These Quicky Stoppages have Got to STOP

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by The Professor, Jul 24, 2021.



  1. derekcantona

    derekcantona Member Full Member

    347
    318
    Feb 6, 2020
    I agree with this principle if the compromised fighter is out on the ropes or offering no defence on combination punching which is going to result in a brutal knockout. If the fighter is showing signs of resistance or is demonstrating a willingness to continue after being knocked down then let it go until none of the above apply.
     
    OvidsExile likes this.
  2. Toney F*** U

    Toney F*** U Boxing junkie Full Member

    6,214
    9,529
    Oct 16, 2019
    Why would any of us want to see a fighter get seriously hurt? We’ve seen fighters become handicap because of refs not stepping in. You may not like it, but who knows how many fighters have been saved because of these early stoppages.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2021
  3. OvidsExile

    OvidsExile At a minimum, a huckleberry over your persimmon. Full Member

    31,005
    31,542
    Aug 28, 2012
    Wasn't even holding.
     
    bandeedo likes this.
  4. OvidsExile

    OvidsExile At a minimum, a huckleberry over your persimmon. Full Member

    31,005
    31,542
    Aug 28, 2012
    Be right back guys, people at the Formula1 forum are all calling me a monster because I want the cars to go faster.
     
    The Professor and CST80 like this.
  5. ecto55

    ecto55 דמוקרטיזציה של השממות האיסלאמיות כעת banned Full Member

    1,064
    180
    May 28, 2009
    A good indication of how 'perception conscious' referee's are these days is if a fighter is KO'd, they rarely even conduct a full count. They wave it off at 5 or 7.

    Its immaterial in the sense that the fighter wont get up but it demonstrates how the referee's are unduly effected by how they are seen....which is to import irrelevancies into their role.....give the man his ten count.

    If he's out, he's not going any where, and two seconds isn't going to be the difference between life and death with the washed up ringside physicians they have anyway, so count the full count.
     
  6. kirk

    kirk l l l Staff Member

    68,930
    23,026
    Jul 26, 2004
    Not wanting a sport where refs let boxers die of punishment more often to entertain the fans doesnt have a lot in common with allowing people to indulge in their vices of choice.

    Youre confusing and conflating the difference between allowing free people to do what they want (ride motorcycles, drink, smoke, ect), and willfully designing the rules of a sport.

    This subject isnt saying someone shouldnt have the right to fight to the death as a sport, nor is it about someones right to make that sport.

    This is about people not wanting boxing, to be that sport.
     
    Toney F*** U, Wizbit1013 and Oddone like this.
  7. kirk

    kirk l l l Staff Member

    68,930
    23,026
    Jul 26, 2004
    Its a bloodsport by nature.

    It already has all the components necessary to tell the heroics. It already has the components necesary to set the stage as mans greatest sporting event.

    We can have all that, while not letting it be the way of things to let overmatched fighters take life altering beatings.

    Its bizarre to me that someone would needlessly push the extent of what we already have, into a disfugured death sport.

    And nope, Im fine with people riding motorcycles, and smoking a pack a day. Because, forming the rules of a specific sport, and deciding what others should be able to do with their life, have nothing to do with eachother.
     
  8. OvidsExile

    OvidsExile At a minimum, a huckleberry over your persimmon. Full Member

    31,005
    31,542
    Aug 28, 2012
    This thread is about molly coddling adult men. It's about the raising of safety and health to the status of the number one guiding priority and I think that goes against the very ethos of the sport. Boxing is a physical contest about risk, courage, and fortitude. These pansies are making a false idol of caution. They are timid and fearful, afraid to take chances, unwilling to make difficult sacrifices. They think that you cannot show enough empathy, that it is the sure sign of morality. What they haven't considered is that too much empathy can become a harmful vice, an enfeebling crutch which impairs reason or the exercise of other important ethical faculties.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2021
    BoxerToxer likes this.
  9. OvidsExile

    OvidsExile At a minimum, a huckleberry over your persimmon. Full Member

    31,005
    31,542
    Aug 28, 2012
    Where do you set the boundaries? What criteria are you using? How have you arrived at the conclusion we should have twelve round fights instead of three? Why stop a fight after twenty unanswered punches? Why not five? Why make the rounds three minutes when one would suffice? These rules are arbitrary.
     
  10. kirk

    kirk l l l Staff Member

    68,930
    23,026
    Jul 26, 2004
    Of course theyre somewhat arbitrary (though, not completely, really, there are practical reasons why the rules have landed where they have.)

    However, much like your motorcycle comparison, the rules being arbitrary, and that men came together to make what they compromised to be reasonable rules that find the balance between sporting event and a gladitorial fight to the death, doesn't really change or influence this particular point at all.

    The point is, we have a choice. Should boxers be allowed to get beat until death, or should the ref save them when the ref feels its necessary.

    Do we want boxing to be a sport where the ref will protect overmatched fighters from taking excessive and extended punishment.

    Now, the discussion would then become, what is excessive punishment, what is extended, ect ect.

    Those are valid questions. And intelligent men who care about the subject would discuss it and settle on an answer.

    But I can assure you, the answer wouldnt be 'Just let them get beat on until they collapse, because Im ok with more boxers deaths if it makes the fights better'.

    The very notion of discussing rules to limit excessive punishment and coma prevention, exludes that answer.

    So again, the point is, theres a choice, to choose between making the sport as relatively safe as possible while retaining its virtue, which is largely the case currently, despite occasional outliers on either end of the spectrum, or being ok with fighters being beaten into comas, because some (hardly everyone) people think its more compelling.

    My post wasnt really even arguing for or against, just stating that I generally just think its a bit odd that someone would be more than ok with more boxers being killed or permanently injured, to get a negligible amount of extra 'entertainment' out of it, thats all. Just that mentality seems a bit warped to me. We already have a fairly beautiful sport with a decent compromise between the extremes... why gluttonize the violence to the degree that it takes more from fighters than it already does.
     
    BubblesUK likes this.
  11. kirk

    kirk l l l Staff Member

    68,930
    23,026
    Jul 26, 2004
    No its not.

    Not wanting fighters taking excessive punishment isnt putting safety as the number one guiding priority. Thats simply wrong. Its just setting a boundary. If it was the priority, the whole structure of the sport would change, in its very dna. (Gloves, rounds, ect ect).

    Yup. Youre right. And its all that, even when the ref will save a fighter from excessive punishment, like is usually currently the case.

    Boxing has had largely reasonable reffing for the last two decades. Its still the sport you described, even with refs not letting boxers get beat to death in overmatched fights.

    You get all of that, from people wanting less deaths and comas in boxing?
    I think youre exaggerating, and reaching, to a false assumption.

    Wanting to find a balance in a intrinsically violent sport, that can result in less permanent injury, while also retaining its virtue, isn't all those things you describe.
     
    BubblesUK and Wizbit1013 like this.
  12. kirk

    kirk l l l Staff Member

    68,930
    23,026
    Jul 26, 2004
    Boxing already has a relative form. Already has its rules. Boxers who compete, already know the ref will likely try to save them from too much punishment.

    If people want more of a bloodsport, go create your own seperate sport, where all the fighters who join know full stop the ref wont save them.

    Why endanger all the fighters in this sport where the expectations are already relatively established.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2021
  13. OvidsExile

    OvidsExile At a minimum, a huckleberry over your persimmon. Full Member

    31,005
    31,542
    Aug 28, 2012
    There are a range of possible positions between no fighting and fighting to the death or until a man is comatose. I think that the side you are arguing for is disingenuous about how much more unsafe it would be to let a fight go on for a few more seconds. All these pussies crying "Even one more punch could KILL him!" Most likely, one or two more punches would do jack ****. The amount of danger that these safety first assholes are complaining about is a complete exaggeration.

    You, you're just arguing for the status quo. You're not explaining why the fight length should be twelve rounds and not eleven or thirteen. The truth is that many of the rules that the sport is conducted under have nothing to do with fighter safety. As the Professor already pointed out, fights were switched to twelve rounds to accommodate cable network programming; so that they'd fit into better scheduling blocks. We don't wear gloves because it's safer. Boxing gloves are used to prevent cuts which can end a contest prematurely. It also cushions the blow a little so fighters can take a lot more CTE head trauma instead of being quickly knocked out. So many of the rules are in place only to increase the entertainment factor at the expense of fighter health. Rest periods and rounds are probably the worst thing we could do if the object was safety. Fighters would gas and the fights would be over in about ten minutes otherwise. Rounds are there to artificially prolong beatings for as long as possible and to speed up the pace. Why do you think we have cut men? They aren't doctors. Cutmen exist so that even after a person's face is covered with lacerations, the corner can still push the boxer back out into the ring to worsen his injuries.

    Do I care about the fighter's health and welfare? No. They aren't my friends or family. I'm not responsible for their well being. Personally, I think that people who claim to care deeply about a stranger's suffering are either fools or lying. If you really put their empathy to the test, my guess is that they would fail every time. People aren't that altruistic. The extent of their sympathy extends to wringing their hands on social media and boo hooing. I don't respect that kind of performative virtue signaling. Our relationship, between fans and boxers, is strictly transactional. I'm a consumer paying to be entertained and they are providing a product which is entertainment. I want the best product that my money can buy at the lowest price point and what they have to do to make it is not my concern. Same as buying an iPhone.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2021
    ecto55 likes this.
  14. ecto55

    ecto55 דמוקרטיזציה של השממות האיסלאמיות כעת banned Full Member

    1,064
    180
    May 28, 2009
    Good post.
     
  15. OvidsExile

    OvidsExile At a minimum, a huckleberry over your persimmon. Full Member

    31,005
    31,542
    Aug 28, 2012
    I get that from people always sacrificing other goods in the sport for the sake of increased safety. I get that from them always leading with the histrionic declaration that "this will cause more deaths and comas" when it would likely do nothing of the sort.
    The balance today is wrong. It was better in the forties and fifties. Going back to the way we used to do things is safe enough and more entertaining. I don't think that going back to that way of doing things is as unsafe as you describe.

    You say this way is entertaining enough. I say that way was safe enough. The two goods are in tension with one another and we draw our preferred level in different places.
     
    kirk likes this.