Some korean got beat so bad down the stretch of the 15th that he died, so they changed the rules from 15 to 12. Read the story here: [ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duk_Koo_Kim[/ame]
I agree with you completely, I just don't see the big deal in having a fight be 15 rounds for the very reasons that you listed.
I like the old 15 rounds, but fighters today aren't conditioned nor disciplined to go 15. Many can barely go 10 rounds without going into cardiac arrest - especially the heavyweights.
Heard all the stories why they changed it, but it doesn't hold. There have been deadly accidents at 10 and 12 rounders also, it's mostly incompetent referees and handlers who don't protect fighters enough by beatdowns. The biggest reason I believe is still simple economical issue's.
That's the official reason given, but I have my doubts. As said earlier, there were economic issues. A lot of boxing was on network TV back then. 12 rounds plus intros and interviews and commercials is a lot easier to fit inside an hour than 15 rounds.
Same reason why there's no such thing as the 13th floor in Nevada, no 13 on the roulette table, etc. :nod
Voted for 15 rounds. I know that fighter safety was the main reason for the switch to 12, but boxing matches shouldn't be a even number of rounds. It has resulted in way too many controversial decisions over the years.
Going from 15 to 12 wouldn't save any lives. Any fight, whether it be 4 rounds or 40, is more likely to result in a fatality due to an error from the referee or a fighter's corner (i.e. failing to stop a beating), a previously undetected condition or de-hydration or blood doping than an extended limit on the fight's duration. For example, Paul Lloyd was retired by his corner after the first round against Barrera a few years ago..... compare that to Michael Watson being sent out for the 12th against Eubank when he was basically spent - albeit ahead on points.