Not so good, why 3??? A fighter can have 4 flash knock downs and be OK to continue or be out on his feet with zero knockdowns.
Depends on the severity of the knockdowns. Like for example Marquez-Pacquaio I. He wasn't out of it, that was pretty much 3 flash knockdowns in one round.
I agree. If the guy is pretty much out of it after a KD, the ref needs to step in and stop it... regardless of whether it was the first or the third. Maybe the guy needs the help of a ref, or others, to understand just how much he has been hurt. As you point out, if they are just a bunch of KDs that a person instantly springs back from, what is the point in stopping it - even if it happens ten times during the round? The guy getting knocked down could come back and finish the other person off in the next round.
My problem with it is sometimes it happens early and the fighter who went down three times really has not taken a huge beating. I'm not for this rule, but I understand why it is there.
Moore-Durelle in 1958.....Archie gets hammered...floored..and yet like a true champion..he gets up off of the floor and comes back to win!!
It's a good rule if it involves someone like a Howard Davis Jr, bad if it involves a warrior like a Frank Fletcher.
Good rule despite there is no holiness in d # 3 because : 1) it prevents robberies 2) it prevents excessive punishment (there r many more who got KDd a 4th time after d 3rd than such that won after being floored 3 times in a single rd ) 3) If a fighter could not remain upright 4 3 consecutive times during a single rd , it is only superficial and plain wrong 2 not stop him . In reality a man should better not get floored even a single time during n entire fight ! and then remember Dempsey's era rules , etc .
Its a decent rule of thumb, but not a good concrete rule. Fighters can come back from 3 knockdowns. But usually, about 90% of the time, I'd estimate, a man hitting the canvas 3 times in less than three minutes is not a good thing. The referee should always execute judgment, however.
