Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??

[donnydarkoIRL]

Again I feel like it should depend on the ref or corner to end the fight... I mean if the fighter gets KD in the 1st 10 secs of the round from a flash gets up at 2, gets KD by a flash at 1:30 of a round and then Flashed again with 10sec left then the fight would be over... On the otherhand when a fighters in trouble even with the 3 KD rule alot of times the ref calls the fight after a 2nd KD anyway.

Then there are instances like Morrison and Bentt when 3 KD were just right in that fight and there could be no complaints either way.

I guess what I am saying is that the 3 KD rule is great EXCEPT in an instance when a fighter is flashed 3x in a round but i clearly fit to continue... Like stated above there are plenty of times where the 3 KD is in effect but when a fighter is hurt the ref waves after 2 KD an way

But Jt, in reallity a fighter whomgets knocked down three times (even if they are flash knockdowns) has no businesss being in the ring with a fighter with the skills to do that to him...

So Marquez had no business being in the ring with Pac after getting floored three times?

How come Pac didn't knock him out in the next round?

Cos they were planning on making a bundle in the rematch LoL

Good answer.


It shows though that the three knockdown rule doesn't work.

Fenster a rule is needed to ensure referees protect fighters more. Katsidis Earl should have been stopped. Both men will feel the effects in the future...Why risk damaging more boxers

[Fenster]

A fighters welfare has nothing to do with this debate. If a boxer is hurt badly enough that it would be unsafe to let him continue, the fight should be stopped irrelevant of whether he's been floored or not.

It's about whether a RULE works. The three knockdown rule CLEARLY doesn't. It can't differentiate between a GENUINE knockdown and a SLIP.

[ICB]

A fighters welfare has nothing to do with this debate. If a boxer is hurt badly enough that it would be unsafe to let him continue, the fight should be stopped irrelevant of whether he's been floored or not.

It's about whether a RULE works. The three knockdown rule CLEARLY doesn't. It can't differentiate between a GENUINE knockdown and a SLIP.

Spot on Fenster CC Barkley wasn't badly hurt when he was down 3 times against Benn, he was caught cold then survived the on slaught because round was over but because of 3 knockdown rule we missed out on what could of been amazing fight, even though 1st round was one of the best rounds in boxing history.

[SEANIE]

The stupid 3 knock down rule came in with the WBO, Another reason that organization is garbage

It was a WBA rule and the IBF and WBO were formed by pissed of members of the WBA.

[donnydarkoIRL]

A fighters welfare has nothing to do with this debate. If a boxer is hurt badly enough that it would be unsafe to let him continue, the fight should be stopped irrelevant of whether he's been floored or not.

It's about whether a RULE works. The three knockdown rule CLEARLY doesn't. It can't differentiate between a GENUINE knockdown and a SLIP.

Of course it can determined! the difference between a slip and a kd is often obvious.

The ref obviously deems it a slip or a KD. If it's a knockdown it's counted as one.

Sure there may be the ocasional mistake but whats the liklihood of three slips in one round being deemed Knockdowns?

[SEANIE]

A fighters welfare has nothing to do with this debate. If a boxer is hurt badly enough that it would be unsafe to let him continue, the fight should be stopped irrelevant of whether he's been floored or not.

It's about whether a RULE works. The three knockdown rule CLEARLY doesn't. It can't differentiate between a GENUINE knockdown and a SLIP.

Spot on Fenster CC Barkley wasn't badly hurt when he was down 3 times against Benn, he was caught cold then survived the on slaught because round was over but because of 3 knockdown rule we missed out on what could of been amazing fight, even though 1st round was one of the best rounds in boxing history.

I would love to have seen round two
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tyw_v1sN-58...</param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tyw_v1sN-58&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[JT Rock]

What the hell,lets just throw people out there with a battle axe and a sword,and dispatch with any pretense of it being a legitimate sport
Cmon Romans,do ya hear me!!!

I like the way you think &#160;

[Fenster]

A fighters welfare has nothing to do with this debate. If a boxer is hurt badly enough that it would be unsafe to let him continue, the fight should be stopped irrelevant of whether he's been floored or not.

It's about whether a RULE works. The three knockdown rule CLEARLY doesn't. It can't differentiate between a GENUINE knockdown and a SLIP.

Of course it can determined! the difference between a slip and a kd is often obvious.

The ref obviously deems it a slip or a KD. If it's a knockdown it's counted as one.

Sure there may be the ocasional mistake but whats the liklihood of three slips in one round being deemed Knockdowns?

Refs call it wrong all the time. Recent example - Barrera-Marquez. Barrera CLEARLY floored Marquez but Nady called it a SLIP!

The likelihood of three slips is irrelevant. A fighter could LOSE a fight because of it. That's enough to warrant the rule being unfair.

Just EXPLAIN why Marquez-Pac should have been stopped?

[ICB]

Heres the clip as well.


Pacquiao vs Marquez


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg5CAFUX79w

[donnydarkoIRL]

A fighters welfare has nothing to do with this debate. If a boxer is hurt badly enough that it would be unsafe to let him continue, the fight should be stopped irrelevant of whether he's been floored or not.

It's about whether a RULE works. The three knockdown rule CLEARLY doesn't. It can't differentiate between a GENUINE knockdown and a SLIP.

Of course it can determined! the difference between a slip and a kd is often obvious.

The ref obviously deems it a slip or a KD. If it's a knockdown it's counted as one.

Sure there may be the ocasional mistake but whats the liklihood of three slips in one round being deemed Knockdowns?

Refs call it wrong all the time. Recent example - Barrera-Marquez. Barrera CLEARLY floored Marquez but Nady called it a SLIP!

The likelihood of three slips is irrelevant. A fighter could LOSE a fight because of it. That's enough to warrant the rule being unfair.

Just EXPLAIN why Marquez-Pac should have been stopped?

It is relevant.
You can see three slips being ruled knockdowns in one round and a fighter losing a fight because of a three knockdown rule?

Do you think Marquez was hurt?

[Fenster]

A fighters welfare has nothing to do with this debate. If a boxer is hurt badly enough that it would be unsafe to let him continue, the fight should be stopped irrelevant of whether he's been floored or not.

It's about whether a RULE works. The three knockdown rule CLEARLY doesn't. It can't differentiate between a GENUINE knockdown and a SLIP.

Of course it can determined! the difference between a slip and a kd is often obvious.

The ref obviously deems it a slip or a KD. If it's a knockdown it's counted as one.

Sure there may be the ocasional mistake but whats the liklihood of three slips in one round being deemed Knockdowns?

Refs call it wrong all the time. Recent example - Barrera-Marquez. Barrera CLEARLY floored Marquez but Nady called it a SLIP!

The likelihood of three slips is irrelevant. A fighter could LOSE a fight because of it. That's enough to warrant the rule being unfair.

Just EXPLAIN why Marquez-Pac should have been stopped?

It is relevant.
You can see three slips being ruled knockdowns in one round and a fighter losing a fight because of a three knockdown rule?

Do you think Marquez was hurt?

How come Nady ruled Barrera's knockdown of Marqez a SLIP when everyone else on earth could see it was a GENUINE knockdown?

Of course Marquez was hurt. But he recovered to outbox Pac for the most part. This fight just highlights why your argument is useless.

Why should it have been stopped?

[SEANIE]

A fighters welfare has nothing to do with this debate. If a boxer is hurt badly enough that it would be unsafe to let him continue, the fight should be stopped irrelevant of whether he's been floored or not.

It's about whether a RULE works. The three knockdown rule CLEARLY doesn't. It can't differentiate between a GENUINE knockdown and a SLIP.

Of course it can determined! the difference between a slip and a kd is often obvious.

The ref obviously deems it a slip or a KD. If it's a knockdown it's counted as one.

Sure there may be the ocasional mistake but whats the liklihood of three slips in one round being deemed Knockdowns?

Refs call it wrong all the time. Recent example - Barrera-Marquez. Barrera CLEARLY floored Marquez but Nady called it a SLIP!

The likelihood of three slips is irrelevant. A fighter could LOSE a fight because of it. That's enough to warrant the rule being unfair.

Just EXPLAIN why Marquez-Pac should have been stopped?

It is relevant.
You can see three slips being ruled knockdowns in one round and a fighter losing a fight because of a three knockdown rule?

Do you think Marquez was hurt?

The 3 knockdown rule is ridiculous and ive actually won a fight because of it. On sat 4th december 1999 I boxed in the isle of man at a venue called Summerland. I knocked my opponent down twice in the first round and the ref also gave him a standing 8 count. I knew when the round ended the ref had to stop it. Something he did when the bell for the second round started. Now my opponent was a strong sod and my legs were gone.

Now if the ref had let the fight go on he could have fought back and beaten me. the rule is blatantly stupid.

in the fight i had after this which was @ some hotel in warrington I got two standing 8 counts in the first round. yet the fight went the full 3 rounds and at the end my opponent was out of gas and i could have gone another 3 rounds.

[Trainer Monkey]

A fighters welfare has nothing to do with this debate. If a boxer is hurt badly enough that it would be unsafe to let him continue, the fight should be stopped irrelevant of whether he's been floored or not.

It's about whether a RULE works. The three knockdown rule CLEARLY doesn't. It can't differentiate between a GENUINE knockdown and a SLIP.

Wait,your saying that a referee cant be trusted to differentiate between a slip and a genuine knockdown but should have full discretion over when a fighters safety is in jepardy?

[donnydarkoIRL]

A fighters welfare has nothing to do with this debate. If a boxer is hurt badly enough that it would be unsafe to let him continue, the fight should be stopped irrelevant of whether he's been floored or not.

It's about whether a RULE works. The three knockdown rule CLEARLY doesn't. It can't differentiate between a GENUINE knockdown and a SLIP.

Of course it can determined! the difference between a slip and a kd is often obvious.

The ref obviously deems it a slip or a KD. If it's a knockdown it's counted as one.

Sure there may be the ocasional mistake but whats the liklihood of three slips in one round being deemed Knockdowns?

Refs call it wrong all the time. Recent example - Barrera-Marquez. Barrera CLEARLY floored Marquez but Nady called it a SLIP!

The likelihood of three slips is irrelevant. A fighter could LOSE a fight because of it. That's enough to warrant the rule being unfair.

Just EXPLAIN why Marquez-Pac should have been stopped?

It is relevant.
You can see three slips being ruled knockdowns in one round and a fighter losing a fight because of a three knockdown rule?

Do you think Marquez was hurt?

How come Nady ruled Barrera's knockdown of Marqez a SLIP when everyone else on earth could see it was a GENUINE knockdown?

Of course Marquez was hurt. But he recovered to outbox Pac for the most part. This fight just highlights why your argument is useless.

Why should it have been stopped?

That was one knockdown. And your arguing as to what if slips are being ruled knockdowns

Marquez was badly hurt, he did recover and in my opinion did enough to win. But tell me how often does that happen? And how often does the alternative happen and a fighter gets badly Ko'd. Sure it's great to see a one in a million win, but not as good as seeing a fighter in danger being saved from imminent danger.

A fighters welfare has nothing to do with this debate. If a boxer is hurt badly enough that it would be unsafe to let him continue, the fight should be stopped irrelevant of whether he's been floored or not.

It's about whether a RULE works. The three knockdown rule CLEARLY doesn't. It can't differentiate between a GENUINE knockdown and a SLIP.

Of course it can determined! the difference between a slip and a kd is often obvious.

The ref obviously deems it a slip or a KD. If it's a knockdown it's counted as one.

Sure there may be the ocasional mistake but whats the liklihood of three slips in one round being deemed Knockdowns?

Refs call it wrong all the time. Recent example - Barrera-Marquez. Barrera CLEARLY floored Marquez but Nady called it a SLIP!

The likelihood of three slips is irrelevant. A fighter could LOSE a fight because of it. That's enough to warrant the rule being unfair.

Just EXPLAIN why Marquez-Pac should have been stopped?

It is relevant.
You can see three slips being ruled knockdowns in one round and a fighter losing a fight because of a three knockdown rule?

Do you think Marquez was hurt?

The 3 knockdown rule is ridiculous and ive actually won a fight because of it. On sat 4th december 1999 I boxed in the isle of man at a venue called Summerland. I knocked my opponent down twice in the first round and the ref also gave him a standing 8 count. I knew when the round ended the ref had to stop it. Something he did when the bell for the second round started. Now my opponent was a strong sod and my legs were gone.

Now if the ref had let the fight go on he could have fought back and beaten me. the rule is blatantly stupid.

in the fight i had after this which was @ some hotel in warrington I got two standing 8 counts in the first round. yet the fight went the full 3 rounds and at the end my opponent was out of gas and i could have gone another 3 rounds.

I call bullshit.
You said in another thread you boxed between 2000 and 2002.
In an anmateur fight 2 standing 8 counts is an automatic loss.
Unless the referee was completely ignorant of Irish British and European amateur boxing rules and authority that didn't happen

[Fenster]

Monkey and Donny, you're the only two that don't understand so -

Is there the possibility that a ref can call a knockdown incorrectly? Yes.

Is there any examples of refs calling knockdowns incorrectly? Yes.

Is there the possibilty an incorrect call could have a bearing on a fight? Yes.

Does this affect the three-knockdown rule? Yes.

Does this show the three-knockdown rule is highly flawed? Yes.

The end.