15 rounder s. Do you feel that boxing has suffered or gained with losing them?

I think shorter rounds is better for the fighters and better for the sport. If fighters "know" they have to win a match within 12 rounds and prepare accordingly then it should be a sufficient window of time. Anything beyond that is hazardous to their health and furthermore, most viewer's attention tends to wane after a certain point anyway.

 

I think 15 rounds should be bought back....but only for undisputed or big fight matchups eg fury v wlad ,ggg v jacobs,thurman v garcia.....it should be reserved for the very elite fights and very elite fighters...plus i think ricky burns would have taken the pasting over 15 v ledongo would have finally convinced those who cant see he has been shot for a while now

 

IMHO I understand the safety of the fighters but, I honestly don't see any decrease in fatalities or serious damage with shortening it to 12 rounds. I miss 15! Those last three rounds have given us some of the most exciting endings ever, even if they're standing at the end! Boxing, among other pursuits, carries a risk. Nowadays fighters are making 10 mil a pop!! You want that money that doctors, schoolteachers, people who dedicate their life in helping others, etc. don't? You entered the profession taking that risk so dig deep!! Or go out on your shield. My $0.02

 

What Jowcol said. For me, the lack of 15 rounds, in addtion to the lack of network fights, killed the sports, along with jokers like Mayweather, as talented as he is.

 

I'm okay with 15 rounds, but only in title unification matches where you have two champions. It would make the event extra special.

 

I've got no problem with 12 round fights...

 

Definitely in the weights under middleweight. Too many of these championship bouts end in decisions.

 

I like the 15 rds better

 

Suffered.

It was a knee jerk reaction to change it because Kim got iced in the 14th round. But, many ring deaths have happened since before or in the 12th round.

The extra 4 rounds was important because it rewarded heart, conditioning and determination - championship intangibles if you will.

 

15 rounds was perfect championship distance....12 is too short...20 abit too long

 

No way.

 

Great thread, Fergy!

 

I always maintained - quite cynically - that the reduction to 12 was actually about safety as the WBC insisted. But that was because they knew full well that they had to protect these inept fighters that they were going to throw into a world title fight (I told you it was quite cynical). Realistically, accidents do happen, but mostly it is bad matches that cause harm. The Mancini-Kim fight for instance. What was a clubfighter doing fighting for the world title? That was an accident waiting to happen and it did. But let's look at a couple of fights scheduled for 12. Kiko Bejines and Jimmy Garcia both lost their lives fighting Albert Davila and Gabriel Ruelas respectively. Kiko had not fought in a year and that was a loss. What was he doing fighting for the world title? He was a good fighter, but ill-prepared for taking on the best fighter at 118. Jimmy Garcia hadn't won a fight in a year. His last fight was 7 or 8 months prior against Genero Hernandez for the title. A fight he was totally outclassed in. So being totally outclassed got him another title shot. Scheduled 12 rounds didn't help these guys. Boxing's politics was the culprit. Just a few years earlier British title fights were all scheduled for 15 rounds. How many fatalities did you see? These were evenly matched fighters who earned their title shots by fighting and fighting often. A simple formula.

 

Class!