Was boxing better with 12 or 15 rounds?

15 rounds for me -- it being the greater test of stamina, punch resistance, heart, and mental fortitude. Someone like Alexis Arguello essentially made his name in rounds 13, 14 and 15.

Pause for a moment to think of all the great fights and moments we wouldn't have experienced, were title fights always 12 rounds, and never 15 rounds. And also, all the moments we could have experienced in the modern era, but didn't because of the change -- for instance, the prospect of Bowe and Holyfield standing in gront of each other for 3 further rounds in their first encounter.

It's a shame that today's fighters don't have 15 rounds to prove themselves over -- they are at a disadvantage to the greats of decades past, in that respect.

Also, how much credence can be paid to revising the distance of title fights from 15 rounds to 12 rounds, in the belief that doing so would lessen the risk of long-term damage and ring-related deaths?

 

Willard went 26 round with Johnson, and he was a big boy.

 

I prefer 15 round fights.

The official reason given for the change from 15 to 12 rounds was fighter safety, with the tragic Mancini-Kim going 14. Others believe it was a money thing as boxing was big on network TV then, and 12 rounds + intros + interviews fit nicely into an hour as opposed to 15. Who knows, maybe it was both factors.

Some fights that end in tragedy that went 13, 14, 15 rounds, well maybe the tragedy wouldn't have happened if it were scheduled for 12...or maybe the damage was already done in the first 12, and sometimes it takes a little time for the damage to accumulate to reach tragedy. Maybe the pacing would have been faster in 12 rounds. For whatever it's worth, Ray Mancini said there is no evidence that boxing is safer with 12 round title fights.

 

15 is the championship distance. It was changed under false pretenses. Fighter's safety was cited without any evidence supporting changing the disrance. Don King pushed for change in order to make bouts more palatable for television

 

If you can eliminate the wasted time i.e. running and clinching then 8 rounds is more than enough. It's not the quantity but the quality of rounds that matter.

 

Fights were better at 15, better for te boxers at 12.

 

12 is good and a balance figure from my point of view because mostly before 12th round every best fighter who looks that he will take the match tries his best and apply his every skill except of any exceptional case like M.Ali who was tremendous even in round 15.

 

If we had 15 rounds now, boxers would fight once every 2 years. Andre Ward would fight once every 6 years

 

With today's science these guys should fight 20 rounds.

 

There was no proof that fighting 3 rounds less was making the sport any safer.

 

I think there might be but otherwise common sense tell you that less time in the ring = safer, especially if you're tired and can't protect yourself as well.

 

From what I recall the death of Duk Koo Kim (apologize for spelling) had a partial impact on why they went from 15 to 12 :think

or did I just assume that?

 

As well as dehydrated.

As a fan I like 15 rounds but taking into account their health I'm more than happy with 12.