Printable View
there was nothing like the 13th 14th and 15th around coming down the stretch and letting it all hang out and seeing which boxer really wanted the decision more than the other it is rather wimpy to find only 12 rounds any audience is not getting its money's worth 15 rounds should be reinstituted immediately
proper gladiators them days
This is a really good point and my 1st instinct was to agree totally. Nowadays, fighters are supposed to be fitter, there is more hi-tech nutrition and conditioning, more stringent medical rules, so why not have 15 rounders?
But......... The negative side is that a lot of fighters would conserve energy to make sure they last the distance(they already do with 12 rounds). This would mean the early / mid rounds could be a total bore. With that in mind, there could be an argument to reduce it to 10 rounds , so that fighters wet he'll for leather at it.
I always cringe a little when the announcers go on about entering the championship rounds. Fighters are lazier now and can become millionaires by doing very little. Many are gassed by the sixth round. They can stay clear of risk and still be champion. Povetkin just offered Wilder 10 million dollars and he turned it down. Only in 2015 does shit like this play out and paperweights like him call themselves "world champions". Another byproduct of all these damn belts.Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
15 round title fights would improve the quality of the sport from fighter to viewer. I also think it would eliminate many draws, thefts and overall bullshit calls. I've actually watched more 12 round title fights then 15 and yet still lament 15. My first fight was Chuvalo/Clay in 66 and the last 15 I watched was Tyson/Briggs in 87.
15-Rounds
Cruel and unusual punishment.
Not required to enjoy a well-contested bout.
And, not every 15-Round was great. Just as many sucked.
All great points here gentlemen :)
In what way exactly? Longer fights = more energy conservation. People don't want to see long drawn out fights.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuit
I never understood the logic for 15 round fights. Generally less action and energy expenditure per round, and more risk of permanent injury, dehydration, ect for the fighter. Its hard to get behind any idea that a) won't draw in new fans and b) makes it harder for the athletes involved in one of the hardest sports to compete in.
People are interested in explosive displays of athleticism. Said it before and I'll say it again, thats why everyone in the world has heard of Usain Bolt and he's considered the fastest man in the world. No one is asking him to run a marathon to prove he's the fastest. No one gives a shit.
I think it would force athletes to be in better shape. Not sure whether it would draw more or not as it has not been done in over 25 years. The injury thing is a fallacy. More people have died and been injured in 12s then 15s and the change had nothing to do with safety or health concerns even though the attempted to sell it that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerIn what way exactly? Longer fights = more energy conservation. People don't want to see long drawn out fights.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuit
I never understood the logic for 15 round fights. Generally less action and energy expenditure per round, and more risk of permanent injury, dehydration, ect for the fighter. Its hard to get behind any idea that a) won't draw in new fans and b) makes it harder for the athletes involved in one of the hardest sports to compete in.
People are interested in explosive displays of athleticism. Said it before and I'll say it again, thats why everyone in the world has heard of Usain Bolt and he's considered the fastest man in the world. No one is asking him to run a marathon to prove he's the fastest. No one gives a shit.
15 round fights do nothing to take away explosive displays. Never heard that before and some of the best rounds in history are 13 to 15. Leonard would have lost to Hearns had it been 12 and lost to Hagler had it been 15 and close fights and shitty calls imo would not happen near as much. It would have helped fights like Hop/Taylor 1 and 2 and countless others.
Each to their own. I prefer 15 for title fights.
15 rounds helps diversity of styles. Grinders are practically extinct.
Have to go against you on this one. I don't see where the payoff is for the fans. You'll have longer, slower paced fights, which sucks!Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuitI think it would force athletes to be in better shape. Not sure whether it would draw more or not as it has not been done in over 25 years. The injury thing is a fallacy. More people have died and been injured in 12s then 15s and the change had nothing to do with safety or health concerns even though the attempted to sell it that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerIn what way exactly? Longer fights = more energy conservation. People don't want to see long drawn out fights.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuit
I never understood the logic for 15 round fights. Generally less action and energy expenditure per round, and more risk of permanent injury, dehydration, ect for the fighter. Its hard to get behind any idea that a) won't draw in new fans and b) makes it harder for the athletes involved in one of the hardest sports to compete in.
People are interested in explosive displays of athleticism. Said it before and I'll say it again, thats why everyone in the world has heard of Usain Bolt and he's considered the fastest man in the world. No one is asking him to run a marathon to prove he's the fastest. No one gives a shit.
15 round fights do nothing to take away explosive displays. Never heard that before and some of the best rounds in history are 13 to 15. Leonard would have lost to Hearns had it been 12 and lost to Hagler had it been 15 and close fights and shitty calls imo would not happen near as much. It would have helped fights like Hop/Taylor 1 and 2 and countless others.
Each to their own. I prefer 15 for title fights.
They'll never go back to 15 rounders, in my opinion.
Good discussion here.
Probably not but its because of economics and not anything to do with boxing. The reason they changed it to begin with was that 12 rds fit into an hour long format on tv not because Mancini beat Kim to death. It suited commercials better and it never ran over other shows. Given that boxing is more event based then legacy based I doubt it changes and based on the coddling and pussification of the sport and society in general I suspect 12 will turn to 8 by the middle of this centuryQuote:
Originally Posted by beenKOedHave to go against you on this one. I don't see where the payoff is for the fans. You'll have longer, slower paced fights, which sucks!Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuitI think it would force athletes to be in better shape. Not sure whether it would draw more or not as it has not been done in over 25 years. The injury thing is a fallacy. More people have died and been injured in 12s then 15s and the change had nothing to do with safety or health concerns even though the attempted to sell it that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerIn what way exactly? Longer fights = more energy conservation. People don't want to see long drawn out fights.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuit
I never understood the logic for 15 round fights. Generally less action and energy expenditure per round, and more risk of permanent injury, dehydration, ect for the fighter. Its hard to get behind any idea that a) won't draw in new fans and b) makes it harder for the athletes involved in one of the hardest sports to compete in.
People are interested in explosive displays of athleticism. Said it before and I'll say it again, thats why everyone in the world has heard of Usain Bolt and he's considered the fastest man in the world. No one is asking him to run a marathon to prove he's the fastest. No one gives a shit.
15 round fights do nothing to take away explosive displays. Never heard that before and some of the best rounds in history are 13 to 15. Leonard would have lost to Hearns had it been 12 and lost to Hagler had it been 15 and close fights and shitty calls imo would not happen near as much. It would have helped fights like Hop/Taylor 1 and 2 and countless others.
Each to their own. I prefer 15 for title fights.
They'll never go back to 15 rounders, in my opinion.
I don't think fighters being out of shape is a problem, I consider boxing and MMA athletes to be the finest conditioned athletes in the world. I don't believe athletes in the 70s were any better conditioned than athletes today, actually logic would say it's vice versa with the superior sport science and nutrition. For every modern example you can think of where guys gassed out, I can give you one from the 15-round era.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuit
It would not draw more, because nobody would give a shit. If you engage in a strenuous, dangerous activity for 45 minutes as opposed to 36 minutes, you're leaving yourself more open injury just on logic alone. But when you factor in what we know about concussions and about the vulnerability of the brain as the body becomes more and more dehydrated, it's not opinion, it's science.
If a fighter has to fight for 15 rounds, he's going to be more apt to conserve energy to go the distance than he would if he was fighting 4, 8, 10, or 12 rounds. That's just logic. And yeah 15 rounders would cut back on draws and controversies, but that's because it's an odd number of rounds. The same effect could be achieved by making bouts 11 or 13 rounds.
It's fine if you like 15 rounders, there's enough that happened in boxing to enjoy, I just have no idea why any true boxing fan would advocate something that makes it harder on the athletes and won't draw any more money to the sport.
I am shocked normally drinking large amounts of beer dulls your brain,;D you on the other handQuote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
have become more intelligent.:vd:
12 rounds can be boring enough, just do a k-1 style fight, 3 rounds if draw an extra round, if still draw a final fifth round. Or something like that.
But in boxing just do 8 x 3 minute rounds, if draw then you do an extra round.
Like you say, it's whatever you like.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuitProbably not but its because of economics and not anything to do with boxing. The reason they changed it to begin with was that 12 rds fit into an hour long format on tv not because Mancini beat Kim to death. It suited commercials better and it never ran over other shows. Given that boxing is more event based then legacy based I doubt it changes and based on the coddling and pussification of the sport and society in general I suspect 12 will turn to 8 by the middle of this centuryQuote:
Originally Posted by beenKOedHave to go against you on this one. I don't see where the payoff is for the fans. You'll have longer, slower paced fights, which sucks!Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuitI think it would force athletes to be in better shape. Not sure whether it would draw more or not as it has not been done in over 25 years. The injury thing is a fallacy. More people have died and been injured in 12s then 15s and the change had nothing to do with safety or health concerns even though the attempted to sell it that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerIn what way exactly? Longer fights = more energy conservation. People don't want to see long drawn out fights.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuit
I never understood the logic for 15 round fights. Generally less action and energy expenditure per round, and more risk of permanent injury, dehydration, ect for the fighter. Its hard to get behind any idea that a) won't draw in new fans and b) makes it harder for the athletes involved in one of the hardest sports to compete in.
People are interested in explosive displays of athleticism. Said it before and I'll say it again, thats why everyone in the world has heard of Usain Bolt and he's considered the fastest man in the world. No one is asking him to run a marathon to prove he's the fastest. No one gives a shit.
15 round fights do nothing to take away explosive displays. Never heard that before and some of the best rounds in history are 13 to 15. Leonard would have lost to Hearns had it been 12 and lost to Hagler had it been 15 and close fights and shitty calls imo would not happen near as much. It would have helped fights like Hop/Taylor 1 and 2 and countless others.
Each to their own. I prefer 15 for title fights.
They'll never go back to 15 rounders, in my opinion.
I don't care for the 15 rounders. I can't see that adding those three rounds will improve boxing in any way.
Sorry, I just can't see any benefit to the fighters, the fans, or boxing.
Especially for unification fights. And if only for unification fights.Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
watch the first Carlos palomino v Armando Muniz fight and you'll be hooked on 15 round fights and understand exactly what is meant when somebody says "the championship rounds."
Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
But,
Those kind of bouts are far and few between.
Checkout;
* Muhammad Ali vs. Alfredo Evangelista > An example in Root Canal.
Exactly, you can't just look at the best of something and assume thats what you're going to get every time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill PaxtomQuote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
But,
Those kind of bouts are far and few between.
Checkout;
* Muhammad Ali vs. Alfredo Evangelista > An example in Root Canal.
What if Floyd/Baldomir, Ruiz/Rahman, Wlad/Ibragimov, Lewis/Tua or virtually any Andre Ward fight was 15 rounds?
Lol well look, some of you prefer 12 and don't think 15 improves anything. I prefer 15 and think it improves everything.
Thee end. There is no convincing. People don't even read in half of these squabbles.
That's my biggest complaint, some of y'all just won't listen to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by beenKOedThat's my biggest complaint, some of y'all just won't listen to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuit
Lol
What do you want me to say? You are as old if not older then I am. I started watching boxing when I was 8. People always dismiss fighters because they never saw them and like to dismiss their accomplishments for the same reason. They base this on a lack of empirical evidence. Well I'm basing my comparisons of the two on empirical evidence having had the privilege through being born in 1958 of experiencing them both live and in real time. So now I am to forget about that empirical necessity or condition if its met? Its just to much and ftr the wide majority by far of the best title fights I have seen have been 15 rounds.
you think you are special or about you are a privilege lot of rules just because you were born in 1958 well guess what I was born in 1250 BC you don't know anything about Egyptian monuments or Sumerian planets which are revolving around the Sun you can all go away soon so I don't have to listen to your nonsense anymore Marvin Hagler is definitely knocked out john the Beast Mugabep about you are a privilege lot of rules just because you were born inecial 1958 well guess what I was born in 1250 BC you don't know anything about Egyptian monuments or Sumerian planets which are revolving around the Sun you can all go away soon so I don't have to listen to your nonsense anymore
15 is the ultimate test and if you can master that then you may consider yourself TBE. Floyd is not TBE as he never gone the full distance to even prove he is the best. All the true greats did 15 rounds. 12 rounds is enough time to spoil and clinch to run down the clock. 15 rounds would show who is who. It's only 45 minutes, but 36 minutes, is diluting it down to something silly.
Nobody is saying you can't like 15 round fights, I'm telling you a) it makes it harder on the fighters and b) it wouldn't draw a dime more for boxing. And personally, I don't see why anyone would support something that fucked with the fighters in an already dangerous sport and wouldn't draw any more interest or money into the sport. It's moronic.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuit
Don't act like I'm not reading your posts or understanding what you're saying. You're not that deep, brah.
I don't think it makes it 'harder' on the fighters. You adjust your training. Honestly, I think that the weight games they play now are more damaging than the way it used to be.
It would be interesting to try and debate what results would have been different if the 15 rounder had been scheduled for 12, and vice versa.
I think Hagler may have stopped Leonard if it had been a fifteen rounder. Ironically, Hearns would have out pointed Sugar Ray had they fought a twelve rounder?
norton may well have out pointed Holmes too.
One can always argue that a fighter would have paced themselves differently, but it would be a fun argument.
You're talking about taking a gruelling task - a 12 round fight - where the chances of injury and dehydration are significant as it is, and prolonging it by 25%, to the benefit of absolutely no one besides old men so they can relive their childhood or something. Of course it makes it harder on the boxers. The Boston Marathon is 26 miles, if you add 4-5 miles on top of that of course you're increasing the risk significantly.Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
It's probably the dumbest discussion you can have on boxing. There's absolutely no argument for 15 rounders other than "...fuck off, I like 15 rounders." It's like talking to a 10 year old.
How about, until the last man or woman is standing.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuit
Take away the Judges for Scoring.
Just have a good Referee, and let the 'bastards' beat each other to death.
General George S. Patton >
"There is no glory in War, unless you can see your enemy's brains splattered all
over the Battlefield."
Fighters who scoff at 15 rounds fights IMO are psychosomatic.
Holyfield vs Qawi 15 rounds....pure action pillar to post, round after round total throwdown.
Ken Norton vs Larry Holmes fought till the cows came home...I mean the 15th round was fought in both these fights @ a pace that is more intense than the first round fought with todays so-called nutrioned training athlete.
Arguello vs Pryor fight one..Man those dude fought at a torrid pace.
Last time I saw Pryor was 2012 and he speaks just as clear as when he was young. Larry Holmes, fat face shines with all the good food he eats because his brain allowed him to make sound financial judgements.. 15 rounds didnt hurt him..he's the same mean old geezer, but with faculties.
Qawi also has hs faculties...
Once again: all the Arizas and their conditioning & nutrional diets cant make you a champion. Thats the stuff that is internal- the intangible called : willpower. They willed themselves to go 15 rounds.
Today's fighter? Shit...with PPV guranteeing millions, why not just quit on the stool in the 4th round?:eek:
slim Trey has spoken the truth slim traes number 1 train is a cool cat and he is a homie trim tree he is my dog he is my dog you my dog's name Trey you my dog my little homie ass b**** country he my homie ass little b**** word which city b****** word of Fat Joe
I could not have said it better, insightful criticism should always be welcome!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
I think they should come back, they were the championship rounds where you demonstrated you were a world class and worthy fighter.
I just can't agree. I'd rather see a reasonably paced fight for 12 Rds instead of a 15 rounder with well paced rounds interspersed with hugging, holding, and energy saving rounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Do you remember comments like this, 'the fight has slowed considerably, they're conserving energy for the championship rounds.'? Even if you don't, I do!! How about setting in a bar and hearing this from another table, 'They better slow down or they'll never make 15.' Hell, the slowdown was expected, I don't ever want to go back to that BS.
Do we expect fighters to tire and slow down during 12 rounders? Are we surprised when fighters take a round of during a 12 rounder? When you tack on another three (fucking championship rounds) things get worse! IMO, lol
Tell Hagler, Leonard, Marciano or Holmes that. They ate their opposition in those crucial rounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by beenKOedI just can't agree. I'd rather see a reasonably paced fight for 12 Rds instead of a 15 rounder with well paced rounds interspersed with hugging, holding, and energy saving rounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Do you remember comments like this, 'the fight has slowed considerably, they're conserving energy for the championship rounds.'? Even if you don't, I do!! How about setting in a bar and hearing this from another table, 'They better slow down or they'll never make 15.' Hell, the slowdown was expected, I don't ever want to go back to that BS.
Do we expect fighters to tire and slow down during 12 rounders? Are we surprised when fighters take a round of during a 12 rounder? When you tack on another three (fucking championship rounds) things get worse! IMO, lol
Good for them. There were guys who also ate their opponents alive in the 30th round, when it was last man standing rules.
If you can't get your shit done in 36 minutes of fighting, you stink.
Tell that to Leonard who needed to stop Hearns or Rocky against Walcott or ........Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
NO NEED TO DEBATE 15 ROUND FIGHTS ANYMORE? -
Not sure if this was brought up on this thread: Why 15 rounds were "officially" ended. I was reading a Ring magazine from the 90's & it brought up Jose S. So I googled it and it seems locked.
Based on what is stated: ending 15 rounds had nothing to do with the health of the fighters: it was totally political.
Those 3 extra rounds are a waste or time.
Find another way to waste our time.