Sould fifteen round championship fights make a return?

Duk Koo Kim was fatally injured at the hands of "Boom Boom" Mancini in 1982, and what followed was an outcry for reform. That fight is often cited as the reason for the reduction of fights from 15 rounds to 12. Medical officers and studies claimed that a boxer is more susceptable to damage in the later rounds, and that a reduction of the fight distance would make the sport safer.

Sure, a fatigued fighter is more vulnerable, but damage can also occur in rounds two, three, and four. The distance doesn't arbitrarily prevent fatalities. Each round is dangerous as the recent Matagwa-Villa fight showed and even the Haye-Barrett bout.

I have not been totally convinced that 15 round fights more dangerous; heck, all fights are potentially dangerous. But maybe capping 140 and under down to 12 rounds(because these smaller guys tend to last longer and take more accumulated punishment over the course of a fight. But above that, 15 rounds might not be more unsafe. Getting iced from a clean shot from Tyson in round one is less dangerous than being pummeled for nine rounds like Matagwas and Villa IMO.

Some say the REAL reason for the change to 12 round fights is that such bouts fit better into a one-hour slot on television. Interesting notion because they do fit perfectly into a one hour slot. Given the swarmy nature of the boxing busines, this is not a bad notion.

What do you think? I go back and forth on this one, but now lean towards 15.

Just this last 2 weeks or so I have been asking myself the same question.

Some great fights go the full 12 and you know both guys still have the stamina to go another three and you just don't want it to stop.

On the other hand many fighters would struggle, get too tired and take shots they are unable to react to(defensive wise) due to lack of stamina which highlights the possability of serious injury you mention, but that can happen in a 12 round fight anyway, some fighters have better stamina than others.

I personally can't decide which I favour.

I was thinking of this a few months ago!I dont think the boxing board would ever change now!It does stand true that there is more of a chance a fighter could sustain more damage as the fight progresses.At the end of the day what the main aim is in the pro game of boxing is to cause maxium damage to your opponant.12rounds are spot on!Like you mention its a hour of pure action,thats enough time to enjoy a fight!!!;D

IMO the decision to go from 15-12 was somewhat of a kneejerk decision made to satisfy the general public that something was being done. I don't think a whole lot of thought went into the decision, for starters I really doubt they did research to determine the proportion of fatalities that resulted from injuries suffered in rounds 13-15 of title fights. And I rather doubt that this decision saved many lives. Probably there is proportionately more serious injuries and fatalities in non-title fights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yvonne

I was thinking of this a few months ago!I dont think the boxing board would ever change now!It does stand true that there is more of a chance a fighter could sustain more damage as the fight progresses.At the end of the day what the main aim is in the pro game of boxing is to cause maxium damage to your opponant.12rounds are spot on!Like you mention its a hour of pure action,thats enough time to enjoy a fight!!!;D

---

Well said! :coolclick:

I think it would be more interesting if like in the case of a draw like
Marquez /Pac if the ref goes to each corner and asks both sides if they want to go the fifteen.

I've been wondering about this too just this year. 15 rounds brings another dimension to a fight i reckon. Fighters pacing themselves is far more important in the 15 i would think. However if there was a change certainly the medical boards etc would be up in arms and if there was an injury or god forbid a death in a 15 rounder then the organisation who sanctioned the fight is open to all sorts of trouble..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre

I think it would be more interesting if like in the case of a draw like
Marquez /Pac if the ref goes to each corner and asks both sides if they want to go the fifteen.

---

That would be great but would never happen:(

Count on a yes vote from Librado Andrade ;D

Really though I think it just would not be practical....Too many Indians and not enough chiefs running the organizations today to resist and disagree,Not to mention the Medical officials.Fighters are trained and conditioned now a days being a bit more Clock conscious and timing out rounds....well some at least.As for a punishment/damage factor I just don't see it being that different.Damage is accumulative down the stretch but Some might just compensate with not just the first round being the "feeling out round" but adjust to 1,2 or more serving that purpose to reserve strength in the late rounds??May sound far fetched but It's possible. I'd stick with 12 max.

What I ask is why pick 12 in the first place.Even number as opposed to 15 making Draws seem more possible...at least mathematically without KD'ds and point deductions.I have heard of Tie breaker rounds,Don king floated that idea I think along with that stuff about open scoring,Ugh! Really,If they want to reform and/or make changes...Let them start with some type of insurance/unified body for fighters once they have exited the sport?

I'm in favor for a change but not to 15. My idea is to have an odd number of rounds, maybe 11 or 13 rounds. This is to minimize a "draw" verdict. I pity those boxers fighting their hearts out and the fight just ended in a draw...
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

I'm in favor for a change but not to 15. My idea is to have an odd number of rounds, maybe 11 or 13 rounds. This is to minimize a "draw" verdict. I pity those boxers fighting their hearts out and the fight just ended in a draw...
.

---

Well said...

World title fights should be 15 rounders. Absolutely.

Twelve rounds is too short, especially when you get a great fight that is close.

Seperate the boys from the warriors.

Some people can barely last 12 let alone 15.

They should have all alphabet title fights go 12 rounds. But the RING Magazine title (the only one that matters) should go for 15 rounds. Then they would be able to bring back the term "championship rounds" some substance.

They often fight 11 rounders in Thailand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

I'm in favor for a change but not to 15. My idea is to have an odd number of rounds, maybe 11 or 13 rounds. This is to minimize a "draw" verdict. I pity those boxers fighting their hearts out and the fight just ended in a draw...
.

---

I pity the Quarry family
Hey Ali do the shuffle,Joe, sing a couple of bars for us and then drive across town.
15 rounds,great idea
Why dont we show our concern for the poor boxers by going back to 100 rounds

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

I'm in favor for a change but not to 15. My idea is to have an odd number of rounds, maybe 11 or 13 rounds. This is to minimize a "draw" verdict. I pity those boxers fighting their hearts out and the fight just ended in a draw...
.

---

Just because the rounds are an even number doesn't severly effect the chance of a draw. That's why knockdowns are worth extra and point deductions cause a flux in points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C-Lo

Some people can barely last 12 let alone 15.

They should have all alphabet title fights go 12 rounds. But the RING Magazine title (the only one that matters) should go for 15 rounds. Then they would be able to bring back the term "championship rounds" some substance.

---

All the true champions go 12 easily, and the best ones go 15 just as easily. I mean you hear about them traing like Mayweather going against Lovemore N'Dou and Baldomir for 20x5minute rounds. Thats insane.

I really think it would help guys like MAyweather who's style is to use defense to tire out your opponent. IMO if Mayweather-De La Hoya was 15 rounds I don't think Oscar would have finished teh fight, the last two rounds besides the brief trading of shots at the end of the 12th were very ugly for Oscar, and I think it would just gotten worse over the last 3 rounds to the point someone would have stopped it. I really think Floyd and Bernard Hopkins have suffered from it NOT being 15 rounds, except Hopkins was lucky for the 12 rounds against Joe, though he still didn't get the decision. On that note Joe Calzaghe to, I think he would have a LOT more stoppage wins if it were 15 round fights, I see him potentially stopping Hopkins(I can't see Hopkins standing 3 more rounds in that fight), He would have stopped Kessler likely, and Lacy for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

I'm in favor for a change but not to 15. My idea is to have an odd number of rounds, maybe 11 or 13 rounds. This is to minimize a "draw" verdict. I pity those boxers fighting their hearts out and the fight just ended in a draw...
.

---

I pity the Quarry family
Hey Ali do the shuffle,Joe, sing a couple of bars for us and then drive across town.
15 rounds,great idea

---

Points taken on that post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holmcall

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

I'm in favor for a change but not to 15. My idea is to have an odd number of rounds, maybe 11 or 13 rounds. This is to minimize a "draw" verdict. I pity those boxers fighting their hearts out and the fight just ended in a draw...
.

---

I pity the Quarry family
Hey Ali do the shuffle,Joe, sing a couple of bars for us and then drive across town.
15 rounds,great idea

---

Points taken on that post.

---

With knockdowns you could still end with a draw,no matter what the number of rounds.
People dont consider exhaustion,dehydration,and repeated concussive force, when they discuss this,and shear cussedness, some guys just wont go the hell down and stay there.
Ali/Frazier there was a rumour floating after the first one, that Frazier had died, he just wouldnt go down. And he was never the same after that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C-Lo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

I'm in favor for a change but not to 15. My idea is to have an odd number of rounds, maybe 11 or 13 rounds. This is to minimize a "draw" verdict. I pity those boxers fighting their hearts out and the fight just ended in a draw...
.

---

Just because the rounds are an even number doesn't severly effect the chance of a draw. That's why knockdowns are worth extra and point deductions cause a flux in points.

---

I think having an odd number of rounds will definitely MINIMIZE the "draw" results... since it will eliminate the situations where judges gave same number of rounds to both boxers in a 10-point must system and assuming no knockdowns/points deductions in the fight...

If there's no points deductions and no knockdowns, it's expected that the fight will NOT end in a draw for an odd number of rounds fight...
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C-Lo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

I'm in favor for a change but not to 15. My idea is to have an odd number of rounds, maybe 11 or 13 rounds. This is to minimize a "draw" verdict. I pity those boxers fighting their hearts out and the fight just ended in a draw...
.

---

Just because the rounds are an even number doesn't severly effect the chance of a draw. That's why knockdowns are worth extra and point deductions cause a flux in points.

---

I think having an odd number of rounds will definitely MINIMIZE the "draw" results... since it will eliminate the situations where judges gave same number of rounds to both boxers in a 10-point must system and assuming no knockdowns in the fight...

If there's no point deductions and no knockdowns, it's expected that the fight will NOT end in a draw for an odd number of rounds fight...
.

---

Your forgetting odd number of judges
And that leads to inconclusive mixed decisions all the time
You could play Clazeghe/Hopkins in front of 151 different judges,and you allmost allways end up with different results

Just do not see either number of rounds,15-12 will not cure the all too common even rounds given that result in draws

I don't really see a big problem with draws. It's the legitimate result of a tough, evenly matched fight. It beats the hell out of losing a close evenly matched fight, doesn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C-Lo

Just because the rounds are an even number doesn't severly effect the chance of a draw. That's why knockdowns are worth extra and point deductions cause a flux in points.

---

I think having an odd number of rounds will definitely MINIMIZE the "draw" results... since it will eliminate the situations where judges gave same number of rounds to both boxers in a 10-point must system and assuming no knockdowns in the fight...

If there's no point deductions and no knockdowns, it's expected that the fight will NOT end in a draw for an odd number of rounds fight...
.

---

Your forgetting odd number of judges
And that leads to inconclusive mixed decisions all the time
You could play Clazeghe/Hopkins in front of 151 different judges,and you allmost allways end up with different results

---

Assuming there's no KDs and deductions, in odd number of rounds a judge is expected to determine a winner. For example Judge A has Boxer 1, then Judge B has Boxer 2. Judge C can't give an even (draw) total score for the fight because of the odd number of rounds so Judge C has either Boxer 1 or Boxer 2 as winner then it results to a majority decision (MD) win of either boxers.

But the judge has all the capability to manipulate the score. The judge can score a round even, 9-9 or a 10-10 round that can result to a draw but these are exceptional situations.

Though as always, the question still remains the same, does that boxer really deserve the win? At least they proclaim someone a winner instead of a draw. Odd number of rounds become a motivation (or added pressure?) for the boxer for there will be a minimal chance for a draw. So meaning if the boxer feels he's behind in the scorecards then he really needs a KO to win, he can't hope for a draw.
.

NO. The added damage a fighter will take is not worth it just so we can feel "old school". Times change. Boxing is a tough sport as it is, and I'm glad fighters don't have to fight 300 pro fights to make a living anymore. I think asking the athletes to go another 9 minutes for no real good reason is stupid..

yes id like to see fights go to 15 rounders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

I think having an odd number of rounds will definitely MINIMIZE the "draw" results... since it will eliminate the situations where judges gave same number of rounds to both boxers in a 10-point must system and assuming no knockdowns in the fight...

If there's no point deductions and no knockdowns, it's expected that the fight will NOT end in a draw for an odd number of rounds fight...
.

---

Your forgetting odd number of judges
And that leads to inconclusive mixed decisions all the time
You could play Clazeghe/Hopkins in front of 151 different judges,and you allmost allways end up with different results

---

Assuming there's no KDs and deductions, in odd number of rounds a judge is expected to determine a winner. For example Judge A has Boxer 1, then Judge B has Boxer 2. Judge C can't give an even (draw) total score for the fight because of the odd number of rounds so Judge C has either Boxer 1 or Boxer 2 as winner then it results to a majority decision (MD) win of either boxers.

But the judge has all the capability to manipulate the score. The judge can score a round even, 9-9 or a 10-10 round that can result to a draw but these are exceptional situations.

Though as always, the question still remains the same, does that boxer really deserve the win? At least they proclaim someone a winner instead of a draw. Odd number of rounds become a motivation (or added pressure?) for the boxer for there will be a minimal chance for a draw. So meaning if the boxer feels he's behind in the scorecards then he really needs a KO to win, he can't hope for a draw.
.

---

Even then,it really doesnt lessen the odds of a draw
Fullmer/Robinson Fullmer/Giardello Pep/McCallister Carmen Basillio had 7 draws

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CGM

IMO the decision to go from 15-12 was somewhat of a kneejerk decision made to satisfy the general public that something was being done. I don't think a whole lot of thought went into the decision, for starters I really doubt they did research to determine the proportion of fatalities that resulted from injuries suffered in rounds 13-15 of title fights. And I rather doubt that this decision saved many lives. Probably there is proportionately more serious injuries and fatalities in non-title fights.

---

I agree.

I don't think 15 round fights are what led to serious injuries. What leads to injuries are fights that should be stopped but aren't, and that can happen in a 4 round fight or an 8 round fight or a 12 round fight too.

I waver back and forth on the 15 vs. 12 issue. When we think back to the era of 15-rounders, we tend to only think of the classic 15 round fights, and we forget that there were plenty of boring 15 rounders too. There were plenty of 15 rounders where Rounds 13-15 were just two exhausted guys clutching and grabbing each other.

Would I have liked to see Morales-Barrera or Pacquiao-Marquez for 15 rounds? Sure.

But how about Taylor-Spinks or Wlad-Ibragimov... does anyone wish those fights went 15 rounds? It would have just been 9 more minutes of boredom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SweetPea

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CGM

IMO the decision to go from 15-12 was somewhat of a kneejerk decision made to satisfy the general public that something was being done. I don't think a whole lot of thought went into the decision, for starters I really doubt they did research to determine the proportion of fatalities that resulted from injuries suffered in rounds 13-15 of title fights. And I rather doubt that this decision saved many lives. Probably there is proportionately more serious injuries and fatalities in non-title fights.

---

I agree.

I don't think 15 round fights are what led to serious injuries. What leads to injuries are fights that should be stopped but aren't, and that can happen in a 4 round fight or an 8 round fight or a 12 round fight too.

I waver back and forth on the 15 vs. 12 issue. When we think back to the era of 15-rounders, we tend to only think of the classic 15 round fights, and we forget that there were plenty of boring 15 rounders too. There were plenty of 15 rounders where Rounds 13-15 were just two exhausted guys clutching and grabbing each other.

Would I have liked to see Morales-Barrera or Pacquiao-Marquez for 15 rounds? Sure.

But how about Taylor-Spinks or Wlad-Ibragimov... does anyone wish those fights went 15 rounds? It would have just been 9 more minutes of boredom.

---

Except with the Kim fight, there was no reason to stop the fight. He was fighting back and defending.
Quarry suffered from boxer dementia,Ali has Parkinsons,Frazier has slurred speach

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SweetPea

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CGM

IMO the decision to go from 15-12 was somewhat of a kneejerk decision made to satisfy the general public that something was being done. I don't think a whole lot of thought went into the decision, for starters I really doubt they did research to determine the proportion of fatalities that resulted from injuries suffered in rounds 13-15 of title fights. And I rather doubt that this decision saved many lives. Probably there is proportionately more serious injuries and fatalities in non-title fights.

---

I agree.

I don't think 15 round fights are what led to serious injuries. What leads to injuries are fights that should be stopped but aren't, and that can happen in a 4 round fight or an 8 round fight or a 12 round fight too.

I waver back and forth on the 15 vs. 12 issue. When we think back to the era of 15-rounders, we tend to only think of the classic 15 round fights, and we forget that there were plenty of boring 15 rounders too. There were plenty of 15 rounders where Rounds 13-15 were just two exhausted guys clutching and grabbing each other.

Would I have liked to see Morales-Barrera or Pacquiao-Marquez for 15 rounds? Sure.

But how about Taylor-Spinks or Wlad-Ibragimov... does anyone wish those fights went 15 rounds? It would have just been 9 more minutes of boredom.

---

Except with the Kim fight, there was no reason to stop the fight. He was fighting back and defending.
Quarry suffered from boxer dementia,Ali has Parkinsons,Frazier has slurred speach

---

So what's your point? I 'm pretty sure you are against going to 15 rounds. Are you arguing a cause & effect relationship between 15 round fights and all of the cases you have mentioned here? Cause I really am not convinced that there would have been significant less chance of these situations if they had fought 12 round fights. That is the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SweetPea

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CGM

IMO the decision to go from 15-12 was somewhat of a kneejerk decision made to satisfy the general public that something was being done. I don't think a whole lot of thought went into the decision, for starters I really doubt they did research to determine the proportion of fatalities that resulted from injuries suffered in rounds 13-15 of title fights. And I rather doubt that this decision saved many lives. Probably there is proportionately more serious injuries and fatalities in non-title fights.

---

I agree.

I don't think 15 round fights are what led to serious injuries. What leads to injuries are fights that should be stopped but aren't, and that can happen in a 4 round fight or an 8 round fight or a 12 round fight too.

I waver back and forth on the 15 vs. 12 issue. When we think back to the era of 15-rounders, we tend to only think of the classic 15 round fights, and we forget that there were plenty of boring 15 rounders too. There were plenty of 15 rounders where Rounds 13-15 were just two exhausted guys clutching and grabbing each other.

Would I have liked to see Morales-Barrera or Pacquiao-Marquez for 15 rounds? Sure.

But how about Taylor-Spinks or Wlad-Ibragimov... does anyone wish those fights went 15 rounds? It would have just been 9 more minutes of boredom.

---

Except with the Kim fight, there was no reason to stop the fight. He was fighting back and defending.
Quarry suffered from boxer dementia,Ali has Parkinsons,Frazier has slurred speach

---

OK, but Jerry Quarry went more than 12 rounds only once in his entire career. I don't see how 15 round fights have anything to do with his health issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre

I think it would be more interesting if like in the case of a draw like
Marquez /Pac if the ref goes to each corner and asks both sides if they want to go the fifteen.

---

Well something did happen like that before but not quite like that, Tony Thorton went 12 rounds with Doug DeWitt. And they drawed then they were ordered to go 13 rounds to break the draw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CGM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SweetPea

I agree.

I don't think 15 round fights are what led to serious injuries. What leads to injuries are fights that should be stopped but aren't, and that can happen in a 4 round fight or an 8 round fight or a 12 round fight too.

I waver back and forth on the 15 vs. 12 issue. When we think back to the era of 15-rounders, we tend to only think of the classic 15 round fights, and we forget that there were plenty of boring 15 rounders too. There were plenty of 15 rounders where Rounds 13-15 were just two exhausted guys clutching and grabbing each other.

Would I have liked to see Morales-Barrera or Pacquiao-Marquez for 15 rounds? Sure.

But how about Taylor-Spinks or Wlad-Ibragimov... does anyone wish those fights went 15 rounds? It would have just been 9 more minutes of boredom.

---

Except with the Kim fight, there was no reason to stop the fight. He was fighting back and defending.
Quarry suffered from boxer dementia,Ali has Parkinsons,Frazier has slurred speach

---

So what's your point? I 'm pretty sure you are against going to 15 rounds. Are you arguing a cause & effect relationship between 15 round fights and all of the cases you have mentioned here? Cause I really am not convinced that there would have been significant less chance of these situations if they had fought 12 round fights. That is the issue.

---

Sure there is, ever since theyve pulled the fights back to 12 rounds there seem to be less boxers who retired who can barely talk.
Why risk them like that,its not going to improve the sport anyway,it wont decrease draws,draws were just as common under 15 round fights as they are now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CGM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

Except with the Kim fight, there was no reason to stop the fight. He was fighting back and defending.
Quarry suffered from boxer dementia,Ali has Parkinsons,Frazier has slurred speach

---

So what's your point? I 'm pretty sure you are against going to 15 rounds. Are you arguing a cause & effect relationship between 15 round fights and all of the cases you have mentioned here? Cause I really am not convinced that there would have been significant less chance of these situations if they had fought 12 round fights. That is the issue.

---

Sure there is, ever since theyve pulled the fights back to 12 rounds there seem to be less boxers who retired who can barely talk.
Why risk them like that,its not going to improve the sport anyway,it wont decrease draws,draws were just as common under 15 round fights as they are now

---

fair enough, if that's really true then I suppose one can hardly support 15 rds. I was thinking more of the immediate traumatic injury or death like that suffered by Kim. But the slurred speech thing, dementia, etc. kinda makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CGM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

Except with the Kim fight, there was no reason to stop the fight. He was fighting back and defending.
Quarry suffered from boxer dementia,Ali has Parkinsons,Frazier has slurred speach

---

So what's your point? I 'm pretty sure you are against going to 15 rounds. Are you arguing a cause & effect relationship between 15 round fights and all of the cases you have mentioned here? Cause I really am not convinced that there would have been significant less chance of these situations if they had fought 12 round fights. That is the issue.

---

Sure there is, ever since theyve pulled the fights back to 12 rounds there seem to be less boxers who retired who can barely talk.
Why risk them like that,its not going to improve the sport anyway,it wont decrease draws,draws were just as common under 15 round fights as they are now

---

I think the big difference between now and the old days isn't that title fights are 12 instead of 15.

The big difference is that refs/cornermen are much faster to stop fights, no matter what round it is. If you watch old fights, you'll see fights where guys can barely stand up, yet the fight continues. There are tons of times where I'll watch an old fight, and I'll say to myself, "Wow, if that fight were taking place now, the ref definitely would've already stopped it."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SweetPea

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CGM

So what's your point? I 'm pretty sure you are against going to 15 rounds. Are you arguing a cause & effect relationship between 15 round fights and all of the cases you have mentioned here? Cause I really am not convinced that there would have been significant less chance of these situations if they had fought 12 round fights. That is the issue.

---

Sure there is, ever since theyve pulled the fights back to 12 rounds there seem to be less boxers who retired who can barely talk.
Why risk them like that,its not going to improve the sport anyway,it wont decrease draws,draws were just as common under 15 round fights as they are now

---

I think the big difference between now and the old days isn't that title fights are 12 instead of 15.

The big difference is that refs/cornermen are much faster to stop fights, no matter what round it is. If you watch old fights, you'll see fights where guys can barely stand up, yet the fight continues. There are tons of times where I'll watch an old fight, and I'll say to myself, "Wow, if that fight were taking place now, the ref definitely would've already stopped it."

---

Also, people seem to have a lot less fights, only fighting 2-3 12-rounders a year. A fighter going 36 rounds in 12 months is highly active. In the past, not so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CGM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CGM

So what's your point? I 'm pretty sure you are against going to 15 rounds. Are you arguing a cause & effect relationship between 15 round fights and all of the cases you have mentioned here? Cause I really am not convinced that there would have been significant less chance of these situations if they had fought 12 round fights. That is the issue.

---

Sure there is, ever since theyve pulled the fights back to 12 rounds there seem to be less boxers who retired who can barely talk.
Why risk them like that,its not going to improve the sport anyway,it wont decrease draws,draws were just as common under 15 round fights as they are now

---

fair enough, if that's really true then I suppose one can hardly support 15 rds. I was thinking more of the immediate traumatic injury or death like that suffered by Kim. But the slurred speech thing, dementia, etc. kinda makes sense.

---

Its a risk reward thing
As far as the reward,usually those last 3 round used to be dull at best,so your not improving fight quality
It doesnt reduce the risk of the draw,they used to happen all the time in the 15 round era
And as far as the health of the fighter,even great HW's from that era slurr their speech
And those are the luckier ones
The way Quarry lived his last years was absoultely pathetic
Its not just boxing concussive dementia can happen in either
Former NFL Safety Andre Waters committed suicide while suffering from it
WWE Wrestler Chris Benoit was suffering from it when he killed himself and his family
Its just not worth the risks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leftylee number 1 groupie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre

I think it would be more interesting if like in the case of a draw like
Marquez /Pac if the ref goes to each corner and asks both sides if they want to go the fifteen.

---

Well something did happen like that before but not quite like that, Tony Thorton went 12 rounds with Doug DeWitt. And they drawed then they were ordered to go 13 rounds to break the draw.

---

An odd number of rounds will minimize a "draw" result...
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leftylee number 1 groupie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre

I think it would be more interesting if like in the case of a draw like
Marquez /Pac if the ref goes to each corner and asks both sides if they want to go the fifteen.

---

Well something did happen like that before but not quite like that, Tony Thorton went 12 rounds with Doug DeWitt. And they drawed then they were ordered to go 13 rounds to break the draw.

---

An odd number of rounds will minimize a "draw" result...
.

---

Never did before