-
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:
-
Re: Three changes to help boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jdonaher1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jdonaher1
What’s so great about 15 round fights? Fights are going to be the same no matter what the distance is. Without a 15 round fight Hearns would have beaten Leonard in the first fight and Chavez would have KO'd Taylor in round 13. Big deal, it goes both ways. Some fights would have changed but also fighters would have fought and trained differently. It’s like when fans complain boxing would be better when it was on network TV. Unless you over 40 you grew-up watching boxing on HBO, Showtime, ESPN, USA etc etc. Boxing is all about its stars. When Tyson was God and boxing was at peak time, where were all his fights? HBO or PPV.
What is great about fifteen round fights is they are longer. Fighters have remain tough longer. Fighters have to maintain technique longer. Fighters have to perform while tired longer. Fighters have to accept pain longer. Fighters have to concentrate longer. It is inarguably a stiffer physical and mental test.
It is also arbitrary. But it seems through trial and error boxing, over about 100 years found close to an ideal mix of stamina and pace in the fifteen round distance.
Then why not 20 rounds? 50 rounds? Or just fight to the death? Just because something is longer doesn't make it better.
And that the samething I've been telling my wife for 15 years :lickish:
12 rd fights lead to bullshit. Fighters cruise.
-
Re: Three changes to help boxing
It has been widely cited that the reason of the change to 12 rds was that there were studies that showed fighters taking too much damage in those 3 extra rounds. I haven't seen the study yet, but boxing has been known to be a very physically debilitating sport, this is an undeniable fact that can't be refuted.
Well the people that want 15 rounds usually aren't the ones inside the ring taking damage. So I think it's ridiculous to want them to take even more damage when it's not necessary. It reminds me of when NFL fans want to go back to the rule of the 60s to 80s with those nasty hits. Yeah it's easy to say you want more boxing, but you are not the one in the ring taking the punches.
The safety of the fighter comes first period.
-
Re: Three changes to help boxing
1) instant replay to confirm rulings on head buts if they are accidental or if cuts were from a punch.
2) Boxing needs an outside organization that will train and review and randomly assign judges to score fights. The random assignments will be audited by another outside party.
3) Ban Joe Cortez
-
Re: Three changes to help boxing
And I can find studies converse. Seriously man cut the bullshit. It comes down to a matter of math and who can be weaned the longest. 12 Rd title fights fit perfectly into that plan.
-
I agree with the weigh in the same day. How can we allow a boxer like Hugo Cazeres weighing 130 to fight Calderon at 108. That 6 divisions over! When he lost his last rematch the new 108 champ weighed 127 the day of the fight. He was suppossed to be fighting Juanma instead Calderon. But, more important are the boxing organizations. This is killing our sport. We have too many champs and therefore, the quality of the matches is going down. This prevents great fights to occur since promoters are happy with all their champs and many times avoid the great fights just to protect their pockets and assure they have a champ longer time. Thus, promoters and boxing organizations are killing boxing. With less organizations promoters will be forced to make great fights if they want the tittle and they money.
-
Re: Three changes to help boxing
-
Re: Three changes to help boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jdonaher1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jdonaher1
What’s so great about 15 round fights? Fights are going to be the same no matter what the distance is. Without a 15 round fight Hearns would have beaten Leonard in the first fight and Chavez would have KO'd Taylor in round 13. Big deal, it goes both ways. Some fights would have changed but also fighters would have fought and trained differently. It’s like when fans complain boxing would be better when it was on network TV. Unless you over 40 you grew-up watching boxing on HBO, Showtime, ESPN, USA etc etc. Boxing is all about its stars. When Tyson was God and boxing was at peak time, where were all his fights? HBO or PPV.
What is great about fifteen round fights is they are longer. Fighters have remain tough longer. Fighters have to maintain technique longer. Fighters have to perform while tired longer. Fighters have to accept pain longer. Fighters have to concentrate longer. It is inarguably a stiffer physical and mental test.
It is also arbitrary. But it seems through trial and error boxing, over about 100 years found close to an ideal mix of stamina and pace in the fifteen round distance.
Then why not 20 rounds? 50 rounds? Or just fight to the death? Just because something is longer doesn't make it better.
And that the samething I've been telling my wife for 15 years :lickish:
12 rd fights lead to bullshit. Fighters cruise.
So fighter cruise in 12 round fights but they'll fight harder knowing there will be 3 more rounds LOL. Some good logic there.
-
Re: Three changes to help boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jdonaher1
What’s so great about 15 round fights? Fights are going to be the same no matter what the distance is. Without a 15 round fight Hearns would have beaten Leonard in the first fight and Chavez would have KO'd Taylor in round 13. Big deal, it goes both ways. Some fights would have changed but also fighters would have fought and trained differently. It’s like when fans complain boxing would be better when it was on network TV. Unless you over 40 you grew-up watching boxing on HBO, Showtime, ESPN, USA etc etc. Boxing is all about its stars. When Tyson was God and boxing was at peak time, where were all his fights? HBO or PPV.
I once said the same thing about Hearns Vs Leonard but now feel different. There is no way of telling what would have happened but Leonard could have just started sooner. They try to pace for whatever rounds are scheduled. By today's rules and Hearns height he could have outweighed Leonard by a good amount.
I agree with the first post, weigh in the same day as the fight, 10, 12 and 15 rd fights.
I think it was the USBA title that was 12 rds, if a draw occurred they fought one more rd to get a winner.
-
Re: Three changes to help boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
It has been widely cited that the reason of the change to 12 rds was that there were studies that showed fighters taking too much damage in those 3 extra rounds. I haven't seen the study yet, but boxing has been known to be a very physically debilitating sport, this is an undeniable fact that can't be refuted.
Well the people that want 15 rounds usually aren't the ones inside the ring taking damage. So I think it's ridiculous to want them to take even more damage when it's not necessary. It reminds me of when NFL fans want to go back to the rule of the 60s to 80s with those nasty hits. Yeah it's easy to say you want more boxing, but you are not the one in the ring taking the punches.
The safety of the fighter comes first period.
That is COMPLETE bullshit. If THAT were true there'd be no sport. Or we'd have headgear in the pros and they wear 20oz gloves and a single knockdown or drawing blood would stop a fight.
Boxing is bloodsport.
-
Re: Three changes to help boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jdonaher1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jdonaher1
What’s so great about 15 round fights? Fights are going to be the same no matter what the distance is. Without a 15 round fight Hearns would have beaten Leonard in the first fight and Chavez would have KO'd Taylor in round 13. Big deal, it goes both ways. Some fights would have changed but also fighters would have fought and trained differently. It’s like when fans complain boxing would be better when it was on network TV. Unless you over 40 you grew-up watching boxing on HBO, Showtime, ESPN, USA etc etc. Boxing is all about its stars. When Tyson was God and boxing was at peak time, where were all his fights? HBO or PPV.
What is great about fifteen round fights is they are longer. Fighters have remain tough longer. Fighters have to maintain technique longer. Fighters have to perform while tired longer. Fighters have to accept pain longer. Fighters have to concentrate longer. It is inarguably a stiffer physical and mental test.
It is also arbitrary. But it seems through trial and error boxing, over about 100 years found close to an ideal mix of stamina and pace in the fifteen round distance.
Then why not 20 rounds? 50 rounds? Or just fight to the death? Just because something is longer doesn't make it better.
And that the samething I've been telling my wife for 15 years :lickish:
Fights used to go to a finish or 45 rounds etc. 15 rounds seems to be the best possible mix of length and possible pace. Or put another way, it seems like the longest a fighter can go at a whirlwind pace. And yes, longer IS better in a test of toughness, concentration, fitness etc as long as technique and pace needn't be sacrificed.
-
Re: Three changes to help boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jdonaher1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jdonaher1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jdonaher1
What’s so great about 15 round fights? Fights are going to be the same no matter what the distance is. Without a 15 round fight Hearns would have beaten Leonard in the first fight and Chavez would have KO'd Taylor in round 13. Big deal, it goes both ways. Some fights would have changed but also fighters would have fought and trained differently. It’s like when fans complain boxing would be better when it was on network TV. Unless you over 40 you grew-up watching boxing on HBO, Showtime, ESPN, USA etc etc. Boxing is all about its stars. When Tyson was God and boxing was at peak time, where were all his fights? HBO or PPV.
What is great about fifteen round fights is they are longer. Fighters have remain tough longer. Fighters have to maintain technique longer. Fighters have to perform while tired longer. Fighters have to accept pain longer. Fighters have to concentrate longer. It is inarguably a stiffer physical and mental test.
It is also arbitrary. But it seems through trial and error boxing, over about 100 years found close to an ideal mix of stamina and pace in the fifteen round distance.
Then why not 20 rounds? 50 rounds? Or just fight to the death? Just because something is longer doesn't make it better.
And that the samething I've been telling my wife for 15 years :lickish:
12 rd fights lead to bullshit. Fighters cruise.
So fighter cruise in 12 round fights but they'll fight harder knowing there will be 3 more rounds LOL. Some good logic there.
That's right Aristotle. They all fight once or twice a year under weight to get a power advantage. Translation= Lazy hoes.
-
Re: Three changes to help boxing
I know it makes my stomach hurt when I hear rounds 11 and 12 called 'the championship rounds.'
-
This conversation turned to the quantity of rounds instead of what boxing has to do to regain the lost ground. We can have fights of a million rounds, but if boxing keeps adding world titles and the promoters are happy with having a champ on any of those organizations we will have tons of shit fights. Boxing just need to reduce boxing organizations (less champions per weight class) and that will force promoters to make great fights, the fights we all want to watch.
-
Re: Three changes to help boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
It has been widely cited that the reason of the change to 12 rds was that there were studies that showed fighters taking too much damage in those 3 extra rounds. I haven't seen the study yet, but boxing has been known to be a very physically debilitating sport, this is an undeniable fact that can't be refuted.
Well the people that want 15 rounds usually aren't the ones inside the ring taking damage. So I think it's ridiculous to want them to take even more damage when it's not necessary. It reminds me of when NFL fans want to go back to the rule of the 60s to 80s with those nasty hits. Yeah it's easy to say you want more boxing, but you are not the one in the ring taking the punches.
The safety of the fighter comes first period.
That is COMPLETE bullshit. If THAT were true there'd be no sport. Or we'd have headgear in the pros and they wear 20oz gloves and a single knockdown or drawing blood would stop a fight.
Boxing is bloodsport.
That is true boxing is a bloodsport just like American football is a collision sport. But guess what changes are done to ensure the safety of the college and NFL players today. Just like horse collar tackling is banned, trying to suplex the QB isn't allowed anymore, other sorts of tackling aren't allowed, and leather helmets has been replaced with plastic ones and now there are mandatory face bars for all of the helmets, etc.
In boxing many of the changes has come to at least make it a little safer and not some complete blood bath. So what do you want? Go back to bare knuckling and have all those rounds where boxing goes to 45rounds? Or how about fighting to the death like the old Roman Colliseum? Since you did say it's a blood sport?
And I find it ridiculous to suggest 12 round fights you have lazy fighters cruising or whatever. Meldrick Taylor fought in the 12 round era and still came out punch drunk/brain damage. Gerald McClellan fought in the 12 round era and came out basically a vegetable. Z Gorres a Filipino fighter fought in this era and came out of a bout with massive brain swelling and almost died. Riddick Bowe fought in the 12 round era and is now brain damage/punch drunk. Fernando Vargas is now punch drunk and brain damage. Boxing is a brutal sport already with 12 rounds. And what's the point of adding another 3 rounds for championship matches? To satisfy the inherent lust of bloodthirsty fans?
I like the sport and understand the risk associated with it, but that doesn't mean I want to see a guy dead, become a vegetable, punch drunk, which having 15 rounds add to more of that risk.
I just got done watching Ali-Patterson 2 where Patterson was taking a tremendous beating and looked drunk on his feet before the ref stopped it, you know what was the crowd's reaction? They were booing. The crowd wasnt happy and wanted to see Floyd Patterson get killed in the ring or get severely damaged for laughs, giggles, and entertainment. I ain't part of that crowd but I guess some people are.
-
Re: Three changes to help boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
It has been widely cited that the reason of the change to 12 rds was that there were studies that showed fighters taking too much damage in those 3 extra rounds. I haven't seen the study yet, but boxing has been known to be a very physically debilitating sport, this is an undeniable fact that can't be refuted.
Well the people that want 15 rounds usually aren't the ones inside the ring taking damage. So I think it's ridiculous to want them to take even more damage when it's not necessary. It reminds me of when NFL fans want to go back to the rule of the 60s to 80s with those nasty hits. Yeah it's easy to say you want more boxing, but you are not the one in the ring taking the punches.
The safety of the fighter comes first period.
That is COMPLETE bullshit. If THAT were true there'd be no sport. Or we'd have headgear in the pros and they wear 20oz gloves and a single knockdown or drawing blood would stop a fight.
Boxing is bloodsport.
That is true boxing is a bloodsport just like American football is a collision sport. But guess what changes are done to ensure the safety of the college and NFL players today. Just like horse collar tackling is banned, trying to suplex the QB isn't allowed anymore, other sorts of tackling aren't allowed, and leather helmets has been replaced with plastic ones and now there are mandatory face bars for all of the helmets, etc.
In boxing many of the changes has come to at least make it a little safer and not some complete blood bath. So what do you want? Go back to bare knuckling and have all those rounds where boxing goes to 45rounds? Or how about fighting to the death like the old Roman Colliseum? Since you did say it's a blood sport?
And I find it ridiculous to suggest 12 round fights you have lazy fighters cruising or whatever. Meldrick Taylor fought in the 12 round era and still came out punch drunk/brain damage. Gerald McClellan fought in the 12 round era and came out basically a vegetable. Z Gorres a Filipino fighter fought in this era and came out of a bout with massive brain swelling and almost died. Riddick Bowe fought in the 12 round era and is now brain damage/punch drunk. Fernando Vargas is now punch drunk and brain damage. Boxing is a brutal sport already with 12 rounds. And what's the point of adding another 3 rounds for championship matches? To satisfy the inherent lust of bloodthirsty fans?
I like the sport and understand the risk associated with it, but that doesn't mean I want to see a guy dead, become a vegetable, punch drunk, which having 15 rounds add to more of that risk.
I just got done watching Ali-Patterson 2 where Patterson was taking a tremendous beating and looked drunk on his feet before the ref stopped it, you know what was the crowd's reaction? They were booing. The crowd wasnt happy and wanted to see Floyd Patterson get killed in the ring or get severely damaged for laughs, giggles, and entertainment. I ain't part of that crowd but I guess some people are.
Think I sort of overreacted there? Sorry about that. But the idea that we boxing fans REALLY care about the health of these fighters just isn't credible. Boxing isn't good for any fighter's health, ever. Anyone who pays money for fights is part of a culture that sees five or so men killed every year, year in and year out for our entertainment. There is no escaping that you're part of it.
One major reason we have these feeling for these fighters is they choose to be warriros, to embrace the rsik involved. It takes a certain kind of man.
As for 15 rounders, as you note, there is simply no reason to believe that those three rounds raise the risk in a significant way. The risk is there from round one of fight number one. As I said, it would be good for the sport to again tier fights the way we used to at 10-12-15 rounds.
And no, you don't escape ANY of the guilt you ascribe to "bloodthirsty" fans just because you'd like to see fights stopped sooner. The equation is simple. People who REALLY carew about the health of boxers support abolition of the sport.
-
Re: Three changes to help boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
It has been widely cited that the reason of the change to 12 rds was that there were studies that showed fighters taking too much damage in those 3 extra rounds. I haven't seen the study yet, but boxing has been known to be a very physically debilitating sport, this is an undeniable fact that can't be refuted.
Well the people that want 15 rounds usually aren't the ones inside the ring taking damage. So I think it's ridiculous to want them to take even more damage when it's not necessary. It reminds me of when NFL fans want to go back to the rule of the 60s to 80s with those nasty hits. Yeah it's easy to say you want more boxing, but you are not the one in the ring taking the punches.
The safety of the fighter comes first period.
That is COMPLETE bullshit. If THAT were true there'd be no sport. Or we'd have headgear in the pros and they wear 20oz gloves and a single knockdown or drawing blood would stop a fight.
Boxing is bloodsport.
That is true boxing is a bloodsport just like American football is a collision sport. But guess what changes are done to ensure the safety of the college and NFL players today. Just like horse collar tackling is banned, trying to suplex the QB isn't allowed anymore, other sorts of tackling aren't allowed, and leather helmets has been replaced with plastic ones and now there are mandatory face bars for all of the helmets, etc.
In boxing many of the changes has come to at least make it a little safer and not some complete blood bath. So what do you want? Go back to bare knuckling and have all those rounds where boxing goes to 45rounds? Or how about fighting to the death like the old Roman Colliseum? Since you did say it's a blood sport?
And I find it ridiculous to suggest 12 round fights you have lazy fighters cruising or whatever. Meldrick Taylor fought in the 12 round era and still came out punch drunk/brain damage. Gerald McClellan fought in the 12 round era and came out basically a vegetable. Z Gorres a Filipino fighter fought in this era and came out of a bout with massive brain swelling and almost died. Riddick Bowe fought in the 12 round era and is now brain damage/punch drunk. Fernando Vargas is now punch drunk and brain damage. Boxing is a brutal sport already with 12 rounds. And what's the point of adding another 3 rounds for championship matches? To satisfy the inherent lust of bloodthirsty fans?
I like the sport and understand the risk associated with it, but that doesn't mean I want to see a guy dead, become a vegetable, punch drunk, which having 15 rounds add to more of that risk.
I just got done watching Ali-Patterson 2 where Patterson was taking a tremendous beating and looked drunk on his feet before the ref stopped it, you know what was the crowd's reaction? They were booing. The crowd wasnt happy and wanted to see Floyd Patterson get killed in the ring or get severely damaged for laughs, giggles, and entertainment. I ain't part of that crowd but I guess some people are.
Think I sort of overreacted there? Sorry about that. But the idea that we boxing fans REALLY care about the health of these fighters just isn't credible. Boxing isn't good for any fighter's health, ever. Anyone who pays money for fights is part of a culture that sees five or so men killed every year, year in and year out for our entertainment. There is no escaping that you're part of it.
One major reason we have these feeling for these fighters is they choose to be warriros, to embrace the rsik involved. It takes a certain kind of man.
As for 15 rounders, as you note, there is simply no reason to believe that those three rounds raise the risk in a significant way. The risk is there from round one of fight number one. As I said, it would be good for the sport to again tier fights the way we used to at 10-12-15 rounds.
And no, you don't escape ANY of the guilt you ascribe to "bloodthirsty" fans just because you'd like to see fights stopped sooner. The equation is simple. People who REALLY carew about the health of boxers support abolition of the sport.
Like I said there are risks in the sport that I do understand, just like there are risks for playing in the NFL, but guess what the NFL did make some changes to make it a little safer for the players. Boxing did the same I have no problem with that. Like I said there were medical reports out there that 15 rounds were more dangerous for the fighters. So do you have these reports that 15 rounds are not more dangerous? I would like to see them.
And I find it ridiculous to say that fans who care for the fighter's well being want the sport to cease to exist. That's like saying fans of the NFL who don't like to see horse collar tackles or cheap shots like they did in the 60s and 70s want the sport of football to be abolish because they care a little bit on the welfare of the players. See how ridiculous that argument is?
Just because you and some fans want to see a guy have a higher chance of dying in the ring or becoming another Gerald McClellan doesn't mean I do. And just because I don't like to see that happening doesn't mean I want the sport to be abolish.
And btw, what's good for the sport is not a return to 15 rounders. What's good for the sport is to abolish the alphabet gangs and have one universally recognized world title. What's good for the sport is a return to same day weigh ins so that another guy doesn't have such an massive weight advantage against another or the fighters are not massively cutting weight. What's also good for the sport is to have one universally recognized commission that applies the same rule and standards everywhere. And finally what's good for the sport is to have many of it's matches on network television to reach another larger spectrum of fans to entice them and future participants into the sport.
Anyways it doesn't matter anyway because 15 rounders are just like pagers/beepers, it's become obsolete now in this modern world.;)
We'll just agree to disagree.
-
Re: Three changes to help boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
It has been widely cited that the reason of the change to 12 rds was that there were studies that showed fighters taking too much damage in those 3 extra rounds. I haven't seen the study yet, but boxing has been known to be a very physically debilitating sport, this is an undeniable fact that can't be refuted.
Well the people that want 15 rounds usually aren't the ones inside the ring taking damage. So I think it's ridiculous to want them to take even more damage when it's not necessary. It reminds me of when NFL fans want to go back to the rule of the 60s to 80s with those nasty hits. Yeah it's easy to say you want more boxing, but you are not the one in the ring taking the punches.
The safety of the fighter comes first period.
That is COMPLETE bullshit. If THAT were true there'd be no sport. Or we'd have headgear in the pros and they wear 20oz gloves and a single knockdown or drawing blood would stop a fight.
Boxing is bloodsport.
That is true boxing is a bloodsport just like American football is a collision sport. But guess what changes are done to ensure the safety of the college and NFL players today. Just like horse collar tackling is banned, trying to suplex the QB isn't allowed anymore, other sorts of tackling aren't allowed, and leather helmets has been replaced with plastic ones and now there are mandatory face bars for all of the helmets, etc.
In boxing many of the changes has come to at least make it a little safer and not some complete blood bath. So what do you want? Go back to bare knuckling and have all those rounds where boxing goes to 45rounds? Or how about fighting to the death like the old Roman Colliseum? Since you did say it's a blood sport?
And I find it ridiculous to suggest 12 round fights you have lazy fighters cruising or whatever. Meldrick Taylor fought in the 12 round era and still came out punch drunk/brain damage. Gerald McClellan fought in the 12 round era and came out basically a vegetable. Z Gorres a Filipino fighter fought in this era and came out of a bout with massive brain swelling and almost died. Riddick Bowe fought in the 12 round era and is now brain damage/punch drunk. Fernando Vargas is now punch drunk and brain damage. Boxing is a brutal sport already with 12 rounds. And what's the point of adding another 3 rounds for championship matches? To satisfy the inherent lust of bloodthirsty fans?
I like the sport and understand the risk associated with it, but that doesn't mean I want to see a guy dead, become a vegetable, punch drunk, which having 15 rounds add to more of that risk.
I just got done watching Ali-Patterson 2 where Patterson was taking a tremendous beating and looked drunk on his feet before the ref stopped it, you know what was the crowd's reaction? They were booing. The crowd wasnt happy and wanted to see Floyd Patterson get killed in the ring or get severely damaged for laughs, giggles, and entertainment. I ain't part of that crowd but I guess some people are.
Think I sort of overreacted there? Sorry about that. But the idea that we boxing fans REALLY care about the health of these fighters just isn't credible. Boxing isn't good for any fighter's health, ever. Anyone who pays money for fights is part of a culture that sees five or so men killed every year, year in and year out for our entertainment. There is no escaping that you're part of it.
One major reason we have these feeling for these fighters is they choose to be warriros, to embrace the rsik involved. It takes a certain kind of man.
As for 15 rounders, as you note, there is simply no reason to believe that those three rounds raise the risk in a significant way. The risk is there from round one of fight number one. As I said, it would be good for the sport to again tier fights the way we used to at 10-12-15 rounds.
And no, you don't escape ANY of the guilt you ascribe to "bloodthirsty" fans just because you'd like to see fights stopped sooner. The equation is simple. People who REALLY carew about the health of boxers support abolition of the sport.
Like I said there are risks in the sport that I do understand, just like there are risks for playing in the NFL, but guess what the NFL did make some changes to make it a little safer for the players. Boxing did the same I have no problem with that. Like I said there were medical reports out there that 15 rounds were more dangerous for the fighters. So do you have these reports that 15 rounds are not more dangerous? I would like to see them.
And I find it ridiculous to say that fans who care for the fighter's well being want the sport to cease to exist. That's like saying fans of the NFL who don't like to see horse collar tackles or cheap shots like they did in the 60s and 70s want the sport of football to be abolish because they care a little bit on the welfare of the players. See how ridiculous that argument is?
Just because you and some fans want to see a guy have a higher chance of dying in the ring or becoming another Gerald McClellan doesn't mean I do. And just because I don't like to see that happening doesn't mean I want the sport to be abolish.
And btw, what's good for the sport is not a return to 15 rounders. What's good for the sport is to abolish the alphabet gangs and have one universally recognized world title. What's good for the sport is a return to same day weigh ins so that another guy doesn't have such an massive weight advantage against another or the fighters are not massively cutting weight. What's also good for the sport is to have one universally recognized commission that applies the same rule and standards everywhere. And finally what's good for the sport is to have many of it's matches on network television to reach another larger spectrum of fans to entice them and future participants into the sport.
Anyways it doesn't matter anyway because 15 rounders are just like pagers/beepers, it's become obsolete now in this modern world.;)
We'll just agree to disagree.
There is a mile wide hole in your logic trying to equate those who support 15 rounders as bloodthirsty while you are a caring compassionate guy who wants to protect fighters by only having twelve rounders. And that hole is stuffed with the broken and dead bodies of fighters permanently damaged or killed in twelve round or less contests. Isidro Perez, Jimmy Garcia, Nceba Gobozi, Draculae Derbez, Shawn Thomas, Ricardo Valasquez, David Thio, Jesus Ortiz, Patrick Stone, Clive Skwebu, Alan Goldstein, Kid Akeem Anifowashe and believe me I can keep going. As a matter of fact since the Kim-Mancini fight, through the end of 2006 (last data I could find) nearly 120 fighters died. That is almost exactly five fighters a year. And those are just fatalities, not those like G-Man or Oscar Diaz who have been pernanently injured.
That is almost exactly the same pace over the prior 25 years in the fifteen round era. In fact, despite your claims of studies (they don't exist) that show 12 rounders are safer? The facts don't bare it out.
If you were SERIOUSLY concerned about fighter safety, you'd find those numbers unacceptable and would be arguing for headgear or even shorter fights or 20 oz gloves.
-
Re: Three changes to help boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
It has been widely cited that the reason of the change to 12 rds was that there were studies that showed fighters taking too much damage in those 3 extra rounds. I haven't seen the study yet, but boxing has been known to be a very physically debilitating sport, this is an undeniable fact that can't be refuted.
Well the people that want 15 rounds usually aren't the ones inside the ring taking damage. So I think it's ridiculous to want them to take even more damage when it's not necessary. It reminds me of when NFL fans want to go back to the rule of the 60s to 80s with those nasty hits. Yeah it's easy to say you want more boxing, but you are not the one in the ring taking the punches.
The safety of the fighter comes first period.
That is COMPLETE bullshit. If THAT were true there'd be no sport. Or we'd have headgear in the pros and they wear 20oz gloves and a single knockdown or drawing blood would stop a fight.
Boxing is bloodsport.
That is true boxing is a bloodsport just like American football is a collision sport. But guess what changes are done to ensure the safety of the college and NFL players today. Just like horse collar tackling is banned, trying to suplex the QB isn't allowed anymore, other sorts of tackling aren't allowed, and leather helmets has been replaced with plastic ones and now there are mandatory face bars for all of the helmets, etc.
In boxing many of the changes has come to at least make it a little safer and not some complete blood bath. So what do you want? Go back to bare knuckling and have all those rounds where boxing goes to 45rounds? Or how about fighting to the death like the old Roman Colliseum? Since you did say it's a blood sport?
And I find it ridiculous to suggest 12 round fights you have lazy fighters cruising or whatever. Meldrick Taylor fought in the 12 round era and still came out punch drunk/brain damage. Gerald McClellan fought in the 12 round era and came out basically a vegetable. Z Gorres a Filipino fighter fought in this era and came out of a bout with massive brain swelling and almost died. Riddick Bowe fought in the 12 round era and is now brain damage/punch drunk. Fernando Vargas is now punch drunk and brain damage. Boxing is a brutal sport already with 12 rounds. And what's the point of adding another 3 rounds for championship matches? To satisfy the inherent lust of bloodthirsty fans?
I like the sport and understand the risk associated with it, but that doesn't mean I want to see a guy dead, become a vegetable, punch drunk, which having 15 rounds add to more of that risk.
I just got done watching Ali-Patterson 2 where Patterson was taking a tremendous beating and looked drunk on his feet before the ref stopped it, you know what was the crowd's reaction? They were booing. The crowd wasnt happy and wanted to see Floyd Patterson get killed in the ring or get severely damaged for laughs, giggles, and entertainment. I ain't part of that crowd but I guess some people are.
Think I sort of overreacted there? Sorry about that. But the idea that we boxing fans REALLY care about the health of these fighters just isn't credible. Boxing isn't good for any fighter's health, ever. Anyone who pays money for fights is part of a culture that sees five or so men killed every year, year in and year out for our entertainment. There is no escaping that you're part of it.
One major reason we have these feeling for these fighters is they choose to be warriros, to embrace the rsik involved. It takes a certain kind of man.
As for 15 rounders, as you note, there is simply no reason to believe that those three rounds raise the risk in a significant way. The risk is there from round one of fight number one. As I said, it would be good for the sport to again tier fights the way we used to at 10-12-15 rounds.
And no, you don't escape ANY of the guilt you ascribe to "bloodthirsty" fans just because you'd like to see fights stopped sooner. The equation is simple. People who REALLY carew about the health of boxers support abolition of the sport.
Like I said there are risks in the sport that I do understand, just like there are risks for playing in the NFL, but guess what the NFL did make some changes to make it a little safer for the players. Boxing did the same I have no problem with that. Like I said there were medical reports out there that 15 rounds were more dangerous for the fighters. So do you have these reports that 15 rounds are not more dangerous? I would like to see them.
And I find it ridiculous to say that fans who care for the fighter's well being want the sport to cease to exist. That's like saying fans of the NFL who don't like to see horse collar tackles or cheap shots like they did in the 60s and 70s want the sport of football to be abolish because they care a little bit on the welfare of the players. See how ridiculous that argument is?
Just because you and some fans want to see a guy have a higher chance of dying in the ring or becoming another Gerald McClellan doesn't mean I do. And just because I don't like to see that happening doesn't mean I want the sport to be abolish.
And btw, what's good for the sport is not a return to 15 rounders. What's good for the sport is to abolish the alphabet gangs and have one universally recognized world title. What's good for the sport is a return to same day weigh ins so that another guy doesn't have such an massive weight advantage against another or the fighters are not massively cutting weight. What's also good for the sport is to have one universally recognized commission that applies the same rule and standards everywhere. And finally what's good for the sport is to have many of it's matches on network television to reach another larger spectrum of fans to entice them and future participants into the sport.
Anyways it doesn't matter anyway because 15 rounders are just like pagers/beepers, it's become obsolete now in this modern world.;)
We'll just agree to disagree.
There is a mile wide hole in your logic trying to equate those who support 15 rounders as bloodthirsty while you are a caring compassionate guy who wants to protect fighters by only having twelve rounders. And that hole is stuffed with the broken and dead bodies of fighters permanently damaged or killed in twelve round or less contests. Isidro Perez, Jimmy Garcia, Nceba Gobozi, Draculae Derbez, Shawn Thomas, Ricardo Valasquez, David Thio, Jesus Ortiz, Patrick Stone, Clive Skwebu, Alan Goldstein, Kid Akeem Anifowashe and believe me I can keep going. As a matter of fact since the Kim-Mancini fight, through the end of 2006 (last data I could find) nearly 120 fighters died. That is almost exactly five fighters a year. And those are just fatalities, not those like G-Man or Oscar Diaz who have been pernanently injured.
That is almost exactly the same pace over the prior 25 years in the fifteen round era. In fact, despite your claims of studies (they don't exist) that show 12 rounders are safer? The facts don't bare it out.
If you were SERIOUSLY concerned about fighter safety, you'd find those numbers unacceptable and would be arguing for headgear or even shorter fights or 20 oz gloves.
Like I said present your studies that 12 rounders are more dangerous. Something like from the American Medical Association would do. A valid study. Do you have them?
BTW the 12 rounders and 24 hour weigh ins were introduced around the same time. There has been speculation that it's the 24 hour weigh ins where fighters are cutting so much weight and then rehydrating that's the problem. Because from what I heard from guys that are into this kind of stuff are that the body cannot be properly rehydrated especially the brain in such a short amount of time, hence the more injuries and death. I am not an expert but I have heard this argument before.
And yes I do know the sport is quite brutal even in the 12 round era, but I believe and many others do that this has to do with the 24 hour weigh in process and not being properly rehydrated as being the culprit and not because boxing went down from 15 to 12 rounds. Correlation does not equal causation. Meaning on the surface it seems that the 12 rounders are the culprit of the more deaths in this era when it more than likely could be something else like the rehydration process. And notice almost all of these deaths and serious injuries are below the HW division where fighters cut massive weight and then rehydrate on fight night. Coincidence? I think not.
So do you have those studies that some credible organization has published that the more recent deaths in boxing has to do with 12 round fights? Something that is a peer reviewed journal or from some really credible source would do.;)
-
Re: Three changes to help boxing
I think that same day weigh-ins would be a good thing; even better, there used to be title fights with stipulations of a weigh-in three hours before the fight. Really nothing wrong with getting in shape and making the weight your are contracted to make. I remember McClellan coming into the ring in the 185-190 range- a small heavyweight, not a 'big' middle.
I'd be interested to know how many of those injured were at a considerable weight disadvantage- like Gamache/Gatti.
-
Re: Three changes to help boxing
[QUOTE=generalbulldog;963107][QUOTE=marbleheadmaui;963099]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
It has been widely cited that the reason of the change to 12 rds was that there were studies that showed fighters taking too much damage in those 3 extra rounds. I haven't seen the study yet, but boxing has been known to be a very physically debilitating sport, this is an undeniable fact that can't be refuted.
Well the people that want 15 rounds usually aren't the ones inside the ring taking damage. So I think it's ridiculous to want them to take even more damage when it's not necessary. It reminds me of when NFL fans want to go back to the rule of the 60s to 80s with those nasty hits. Yeah it's easy to say you want more boxing, but you are not the one in the ring taking the punches.
The safety of the fighter comes first period.[/QUOTE
That is COMPLETE bullshit. If THAT were true there'd be no sport. Or we'd have headgear in the pros and they wear 20oz gloves and a single knockdown or drawing blood would stop a fight.
Boxing is bloodsport.
That is true boxing is a bloodsport just like American football is a collision sport. But guess what changes are done to ensure the safety of the college and NFL players today. Just like horse collar tackling is banned, trying to suplex the QB isn't allowed anymore, other sorts of tackling aren't allowed, and leather helmets has been replaced with plastic ones and now there are mandatory face bars for all of the helmets, etc.
In boxing many of the changes has come to at least make it a little safer and not some complete blood bath. So what do you want? Go back to bare knuckling and have all those rounds where boxing goes to 45rounds? Or how about fighting to the death like the old Roman Colliseum? Since you did say it's a blood sport?
As for 15 rounders, as you note, there is simply no reason to believe that those three rounds raise the risk in a significant way. The risk is there from round one of fight number one. As I said, it would be good for the sport to again tier fights the way we used to at 10-12-15 rounds.
And no, you don't escape ANY of the guilt you ascribe to "bloodthirsty" fans just because you'd like to see fights stopped sooner. The equation is simple. People who REALLY carew about the health of boxers support abolition of the sport.
Like I said there are risks in the sport that I do understand, just like there are risks for playing in the NFL, but guess what the NFL did make some changes to make it a little safer for the players. Boxing did the same I have no problem with that. Like I said there were medical reports out there that 15 rounds were more dangerous for the fighters. So do you have these reports that 15 rounds are not more dangerous? I would like to see them.
And I find it ridiculous to say that fans who care for the fighter's well being want the sport to cease to exist. That's like saying fans of the NFL who don't like to see horse collar tackles or cheap shots like they did in the 60s and 70s want the sport of football to be abolish because they care a little bit on the welfare of the players. See how ridiculous that argument is?
Just because you and some fans want to see a guy have a higher chance of dying in the ring or becoming another Gerald McClellan doesn't mean I do. And just because I don't like to see that happening doesn't mean I want
And btw, what's good for the sport is not a return to 15 rounders. What's good for the sport is to abolish the alphabet gangs and have one universally recognized world title. What's good for the sport is a return to same day weigh ins so that another guy doesn't have such an massive weight advantage against another or the fighters are not massively cutting weight. What's also good for the sport is to have one universally recognized commission that applies the same rule and standards everywhere. And finally what's good for the sport is to have many of it's matches on network television to reach another larger spectrum of fans to entice them and future participants into the sport.
Anyways it doesn't matter anyway because 15 rounders are just like pagers/beepers, it's become obsolete now in this modern world.;)
We'll just agree to disagree.
There is a mile wide hole in your logic trying to equate those who support 15 rounders as bloodthirsty while you are a caring compassionate guy who wants to protect fighters by only having twelve rounders. And that hole is stuffed with the broken and dead bodies of fighters permanently damaged or killed in twelve round or less contests. Isidro Perez, Jimmy Garcia, Nceba Gobozi, Draculae Derbez, Shawn Thomas, Ricardo Valasquez, David Thio, Jesus Ortiz, Patrick Stone, Clive Skwebu, Alan Goldstein, Kid Akeem Anifowashe and believe me I can keep going. As a matter of fact since the Kim-Mancini fight, through the end of 2006 (last data I could find) nearly 120 fighters died. That is almost exactly five fighters a year. And those are just fatalities, not those like G-Man or Oscar Diaz who have been pernanently injured.
That is almost exactly the same pace over the prior 25 years in the fifteen round era. In fact, despite your claims of studies (they don't exist) that show 12 rounders are safer? The facts don't bare it out.
If you were SERIOUSLY concerned about fighter safety, you'd find those numbers unacceptable and would be arguing for headgear or even shorter fights or 20 oz gloves.
Like I said present your studies that 12 rounders are more dangerous. Something like from the American Medical Association would do. A valid study. Do you have them?
BTW the 12 rounders and 24 hour weigh ins were introduced around the same time. There has been speculation that it's the 24 hour weigh ins where fighters are cutting so much weight and then rehydrating that's the problem. Because from what I heard from guys that are into this kind of stuff are that the body cannot be properly rehydrated especially the brain in such a short amount of time, hence the more injuries and death. I am not an expert but I have heard this argument before.
And yes I do know the sport is quite brutal even in the 12 round era, but I believe and many others do that this has to do with the 24 hour weigh in process and not being properly rehydrated as being the culprit and not because boxing went down from 15 to 12 rounds. Correlation does not equal causation. Meaning on the surface it seems that the 12 rounders are the culprit of the more deaths in this era when it more than likely could be something else like the rehydration process. And notice almost all of these deaths and serious injuries are below the HW division where fighters cut massive weight and then rehydrate on fight night. Coincidence? I think not.
So do you have those studies that some credible organization has published that the more recent deaths in boxing has to do with 12 round fights? Something that is a peer reviewed journal or from some really credible source would do.;)
Hey YOU were the one talking about studies comparing 12 and 15 round fights. As I've said a number of times THERE AREN'T ANY! I am NOT making the case 12 rounders are more dangerous. I am making the case there is no evidence they are safer. So the notion that 15 rounders are more dangerous rests on, well, nothing as near as I can figure.
Interestingly, in 1982 after the Kim-Mancini fight the AMA passed on dealing with the issue and focused on better record keeping, consistent rules etc.
Boxing is inherently risky and as a fan one MUST accept some amount of responsibility for the damage done to entertain us. The notion that supporting 12 rounds rather than 15 is a morally superior stance simply isn't supported by ANY data. In fact what the data suggests is the danger is inherent in ANY boxing contest with reasonable sized gloves, no headgear and Marquess of Queensbury Rules.
I should say this view isn't religion to me. If the data really did show we were getting something significant regarding safety by going to 12 rounders, my view might well be different. But it's just not what the data shows.
My views on same day weigh-ins are somewhat the same. I see zaero evidence day before weigh-ins provides any safety benefit. Instead what it leads to are, among other things, size mismatches and tragedies like Gatti-Gamache.
-
Re: Three changes to help boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
greynotsoold
I think that same day weigh-ins would be a good thing; even better, there used to be title fights with stipulations of a weigh-in three hours before the fight. Really nothing wrong with getting in shape and making the weight your are contracted to make. I remember McClellan coming into the ring in the 185-190 range- a small heavyweight, not a 'big' middle.
I'd be interested to know how many of those injured were at a considerable weight disadvantage- like Gamache/Gatti.
Yeah me too. The list of deaths I have runs from the late 1700's but it only contains basic data like names, locations, round, and, at best, a very basic description of what happened.
Like you I have a problem with weight cutting being a boxing talent. Why is THAT a good thing? Roy Jones was another guy who always wanted weigh-ins at least 30 hours before fight time. He'd weigh in at 168 or 175 and fight in the 190 range.
-
Re: Three changes to help boxing
Do you remember the first Hamsho/Hagler fight, when Marvin weighed 156 because he wanted to moving all night? Managing weight and having your fighter peak at the right time used to be arts.
I would be much more upbeat about boxing if there were more places for fighters to fight, more opportunities to learn, and more people to teach them.
-
Re: Three changes to help boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
greynotsoold
Do you remember the first Hamsho/Hagler fight, when Marvin weighed 156 because he wanted to moving all night? Managing weight and having your fighter peak at the right time used to be arts.
I would be much more upbeat about boxing if there were more places for fighters to fight, more opportunities to learn, and more people to teach them.
I was talking with some friends after the Bradley-Alexander fight saying I could not believe just how badly the sport had fallen. When I got the old "You just favor the old guys" gripe I said to them, "let's see, two 25 and under, ranked, highly gifted fighters with 20-25 fights apiece right?" They agreed. So I popped Little Red Lopez and Bobby Chacon in the DVD player and they sat down to watch. After about three rounds they were apologizing all over the place.
The major problem is the one you identified. The dearth of teachers. I don't know how it gets fixed.
-
Re: Three changes to help boxing
I think it goes back to something A.J. Leibling wrote about late 50s or early 60s: the income gap in boxing, and it has only gotten worse. The top guys in boxing make a ton of money, but, underneath, nobody makes anything. The live gate in boxing is dead for the majority of the fighters.
-
Re: Three changes to help boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
greynotsoold
I think it goes back to something A.J. Leibling wrote about late 50s or early 60s: the income gap in boxing, and it has only gotten worse. The top guys in boxing make a ton of money, but, underneath, nobody makes anything. The live gate in boxing is dead for the majority of the fighters.
Well St. Joe was rarely wrong :)
I suspect the other thing that has happened is the industrialized world has reached a level of overall affluence that very few really wonder where their next meal is coming from. I suspect it takes desperate boys to become truly extraordinary fighters. People with food in their stomachs can now find better/safer ways to exploit their athletic talent.
