Yes, but I think converting to a more objective system is not only plausible, it's easily achievable. For instance, rather than refs making judgment calls on things like if a cut was caused by a butt or a punch, those decisions could be ruled upon using replay. Same can be said about my point regarding clinching. An objective rule could be implemented regarding the allowable amount of induced clinches per round before points are taken away, and by using replay an official ruling could be rendered. In another thread, I suggested a revamped scoring system that awards a point(s) each round to the fighter who threw and landed more punches. Also to award point(s) to the guy who avoided more punches. Subjective rulings by judges who have inherent biases or favor certain fighting aspects would no longer be needed. And to my central point, these changes I think would have some influence on how fighters approach the sport and would create a culture of a more fan friendly style. Coupled with a smaller ring (or a incrementally shrinking ring as I previously suggested), I think would make for more dramatic entertainment.
Completely flawed argument, and given that premise, I am asking you a serious question: Have you ever been in a fight before? (This is not meant as a diss, just curious) Missing 19 of your 20 punches is tiring, you're going to gas, and your opponent might just be waiting for you to weaken before striking. Just saying man. Try to think a bit "outside the box" before you speak. A lot of people are "front runners," meaning they will start out strong but a lot of people don't have the training for sufficient muscle endurance, they will wear down over a few minutes. Whether you wear them down from a wrestling/grappling hold, or from missing punches doesn't matter... Whatever is effective. Your logic for somebody "winning the fight" is very flawed, and has no basis on actual real life combat. Just IMO. If you're missing that many strikes, it is cause for concern. Especially if that one landed blow out of 20 doesn't do serious damage. If I can make you miss or be ineffective to the point where you just fall over from exhaustion, that is also a "win" in a fight. Stamina/endurance is a critical factor in a fight.
I would love to see what these guys do in a situation where they can't over-power an opponent. I'm sure they would practice what they preach and go out on their shield, swing for the fences, instead of trying to use an alternate strategy to win the fight. (LOL)
I don't think that the amount of avoided punches should count the same as the amount of successfully landed punches. By that logic if you avoid seven punches, get hit by five, and land none of your own, you'd win the round. We don't need a greater incentive to defense and passivity than we have now. Now, people at least have to try to fight a little to win, often just barely more than their opponent, picking up rounds by landing four or five pitty pat punches. If you add points for avoiding punches you'd encourage running and guys who aren't very good at landing punches could run the whole fight without even trying to hurt their opponent once. Aggression has to be worth more than defensive or you don't have a sport. If you allow that kind of limitless avoidance, then we have to re-instate the rules that allow holding and hitting and stop the ref from breaking fighters up. As for the transforming stage, it's just not practical. A lot of venues couldn't handle it. Once they can make slip proof canvas and ropes you can't fall through, then we can get your Indiana Jones and the Temple of Boxing rings. I do like the idea of a certain number of allowed clinches a round. If there was a positive number then it wouldn't be up to the individual refs and we could get some sort of uniformity in the application of the rules. I really don't like things like that being left up to the referee's discretion.
Calm yourself o' dorky one, is your goofy ahss really trying to say there is no fighting in the sport of boxing, then why is it known as a combat sport?? Answer this, in a round where two fighters brainlessly slug it out and no KO occurs, what has happened in that round when we know no boxing took place?? I'll go ahead and answer for you since I know you're too stupid, fighting, is what took place. And before you come back with "that's called brawling" I advise you to look up the definition to see that brawling is fighting only difference is, brawling is uncontrolled/thoughtless fighting, and boxing is the opposite, it's too fight using strategy. The constant is fighting, and that concludes your lesson for the day dummy.
In it's original sense yes it was only physical, the definition has begun to change to also include a definition similar to compete in a clear stretch of its meaning...though I have no idea why. Obviously combat is still deeply ingrained in the minds of almost all to mean physically compete. I, and the sports community use it in the original sense, that should be obvious, not sure why you would've butted in with that.
I didn't mean to upset you but I stand by what I said and being that this is a forum I commented. I am cool with you believing whatever you want. I just don't happen to agree with it.
This is the stupidity that has ruined boxing. By this dumb example if a guy throws 20 punches and lands 1 he should win the round over a guy who threw 2 and landed 2. Boxing is judged by 4 criteria Clean Punching Effective aggression Ring generalship Defense In the above example the guy that threw less punches obviously won the Clean Punching, He obviously was better defensively, his agression was more effective since he landed more with a better rate, and he probably controlled the ring in order to do all this. Yet this dude would give the round to the guy who lost all these categories because he was more "entertaining". :rofl
It's not about believing what I want, it's about the vast majority interpretation. You couldn't even accurately describe a fighting video game as a combat video game because the word is so entrenched with something physical occurring.
I enjoy playoff basketball more than regular-season basketball precisely because the defense turns up a notch. Maybe my favorite thing in all of sports is playoff baseball because the pitching (part of the defense) is so notched up and the intensity of every pitch, every hit and every play is magnified. And I do happen to prefer football with high-caliber defense much more than the spread offenses you see more of these days in college -- those Big 12 and Pac 12 games that are 55-45 to me are a mockery of the sport. You notice no one ever coined the term "West Coast Defense." In boxing, I really do like watching skilled technicians. I also like great offensive fighters. But I prefer the Mike Tyson in the early years who would make people miss with his head movement and use his jab to close distance to the one-punch-at-a-time guy later in his career who seemed intent on just loading up for one punch while taking more punishment. What Buster Douglas did to Tyson, using his jab to control distance and methodically break him down, interests and excites me more than a slobbernock-fest like Tyson-Ruddock. I can watch prime Wilfred Benetiz for hours on end and marvel at how he makes opponents look like rank amateurs by making them miss and reducing their offensive skills moot. I'll take Larry Holmes dominating with the jab over a crude slugger who wails away in hopes of landing a difference-making shot. I think it's largely true of all sports, including boxing, that defense wins championships and offense sells tickets. Fighters devoid of defensive skills may win belts, but they often don't hold those straps for long periods of time and have shorter primes because of the punishment they take. Ruslan Provodnikov is an exciting offensive fighter, but he's pretty much a punching bag defensively. I can enjoy watching him fight and appreciate his heart, but I don't consider him to be a high-level practitioner of the art of boxing. To me it's not "offense or defense," it's the boxers who elevate the level of the sport, the ones who aspire to high art, who make boxing worth watching.