have made 147 at noon the day of the fight. Instead Ortiz, Floyd, Berto etc would have been fighting Mike McCallum or Marvin Hagler. Second, weigh-ins as currently structured makes weight cutting a boxing talent. Why is THAT a good thing? That produces devastating mismatches like Gatti-Gamache or size mismatches like Brandon Rios and Anthony Peterson. Sure they both made 135 the day before. But on fight night? A ten pound difference. For those who again argue safety, answer me this. Why is cutting weight the day before safer than simply fighting at one's natural weight? Me? I'd like to see weigh-ins done VERY close to fight time.
Now this one has two major problems. Just about everyone except Manny P. is going to have to jump at least one and probably two divisions. That may have the side benefit of eliminating 105 and maybe 108. The other is that it will eliminate what has become the sports last big pre-fight marketing and press opportunity, the Friday weigh-in.
What say you?
Who ARE you?! Your like the Superman of Armchair warriors. My hero!!!! ;D
No seriously, another great post that I am in total agreement with....
What are your thoughts on establishing a Super-Cruiser-weight division? ;D
We don't have enough decent fighters for even ONE division over 200 pounds. Splitting that horror show into two divisions would be like cutting a crappy movie in half and expecting it to produce two good movies.
If we ever had a time where we had a dozen gifted 240 pounders and a dozen gifted 220 pounders and reason to believe that was kind of an equilibrium? I would reconsider.
But right now we have 2-4 ok giants and 2-4 ok guys around 210-220 and that's about it.
Re: Three changes to help boxing
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:
