Pussification of the American male.

I have noticed over the last few years, that I have seen alot of fights that were IMO, stoped prematurly. As soon as a guy gets his bell rung, the ref is looking to stop the fight. This is fighting! It has rules, but it is still fighting. A guy gets a cut above his eye and the ref stops the fight pereoticly to have the doc. look at it. Some decisitions should be left up to the corners. If the fighter cant take anymore, throw in the towel. This is one of th reasons that boxing has lost part of its reputation, and fan base. Good fights stoped over bullshit. Too many people with a say in the outcome of a fight. Now adays if a fighter is taking a beating, they want to stop the fight. People always ask, why dont we have fighters like in the good old days. Ali, Marciano, Frasier, Henry Cooper (British Hvy. Chmp.) , Marven Hagler, Joe Lewis, Floyd Patterson, and many fighters, that people point their finger at say do you remember the war he was in. Now days fighters with potential, arent given the chanse to become Great, because they arent given the oppertunity to get up off the mat, seven times like Floyed Patterson, in a loss. But that is what is what made them great, not their ability to fight, but their ability to keep fighting. If Ali did the rope a dope now, would he still be the greatest? People are too worried about getting someone hurt, that the snuffout Greatness.

Works both ways...

Dont stop the fight and then the boxer gets killed or brain damaged.

End of the day a life is more important than a Win

:-\

Interesting thread...

The rules are there to protect the fighters. We don't live in 1880. It's a sport...and they rely on the ref (and thier corner) to have thier interests at heart.

There's nothing great about getting hit in the head enough times that you blackout and hit the canvass. Granted, it shows a lot of heart to get back up again, but surely 'greatness' is measured by more than sheer courage alone..?

Muhammad ali was never out on his feet and still able to actually fight, a fight should be stopped when a fighter is unable to fight back and is basically out on his feet.

I thought of that. Look at the UCF. Brutle. Boxing in the 60's & 70's. Awsome. How realistic a concern is it really? I dont want to sound like I say " let them fight so what if they die." Thats not what Im saying. What Im saying is it's the chance you take whenever you box. But I do say let them fight let the best man win.

If you want the sport to survive well into the 21st century, you have to accept that boxing is going to have more and more safety measures put into it.

It is finding the right balance, that is going to determine its future, for the moment I have no problem with the safety aspects in boxing, other than I think World Championship fights should be scheduled for 15 rounds.

But I always prefer a ref who is cautious with fighters safety than one who is reckless. I would rather see every fight stopped 10 punches too soon, rather than one stopped too late. There are always rematches for the former, not so many for the latter...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B@rr3r@

Works both ways...

Dont stop the fight and then the boxer gets killed or brain damaged.

End of the day a life is more important than a Win

:-\

---

Agreed and its a shame with politics and law suits ruling the day its hard to temper the 2,now it depends on the REF,SIGNIFAGANCE OF THE FIGHT....there was a point in the 1st Gatti Ward fight were the Ref should of stopped it for Arturo's sake if you were a compassionate person like me it was hard to see him get beat up like that I was yelling on my couch STOP the fight before he gets killed!!!!!!!!!!!!! But thats how Arturo cemented his legacy but then you have what happen to Johnson and you say why did he have to take such a beating and lose his life????

Richard Steele stopped the Chavez Taylor fight cause he felt Meldrick Taylor had taken enough punishment even though Meldrik was winning on points he said "Julio was landing the harder shots through out the fight" Meldrik deserved the benefit of the doubt he deserved that win if he was gonna spend the rest of his life Slurring his words and not being with it, he should have been able to say he beat the mighty Julio Caeser Chavez IMO I think he was screwed!!! but with 10 seconds left WHAT IF JULIO HIT HIM ONE MORE TIME AND KILLED HIM??? its a double edge sword

By the way. Ali looked like he was getting killed in the Forman fight. Until he explained his tactics. There is a difference between being dazed and being unable to defend yourself. Ya ll keep sayen better too soon than too late. I agree, sort of. The one punch, or combonation of punches can happen weather your dazed or clear headed. The vast majority of the serious injuries you peeps refer to are pre existing issues. Not from the fight at hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Britkid

If you want the sport to survive well into the 21st century, you have to accept that boxing is going to have more and more safety measures put into it.

It is finding the right balance, that is going to determine its future, for the moment I have no problem with the safety aspects in boxing, other than I think World Championship fights should be scheduled for 15 rounds.

But I always prefer a ref who is cautious with fighters safety than one who is reckless. I would rather see every fight stopped 10 punches too soon, rather than one stopped too late. There are always rematches for the former, not so many for the latter...

---

Could'nt have put it any better myself, exactly how I feel.

I'm not saying that we should go back to the days, when a round was counted by a knock down. What I am saying is that #1 too many people have a say in the outcome of the fight. #2 It OK to stop a fight when a fighter is unable to defend himself. #3 The significance of the fight should have no bearing on the interpretation of the rules. #4 And if the goal is make the sport more civilized to conform to the 21st century, well look around that ain't what is happening to its competition.
You want to conform to the 21st century, save it's reputation. And until fights can be seen by the public, the occasional observer as legitimate, and without outside influences. True or not that is a common belief of your average Joe. Why? Because a ref can stop a fight that doesn't seem to need stopping. (for example) We cant even do it with the Olympics, ???

Sorry if i got off the subject a little Im in a mood. Getting ready 4 a date. My point is boxing isnt chess, there are inherent risks to the sport, it alows a man to dig down deep and finde out what it takes to overcome his opponent. And the fact that the fans come see their FIGHTER beat the crap out of the other guy. And you cant take an ass whippen, you'r in the wrong sport.

I think it's about time they put safety first....if they think there is an early stoppage they can have a rematch.....if you take too many shots you may never get that chance at redemption......why do you think there were were so few multiple time champs in the old days....why were there no 2 time hw champs Until Patterson...because the beatings they took kept them from ever regaining their old glory......the physical damage incurred from those additional punches are irreversable....by that time the fighter is defenseless and can no longer PROTECT himself...that is when the real damage happens....meldrick taylor suffered one of the worst cumulative beatings on record....he was never the same.....but while he was never defenseless until 2:50 of the final round it doesn't change the fact that he was still DEFENSELESS at the time of the stoppage......imagine if he had taken 5 more of those shots....it could be R.I.P.......plus we have to at least try to appease the soccermoms (a sport proven to cause far more concussions than amateur boxing, but that's another story altogether) so Boxing will stay legal.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Weebels

By the way. Ali looked like he was getting killed in the Forman fight. Until he explained his tactics. There is a difference between being dazed and being unable to defend yourself. Ya ll keep sayen better too soon than too late. I agree, sort of. The one punch, or combonation of punches can happen weather your dazed or clear headed. The vast majority of the serious injuries you peeps refer to are pre existing issues. Not from the fight at hand.

---

I didn't think Ali looked like he was getting killed, he was never hurt, he was taking punches on the arms and firing in between them. Mayweather does a variation of that and so does Roy Jones. Ali called it the Phantom ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigragu

I think it's about time they put safety first....if they think there is an early stoppage they can have a rematch.....if you take too many shots you may never get that chance at redemption......why do you think there were were so few multiple time champs in the old days....why were there no 2 time hw champs Until Patterson...because the beatings they took kept them from ever regaining their old glory......the physical damage incurred from those additional punches are irreversable....by that time the fighter is defenseless and can no longer PROTECT himself...that is when the real damage happens....meldrick taylor suffered one of the worst cumulative beatings on record....he was never the same.....but while he was never defenseless until 2:50 of the final round it doesn't change the fact that he was still DEFENSELESS at the time of the stoppage......imagine if he had taken 5 more of those shots....it could be R.I.P.......plus we have to at least try to appease the soccermoms (a sport proven to cause far more concussions than amateur boxing, but that's another story altogether) so Boxing will stay legal.....

---

Didn't I just say that???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jtrock

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigragu

I think it's about time they put safety first....if they think there is an early stoppage they can have a rematch.....if you take too many shots you may never get that chance at redemption......why do you think there were were so few multiple time champs in the old days....why were there no 2 time hw champs Until Patterson...because the beatings they took kept them from ever regaining their old glory......the physical damage incurred from those additional punches are irreversable....by that time the fighter is defenseless and can no longer PROTECT himself...that is when the real damage happens....meldrick taylor suffered one of the worst cumulative beatings on record....he was never the same.....but while he was never defenseless until 2:50 of the final round it doesn't change the fact that he was still DEFENSELESS at the time of the stoppage......imagine if he had taken 5 more of those shots....it could be R.I.P.......plus we have to at least try to appease the soccermoms (a sport proven to cause far more concussions than amateur boxing, but that's another story altogether) so Boxing will stay legal.....

---

Didn't I just say that???

---

I was agreeing with you on the Meldrick Taylor Fight....That was the only part of your comment I used in mine...the rest came from me so I will try my best to remember to give props to "jtrock" when ever I take something from him and elaborate on it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigragu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jtrock

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigragu

I think it's about time they put safety first....if they think there is an early stoppage they can have a rematch.....if you take too many shots you may never get that chance at redemption......why do you think there were were so few multiple time champs in the old days....why were there no 2 time hw champs Until Patterson...because the beatings they took kept them from ever regaining their old glory......the physical damage incurred from those additional punches are irreversable....by that time the fighter is defenseless and can no longer PROTECT himself...that is when the real damage happens....meldrick taylor suffered one of the worst cumulative beatings on record....he was never the same.....but while he was never defenseless until 2:50 of the final round it doesn't change the fact that he was still DEFENSELESS at the time of the stoppage......imagine if he had taken 5 more of those shots....it could be R.I.P.......plus we have to at least try to appease the soccermoms (a sport proven to cause far more concussions than amateur boxing, but that's another story altogether) so Boxing will stay legal.....

---

Didn't I just say that???

---

I was agreeing with you on the Meldrick Taylor Fight....That was the only part of your comment I used in mine...the rest came from me so I will try my best to remember to give props to "jtrock" when ever I take something from him and elaborate on it...

---

Sorry dude do I get an allowance for 2 much beer 2day.....Vice Versa I agree with your statement as well

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jtrock

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigragu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jtrock

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigragu

I think it's about time they put safety first....if they think there is an early stoppage they can have a rematch.....if you take too many shots you may never get that chance at redemption......why do you think there were were so few multiple time champs in the old days....why were there no 2 time hw champs Until Patterson...because the beatings they took kept them from ever regaining their old glory......the physical damage incurred from those additional punches are irreversable....by that time the fighter is defenseless and can no longer PROTECT himself...that is when the real damage happens....meldrick taylor suffered one of the worst cumulative beatings on record....he was never the same.....but while he was never defenseless until 2:50 of the final round it doesn't change the fact that he was still DEFENSELESS at the time of the stoppage......imagine if he had taken 5 more of those shots....it could be R.I.P.......plus we have to at least try to appease the soccermoms (a sport proven to cause far more concussions than amateur boxing, but that's another story altogether) so Boxing will stay legal.....

---

Didn't I just say that???

---

I was agreeing with you on the Meldrick Taylor Fight....That was the only part of your comment I used in mine...the rest came from me so I will try my best to remember to give props to "jtrock" when ever I take something from him and elaborate on it...

---

Sorry dude do I get an allowance for 2 much beer 2day.....Vice Versa I agree with your statement as well

---

Cool.....beer does sound good....think I might have one now...

OK multiple champions lets see 1937 Joe Lewis defended the title 26 times in a row till 1948 (retired undefeated) 1949- 1951 Ezzard Charles defended the title 9 times till he lost to Jersey Joe Wilcot 1951-1952 lost to Rocky Marciano1952-1955 who defended the title 7 times till he retired undefeated. Then your boy Floyd Patterson 1956-1959 lost to Ingmar Johanson. Then won it back the next year. Defended the title 3 more times then lost to Sonny Liston 1962-1963 beating Patterson 2 more times.Then Lost to Cassius Clay in 1964. Clay became Ali .Then Ali was striped of the title so he and Ernie Terrell basically shared the title till 1966 where Ali became the Champ Again. Till 1967 where Ali was then striped again. Joe Frazier then was the champ from 1968-1972 till he lost to George Forman 1973-1974 who then lost to Muhammad Ali who was the champ till 1978 when he lost to Spinks.Then there was Larry Holms.
Do you see a pattern here. Very Often the Champ is really good and the old champ cant beat him. And Often the Champ retires as the Champ or rite after he looses the title.

And by the way Ezzard Charles tried four times to regain the title, Jersey Joe Walcott twice, Floyd Patterson, Sonny Listen once, bla, bla, bla. And how many of these guys had brain damage. (I don't mean emotional, or by a disease.) I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just enjoying the disagreement. ;D
And one of my all time favorite fighters suffered by having an opponent die after their fight. Which as it turned out was not Mancini's fault. Because the Koreans allowed him to fight knowing about the injury prior to the fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Weebels

#3 The significance of the fight should have no bearing on the interpretation of the rules. #4 And if the goal is make the sport more civilized to conform to the 21st century, well look around that ain't what is happening to its competition.
You want to conform to the 21st century, save it's reputation. And until fights can be seen by the public, the occasional observer as legitimate, and without outside influences. True or not that is a common belief of your average Joe. Why? Because a ref can stop a fight that doesn't seem to need stopping. (for example) We cant even do it with the Olympics, ???

---

#3: Of course there needs to be a difference. A ref needs to protect a fighter making his pro debut, more than a world rated veteran with 200+ pro rounds on his record.

#4: There is no direct rival to boxing. The nearest is wrestling/fighting; weather it is WWF or this new fad of faux fighting. Because these worked sports are not mainstream they deliberately try to be perceived as being brutal to sell it.

Boxing on the other hand is still just about mainstream, so needs to conform to the values of mainstream society, which means putting in better safety measures, as the sport tries to redeem its place as the Greatest sport in the world.

Im not saying "dont protect the fighter". Sure there need to be rules in place to protect the fighter. But for it to be different for the guy in his first fight and a guy in his 200th ruond is wrong. If nothing else the guy with the experience gets hurt then he is in just as much danger as the other, because of the experience of their perspective opponent. Im not implying that we just let the guys kill eachother. And if the guy is hurt and can't defend himself stop the fight, or give him the standing eight count.
Maybe my problem is this. And this just dawned on me. Alot of the fights that Im bitching about are fights that have no standing eightcount. And that system favors k.o.'s, and I think that that gives a faulse impression on some fighters records. So when a fighter gets into in this type of bout, he can win every round get into trouble in the last and lose without ever being knocked out. Do you see what im saying. When I boxed there was this fighter from ST.Louis that I fought, I threw a streight right, he sliped it and hit me on the right kidney so hard I almost shat myself. I was able to defend myself for halph a round but wasent able to come up with any offence untill the next round. I won the fight. But only because the ref didn't stop it prematurly. I was hurt and in trouble, but I delt with it. But now I see too many fights that end just because a fighter gets hurt and in trouble, but isnt done. How many times have we seen a guy punch himself out because he stung someone.Then ends up KTFO.

It's a catch 22.... ???....You have a lot of good point's I have mentioned myself...Also a lot of those guy's suffered in the end due to not knowing when enough was enough...There should be a happy medium in there somewhere :lol: :lolhaha: Sorry forgot this is boxing and that doesn't exist...Crazy part is guy's who fought in the previous era's fought twice as hard and got paid almost nothing...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaxxKahn

It's a catch 22.... ???....You have a lot of good point's I have mentioned myself...Also a lot of those guy's suffered in the end due to not knowing when enough was enough...There should be a happy medium in there somewhere :lol: :lolhaha: Sorry forgot this is boxing and that doesn't exist...Crazy part is guy's who fought in the previous era's fought twice as hard and got paid almost nothing...

---

I agree completely. Knowing when to call it a career, is up to the fighter and those around him. Pretty cut and dry, for most of us. Its the reason I like this site.

Just so everybody knows, I blame alot of things on The Pussification of the American male.