-
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
-
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
I don't think a standard rule should exist. Leave it up to the ref with an understanding that if a knockdown happens late in a fight, just be very careful regarding letting the fight go on.
Almost all permanent injuries / Deaths occur in the later rounds, when a fighter is exhausted and less able to recover and more prone to get really nailed.
Early in a fight, many knockdowns are not as severe, and if they still have their faculties, the three knockdown rule could impede a fighter who is simply cold and fighting with nervous energy from getting into the fight.
-
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
It's a crap rule.
Knockdowns get called all the time that are CLEARLY not legit knockdowns.
-
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
3KD rule is HORRIBLE, its the thing that makes non-title fights in NYS gay, that and the no standing 8 count rule used here
standing 8 count is gangsta
-
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Sam peter says hell no !!
-
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
The stupid 3 knock down rule came in with the WBO, Another reason that organization is garbage
-
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
no,the knockdowns could be just flash knockdowns,wouldnt be fair if a fighter got stopped like that,its up 2 the ref to stop the fight.......
-
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Again I feel like it should depend on the ref or corner to end the fight... I mean if the fighter gets KD in the 1st 10 secs of the round from a flash gets up at 2, gets KD by a flash at 1:30 of a round and then Flashed again with 10sec left then the fight would be over... On the otherhand when a fighters in trouble even with the 3 KD rule alot of times the ref calls the fight after a 2nd KD anyway.
Then there are instances like Morrison and Bentt when 3 KD were just right in that fight and there could be no complaints either way.
I guess what I am saying is that the 3 KD rule is great EXCEPT in an instance when a fighter is flashed 3x in a round but i clearly fit to continue... Like stated above there are plenty of times where the 3 KD is in effect but when a fighter is hurt the ref waves after 2 KD an way
-
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
A flash knock down is usually some kind of a slip
Leave that to the ref's discretion
But 3 legit knockdowns in one round,cmon people,thats going down once a minute,boxers have families too you know.The boxers think the ref's decision on the knockdowns was BS,petition for a re-match.
If they arent and it continues,its very hard to have a re-match if your mouth is full of marbles,for the rest of your life
-
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mar
Sam peter says hell no !!
LOL ;D
-
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Rock
Again I feel like it should depend on the ref or corner to end the fight... I mean if the fighter gets KD in the 1st 10 secs of the round from a flash gets up at 2, gets KD by a flash at 1:30 of a round and then Flashed again with 10sec left then the fight would be over... On the otherhand when a fighters in trouble even with the 3 KD rule alot of times the ref calls the fight after a 2nd KD anyway.
Then there are instances like Morrison and Bentt when 3 KD were just right in that fight and there could be no complaints either way.
I guess what I am saying is that the 3 KD rule is great EXCEPT in an instance when a fighter is flashed 3x in a round but i clearly fit to continue... Like stated above there are plenty of times where the 3 KD is in effect but when a fighter is hurt the ref waves after 2 KD an way
But Jt, in reallity a fighter whomgets knocked down three times (even if they are flash knockdowns) has no businesss being in the ring with a fighter with the skills to do that to him...
-
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Rock
Again I feel like it should depend on the ref or corner to end the fight... I mean if the fighter gets KD in the 1st 10 secs of the round from a flash gets up at 2, gets KD by a flash at 1:30 of a round and then Flashed again with 10sec left then the fight would be over... On the otherhand when a fighters in trouble even with the 3 KD rule alot of times the ref calls the fight after a 2nd KD anyway.
Then there are instances like Morrison and Bentt when 3 KD were just right in that fight and there could be no complaints either way.
I guess what I am saying is that the 3 KD rule is great EXCEPT in an instance when a fighter is flashed 3x in a round but i clearly fit to continue... Like stated above there are plenty of times where the 3 KD is in effect but when a fighter is hurt the ref waves after 2 KD an way
But Jt, in reallity a fighter whomgets knocked down three times (even if they are flash knockdowns) has no businesss being in the ring with a fighter with the skills to do that to him...
Very,and I do mean VERY good point Donny,I owe you a cc
-
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Rock
Again I feel like it should depend on the ref or corner to end the fight... I mean if the fighter gets KD in the 1st 10 secs of the round from a flash gets up at 2, gets KD by a flash at 1:30 of a round and then Flashed again with 10sec left then the fight would be over... On the otherhand when a fighters in trouble even with the 3 KD rule alot of times the ref calls the fight after a 2nd KD anyway.
Then there are instances like Morrison and Bentt when 3 KD were just right in that fight and there could be no complaints either way.
I guess what I am saying is that the 3 KD rule is great EXCEPT in an instance when a fighter is flashed 3x in a round but i clearly fit to continue... Like stated above there are plenty of times where the 3 KD is in effect but when a fighter is hurt the ref waves after 2 KD an way
But Jt, in reallity a fighter whomgets knocked down three times (even if they are flash knockdowns) has no businesss being in the ring with a fighter with the skills to do that to him...
So Marquez had no business being in the ring with Pac after getting floored three times?
How come Pac didn't knock him out in the next round?
-
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Rock
Again I feel like it should depend on the ref or corner to end the fight... I mean if the fighter gets KD in the 1st 10 secs of the round from a flash gets up at 2, gets KD by a flash at 1:30 of a round and then Flashed again with 10sec left then the fight would be over... On the otherhand when a fighters in trouble even with the 3 KD rule alot of times the ref calls the fight after a 2nd KD anyway.
Then there are instances like Morrison and Bentt when 3 KD were just right in that fight and there could be no complaints either way.
I guess what I am saying is that the 3 KD rule is great EXCEPT in an instance when a fighter is flashed 3x in a round but i clearly fit to continue... Like stated above there are plenty of times where the 3 KD is in effect but when a fighter is hurt the ref waves after 2 KD an way
But Jt, in reallity a fighter whomgets knocked down three times (even if they are flash knockdowns) has no businesss being in the ring with a fighter with the skills to do that to him...
So Marquez had no business being in the ring with Pac after getting floored three times?
How come Pac didn't knock him out in the next round?
Cos they were planning on making a bundle in the rematch LoL
-
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Rock
Again I feel like it should depend on the ref or corner to end the fight... I mean if the fighter gets KD in the 1st 10 secs of the round from a flash gets up at 2, gets KD by a flash at 1:30 of a round and then Flashed again with 10sec left then the fight would be over... On the otherhand when a fighters in trouble even with the 3 KD rule alot of times the ref calls the fight after a 2nd KD anyway.
Then there are instances like Morrison and Bentt when 3 KD were just right in that fight and there could be no complaints either way.
I guess what I am saying is that the 3 KD rule is great EXCEPT in an instance when a fighter is flashed 3x in a round but i clearly fit to continue... Like stated above there are plenty of times where the 3 KD is in effect but when a fighter is hurt the ref waves after 2 KD an way
But Jt, in reallity a fighter whomgets knocked down three times (even if they are flash knockdowns) has no businesss being in the ring with a fighter with the skills to do that to him...
So Marquez had no business being in the ring with Pac after getting floored three times?
How come Pac didn't knock him out in the next round?
Cos they were planning on making a bundle in the rematch LoL
;D Good answer.
It shows though that the three knockdown rule doesn't work.
-
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
What the hell,lets just throw people out there with a battle axe and a sword,and dispatch with any pretense of it being a legitimate sport
Cmon Romans,do ya hear me!!!
-
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Rock
Again I feel like it should depend on the ref or corner to end the fight... I mean if the fighter gets KD in the 1st 10 secs of the round from a flash gets up at 2, gets KD by a flash at 1:30 of a round and then Flashed again with 10sec left then the fight would be over... On the otherhand when a fighters in trouble even with the 3 KD rule alot of times the ref calls the fight after a 2nd KD anyway.
Then there are instances like Morrison and Bentt when 3 KD were just right in that fight and there could be no complaints either way.
I guess what I am saying is that the 3 KD rule is great EXCEPT in an instance when a fighter is flashed 3x in a round but i clearly fit to continue... Like stated above there are plenty of times where the 3 KD is in effect but when a fighter is hurt the ref waves after 2 KD an way
But Jt, in reallity a fighter whomgets knocked down three times (even if they are flash knockdowns) has no businesss being in the ring with a fighter with the skills to do that to him...
So Marquez had no business being in the ring with Pac after getting floored three times?
How come Pac didn't knock him out in the next round?
Cos they were planning on making a bundle in the rematch LoL
;D Good answer.
It shows though that the three knockdown rule doesn't work.
Fenster a rule is needed to ensure referees protect fighters more. Katsidis Earl should have been stopped. Both men will feel the effects in the future...Why risk damaging more boxers???
-
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
A fighters welfare has nothing to do with this debate. If a boxer is hurt badly enough that it would be unsafe to let him continue, the fight should be stopped irrelevant of whether he's been floored or not.
It's about whether a RULE works. The three knockdown rule CLEARLY doesn't. It can't differentiate between a GENUINE knockdown and a SLIP.
-
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
A fighters welfare has nothing to do with this debate. If a boxer is hurt badly enough that it would be unsafe to let him continue, the fight should be stopped irrelevant of whether he's been floored or not.
It's about whether a RULE works. The three knockdown rule CLEARLY doesn't. It can't differentiate between a GENUINE knockdown and a SLIP.
Spot on Fenster CC Barkley wasn't badly hurt when he was down 3 times against Benn, he was caught cold then survived the on slaught because round was over but because of 3 knockdown rule we missed out on what could of been amazing fight, even though 1st round was one of the best rounds in boxing history.
-
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Violent Demise
The stupid 3 knock down rule came in with the WBO, Another reason that organization is garbage
It was a WBA rule and the IBF and WBO were formed by pissed of members of the WBA.
-
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
A fighters welfare has nothing to do with this debate. If a boxer is hurt badly enough that it would be unsafe to let him continue, the fight should be stopped irrelevant of whether he's been floored or not.
It's about whether a RULE works. The three knockdown rule CLEARLY doesn't. It can't differentiate between a GENUINE knockdown and a SLIP.
Of course it can determined! the difference between a slip and a kd is often obvious.
The ref obviously deems it a slip or a KD. If it's a knockdown it's counted as one.
Sure there may be the ocasional mistake but whats the liklihood of three slips in one round being deemed Knockdowns?
-
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricardo "Finito" Lopez
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
A fighters welfare has nothing to do with this debate. If a boxer is hurt badly enough that it would be unsafe to let him continue, the fight should be stopped irrelevant of whether he's been floored or not.
It's about whether a RULE works. The three knockdown rule CLEARLY doesn't. It can't differentiate between a GENUINE knockdown and a SLIP.
Spot on Fenster CC Barkley wasn't badly hurt when he was down 3 times against Benn, he was caught cold then survived the on slaught because round was over but because of 3 knockdown rule we missed out on what could of been amazing fight, even though 1st round was one of the best rounds in boxing history.
I would love to have seen round two
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tyw_v1sN-58...</param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tyw_v1sN-58&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
-
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
What the hell,lets just throw people out there with a battle axe and a sword,and dispatch with any pretense of it being a legitimate sport
Cmon Romans,do ya hear me!!!
I like the way you think  ;D
-
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
A fighters welfare has nothing to do with this debate. If a boxer is hurt badly enough that it would be unsafe to let him continue, the fight should be stopped irrelevant of whether he's been floored or not.
It's about whether a RULE works. The three knockdown rule CLEARLY doesn't. It can't differentiate between a GENUINE knockdown and a SLIP.
Of course it can determined! the difference between a slip and a kd is often obvious.
The ref obviously deems it a slip or a KD. If it's a knockdown it's counted as one.
Sure there may be the ocasional mistake but whats the liklihood of three slips in one round being deemed Knockdowns?
Refs call it wrong all the time. Recent example - Barrera-Marquez. Barrera CLEARLY floored Marquez but Nady called it a SLIP!
The likelihood of three slips is irrelevant. A fighter could LOSE a fight because of it. That's enough to warrant the rule being unfair.
Just EXPLAIN why Marquez-Pac should have been stopped?
-
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Heres the clip as well.
Pacquiao vs Marquez
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg5CAFUX79w
-
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
A fighters welfare has nothing to do with this debate. If a boxer is hurt badly enough that it would be unsafe to let him continue, the fight should be stopped irrelevant of whether he's been floored or not.
It's about whether a RULE works. The three knockdown rule CLEARLY doesn't. It can't differentiate between a GENUINE knockdown and a SLIP.
Of course it can determined! the difference between a slip and a kd is often obvious.
The ref obviously deems it a slip or a KD. If it's a knockdown it's counted as one.
Sure there may be the ocasional mistake but whats the liklihood of three slips in one round being deemed Knockdowns?
Refs call it wrong all the time. Recent example - Barrera-Marquez. Barrera CLEARLY floored Marquez but Nady called it a SLIP!
The likelihood of three slips is irrelevant. A fighter could LOSE a fight because of it. That's enough to warrant the rule being unfair.
Just EXPLAIN why Marquez-Pac should have been stopped?
It is relevant.
You can see three slips being ruled knockdowns in one round and a fighter losing a fight because of a three knockdown rule?
Do you think Marquez was hurt?
