I'm just thining about how guys like Pastrano, Dupas and Jimmy Young would have gotten screwed pretty much...maybe it would have put the sids on really sloppy types like John Ruiz, but there are better fighters than him who would be needlessly handicapped by a meddlesome, micromanaging referee keeping them from doing their thing....and remember, Ali would have probably gotten dq'ed vs Spinks in their rematch.
'Holding' should not be allowed but micro-managing the problem won't help, that's just curing the symptom in my view. Bigger gloves and lax refereeing make boxing too dissimilar to fighting in my view. The fight, with a 3-KD rule and medical staff is as safe if not safer than many other 'sports' (Red Bull are associated with a number of deaths as a result of the stunts they sponsor.) Long term damage can be cased by the volume of punches padded gloves allow you to take, this is well documented. I believe boxing returning to/becoming more like fighting would lead to less of the 'decoration' and negative tactics a lot of people who commented seem unhappy with. No need for damaging slug-fests, I believe that is mostly a result of mis-matching.
Thank you jowcol for your response, and red cobra as well. Couldn't agree more. As a fan of the game since the early 70's I've watched what happened to it over the years with dismay, disappointment and sometimes disgust. It's all about money nowadays. Not pride, not proving that you're the best and taking on the best. Now it's how much can I make against the safest opposition without ruining my protected reputation. I remember watching championship fights with my father on Friday nights or Saturday afternoons on channels 4,5 or 7. Now you have to shell out 50 bucks for Showtime and wait till 11pm for the main event. No wonder so many fans have left. It was so much better and more enjoyable years ago. It really was.
My thoughts exactly. I just can't watch mma with all that holding and wrestling. It makes the punch output go way down. MMA fighters throw fewer punches in a five minute round than boxers throw in a three minute round. It's like watching paint dry. Who are some skillful fighters people regularly find boring? Ward, Hopkins, Mayweather, Rigondeaux? The average super middleweight throws 54.3 punches a round. Andre Ward has a reputation as a boring boxer because against Dawson he threw 41.8, against Froch he threw 47.8, against Bika he averaged 36.2. For comparison purposes Froch throws 68 punches a round. Hopkins throws about 35-40 punches a round when the light heavyweight average is 54. Mayweather averages throwing 40 punches per round at welterweight and threw 50 a round at 130. By way of comparison, Jesus Soto Karass threw 110 punches a round against Andre Berto last year. The Welterweight average is 58.7, Maidana throws 66, and Manny Pacquiao throws 69.4. Rigondeaux throws 40.3 punches a round in a division where the average is 60.3. Busier fights are generally more exciting fights for fans. Who are the guys who throw the most punches? Santa Cruz, Golovkin, Mares, Pacquiao, Rios, Froch, etc. It's not just a coincidence that they are considered exciting fighters. Jimmy Young is precisely the kind of guy I want to put a stop to. His fight with George Foreman was an abortion. Punch grab. Punch grab. If the ref had just warned him for excessive holding Foreman would have knocked his block off. This sort of rule would also apply to Wladimir Klitschko and his no in fighting clinche defense. I can see Pastrano getting away with being somewhat evasive. But if you are going to move like that you need to throw something from the outside and not be entirely passive/defensive. Guys who rely entirely on their legs and avoidance while another guy presses the action are a joke. You do that, and you get a mess like what we had with Lara and Alvarez. Lara is clearly the better boxer, but he was so busy running around the ring that he forgot he also needed to hit the guy once in a while too. Movement should serve aggression and offense, like how Ali used to circle and strafe opponents. It's not just for passivity and defense. If I weren't getting rid of running I'd have to do something about ring size, like cut it in half, to make the fighters come into contact more. With big rings guys can run forever if they want. Now, once you take away clinching and running, you still have plenty of good defensive tactics you can use which keep the fighters in punching range and don't slow down the tempo. I'm speaking of head movement, blocking, the shoulder roll, ducking, and slipping punches. James Toney was a defensive wizard, but he could fight on the inside, and he landed more than 400 blows in four or five of his fights, because he was also great at offense. Pernell Whitaker would stand right next to people and make them miss with his amazing body movement. George Benton could do the same thing. Miguel Lora was great at ducking punches, and so was Nicolino Locche, which goes to show that you don't need to grab or run to be defensive. We just need to emphasize these tactics over the other ones which spoil a fight. Personally, I think that the problem with a lot of great defensive fighters is that they are one dimensional. They never learn how to do anything offensively and in boxing you need both.
We've already got something that's more like fighting: mma. And it's boring. In fact, over the years mma has had to put in 30 or so rules to make it less like fighting and more entertaining to watch. I propose going the other way. Let's make it more like sport, emphasize the more entertaining parts, and de-emphasize the parts people don't like. To make boxing more like fighting you'd need to lose the gloves, change the stances punches are thrown from so you don't break your hands. Lose the ref. Bring back throwing, gouging, kicking, and wrestling. You get to stand over your opponent while he's down, grab hair, choke 'em, thumb their eyes, low blow, break small digits, etc. Or you can keep boxing the way it is, just speed it up a little with a few of my suggestions. I'm thinking sort of along the same lines as NBA went when they added a shot clock. Before that teams could stall, and hold onto a lead. They'd dribble forever, and pass the ball back and forth, resulting in low scores, and low game attendance. You get the same incitement to action in football with the downs. If you don't make enough progress you lose the ball and the other team gets to try. Back in gladiator days the ref used to stand off to a side with a hot poker and burn the man he thought was stalling. I can see their point.
Ha ha ha, brutal! I like the fact there are the Queensbury rules as opposed to the wrestling-hug-a-thon of MMA. Grappling is a very technical but unspectacular technique I agree. I think slighter gloves would actually aid the speed of the fights, throwing a volume of punches would be rewarded more I think due to the fact that arm/body punches would have a greater effect. If all action spectaculars is what people would prefer, how about 2 min or less rounds where fighters have to 'get noticed' so to speak to win the fight.
Agree somewhat with the entourages. Watch any fight from 20 years ago or more and it was three guys and their fighter in the ring. Now we have about 20 guys in there, all clapping and cheering and ****, and not one of them needs to be there. That irritates me. Ring entrances I'm fine with. Boxing is entertainment and I've got no problem with elaborate and flashy ring entrances.
Some of my ideals have been mentioned but they're worth repeating. A reasonable number of weight divisions. 12, for example. One World Champion per division. Regional champions - i.e. a national champ, state champ, and city champ. This could do wonders for boxing's popularity. I think this is a much more attractive alternative to all these ridiculous alphabet titles. (Obviously the way I've structured the regions in my example is U.S. centric, but different countries could do their own thing in this regard.) Only one national champion per division. Winning a national title does not guarantee a world ranking or a title shot. Nor does a national champion automatically lose his title if he fights for the world championship. However, should he win that world title he has to give up the national title. 15 round world championship fights. 12 round national championship fights. Reliable, unbiased world, national, and regional ratings, perhaps done via a voting system. No 'locking in' world rankings. A fighter may be elevated to #1 contender one month but then has a less-than-stellar performance two months down the line; he might slip in the ratings as a result, depending on who else is in the division and what they're doing. And no vacant positions, either. I find these "#1 contender: vacant" things to be utterly ridiculous. Some balance has to be achieved between making sure deserving challengers get their title shot (no locking out a Marvelous Marvin Hagler for three years) and not stripping champions at the drop of a hat. Perhaps if there were only one world champion the world title would have more value and the champion would be very reluctant to have his title taken away and thus not duck his #1 contender. In every 12 month period the world champion has to fight the #1 contender, another top ten contender, and a challenger of his choice (ranked or not). That means each champion must fight at least three times a year. Less of an emphasis on championship fights. What I mean is if, say, the #2 contender is fighting the #5 contender, that should be an attractive enough matchup as it is. No need to attach a title to it. A concerted marketing effort to promote the sport. In my view NASCAR is boring as hell, but the marketing behind it is amazing. Boxing could do that. Investment in amateur programs and beginning professional programs. Tomorrow's superstars are today's kids. This is another area where marketing could make all the difference. Look at Sugar Ray Leonard's rise, fighting once a month on national television. That marketing effort made him the superstar that he became. I think boxing could, if run properly, regain and even surpass it's previous popularity. But it seems like the people running it don't have any vision for it's long term success or how to run and popularize it and attract more people. The sport has the potential to attract a much larger audience and thus generate much more revenue for all parties involved.
I wouldn't like to see 15 round fights returning. its hard enough staying awake through most televised undercards, so please don't bore me with 2 or 3 fifteen round 'world' tile fights thrown in, life's too short. same day weigh ins are a bad idea safety wise, because of the money and glory on offer fighters will make weight no matter what. I agree the referees allow too much holding and clinching and would love to see this change. Fewer champions is a double edged sword really. one champion would be great for boxing and is really how it should be but then how many of todays 'greats' would've even got a title shot? think of all the great matchups wed miss. what if tommy hearns had had to wait another 3 years for his shot at cuevas? boxings not too bad the way it is
Yes to the first part no to the second. What's killing the sport, is the lack of stars fighting regularly. If you are a fan of basketball, baseball, or football you get to see your favorite players at least a dozen times a year. The top ten p4p in boxing mostly fight only once or twice a year. So the champs definitely need to defend the title more. But part of the problem is that if you make a requirement for the champs to defend against contenders, the contenders might still duck the champ. I know that Golovkin has been trying to get Quillin and everyone else in the ring with him for at least two years now, but they don't want any part of him. Or you'd have guys like Mayweather, Holmes, or Bowe who drop a belt so they don't have to fight their mandatory. They see the belt as a marketing tool and it is. Network television doesn't show boxing regularly because they can't guarantee title fights the way they used to. They can sign a champ who loses the belt in his first defense and his opponent takes it to another network or another country. MMA gets televised regularly because the belts all belong to the promotion companies and stay in house. Doing it that way they can guarantee a certain number of title fights per year, at least one a week which is what tv needs to be lucrative. I agree that fighters ought to fight 3-5 times a year, that there ought to be just one belt, etc. But I don't see how you get around guys like Floyd Mayweather who drops a belt when he doesn't want to defend it and then picks it up when he wants it. Someone told me that Mayweather has only fought champions with belts for years, and I had to remind them that they were only champions because he dropped the belt in the first place, and the other top fighters with belts couldn't qualify for an eliminator because the ranking organizations won't rank each other's belt holders. How else do you explain Guerrero and Ortiz holding even a piece of the crown?
1 world champ per weight same day weigh in (8 to 10) hours before the fight) 15 round title fights. Fighters and managers independent of promotional groups.
Very interesting. All great points so far, people venting some spleen at the structure of the industry/business as a whole and I sympathise. Any more controversial rule changes though? How about those high-riding padded guards I see on some. The refs at the Brook V Porter fight were saying to fighters before the 1st round: 'Keep your shots above here' indicating the middle of the 'waist-line'! I've seen refs simply yank down the shorts before now to line the top up with the fair shot region. Personally I'd like to see a 'tassel' ban! Sorry Roy!