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

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

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

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

But how about Taylor-Spinks or Wlad-Ibragimov... does anyone wish those fights went 15 rounds? It would have just been 9 more minutes of boredom.
Except with the Kim fight, there was no reason to stop the fight. He was fighting back and defending.
Quarry suffered from boxer dementia,Ali has Parkinsons,Frazier has slurred speach
So what's your point? I 'm pretty sure you are against going to 15 rounds. Are you arguing a cause & effect relationship between 15 round fights and all of the cases you have mentioned here? Cause I really am not convinced that there would have been significant less chance of these situations if they had fought 12 round fights. That is the issue.