Did you prefer 12 or 15 round championship fights?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by roversbowers, Jul 15, 2010.


  1. Zakman

    Zakman ESB's Chinchecker Full Member

    31,865
    3,116
    Apr 16, 2005
    15 rounds, hands down. It should never have been changed.

    It was changed so that they could fit fights into one hour network TV slots. It's advocates will tell you it was for "safety" but there is NO evidence that it does anything to improve this, none.

    My favorite 15 rounder? Probably Weaver-Tate. Weaver knocked him cold in the 15th. If the 12 round advocates had their way, he never would've gotten his opportunity.
     
  2. Starched Him

    Starched Him Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,681
    61
    Feb 5, 2009
    would you really want to see the end result of a man years from now that has been pot shotted by mayweather for 15 rounds in the head? He dont hit hard enough to knock you out but there heavy enough to make you stop fighting him.
     
  3. tarugojones

    tarugojones Boxing Junkie Full Member

    7,877
    0
    Jan 22, 2010
    Imagine the PAC/HATTON I in a 15 rd fight.:lol:
     
  4. Zakman

    Zakman ESB's Chinchecker Full Member

    31,865
    3,116
    Apr 16, 2005
    There is no evidence, none whatsoever, that injuries are more likely to occur in rounds 13-15.

    However, the hysteria following the Mancini-Kim fight did allow TV execs and grandstanders lke Jose Suliaman to use this as a pretext to shorten fights so they would fit into an hour time slot for the TV networks to be able to show more commercials.
     
  5. Auracle21

    Auracle21 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,998
    5
    Jan 13, 2008
    it was changed cause of safety . the longer a fight is on makes the tv company more money. and u can make the argument that a 12 round is just as grueling cause yeah you are pacing yourself but they are championship rounds regardless.
     
  6. Auracle21

    Auracle21 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,998
    5
    Jan 13, 2008
    doesnt need to be evidence to prove it could happen in rounds 13-15. its common sense. the shorter a fight the lesser chance of trauma. they changed it cause prolong beatings cause a higher propensity for damage and of course in kims case, death. so after kim dies they decided to shorten it.
     
  7. Auracle21

    Auracle21 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,998
    5
    Jan 13, 2008
    from another site

    http://boxing.suite101.com/article.cfm/what_if_fights_still_went_15_rounds

    also

    the WBC were the first to shorten their title fights to 12 rounds after the death of duk koo kim in a WBA lightweight challenge of ray 'boom boom' mancini.

    the WBA and IBF followed suit in '87/'88, probably because mike tyson unified the belts and was the biggest thing in the sport at the time.....the WBO started up in late '88 with 12 rounders.

    it has also been suggested that the tv networks has a big influrence on the decision so they could show title fights in their 1 hour slot......if that's the case, then the fact that tv networks rearly ever show title fights means that they probably could bring back 15 rounders if there would'nt be so much opposition to it......and you're correct in that there are too many draws, so a compromise would be to make title fights 13 rounders.
     
  8. JohnAnthony

    JohnAnthony Boxing Junkie banned

    9,988
    4
    Jul 9, 2010
    slightly off topice, but if it was 15 rounders now there might be some fighters rated higher.

    Arthur Abraham and Maragrito for example.

    AA in particular,
     
  9. Knives7

    Knives7 Boxing Addict banned

    7,196
    1
    Jan 24, 2009
    :deal This
     
  10. MAG1965

    MAG1965 Loyal Member banned

    34,796
    65
    Dec 1, 2008
    Matters who your favorite fighter is. For someone like Hagler you would favor 15 rounds.
     
  11. puertorricane

    puertorricane Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,242
    3
    Jan 25, 2010
    we need to go back to 15 and separate the man from the boys

    :hat
     
  12. RING GENERAL

    RING GENERAL Ras Tafari Makonnen Full Member

    903
    0
    Jun 17, 2010
    15 rounders are much better.Many fighters nearly beat a runner but ran out of time.

    Imagine the recent Cotto/Foreman fight without a leg injury of course.Cotto would of eventually caught Foreman who was bouncing around like a rabbit.When Foreman's leg was injured and he was forced to fight you saw Cotto get the best of him.

    Imagine Leonard v Duran2 with unlimited rounds.Do you think we get "No Mas"?I don't think so.Duran catches him in the 123rd round and KO's him after Leonards ability to run fades.

    Would the fights take longer?Yes.But violent confrontations would more likely end in violence,instead of with 3 fat guys reading ink off of paper.

    15 rounders are necessary.
     
  13. roversbowers

    roversbowers Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,960
    0
    Jun 10, 2009
    :rofl:rofl:rofl
     
  14. istmeno

    istmeno Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,664
    5
    Oct 6, 2006
    of course there needs to be evidence to prove a point. otherwise it is just an opinion.

    and the evidence shows that the great majority of deaths actually happened before the 7th round with very few happening after round 13.

    there is more danger in a fight between a very talented prospect vs. a career oponent in an 8 round fight than there is in a fight between two legitimate championship level fighters.

    rounds 13-15 separated the men from the boys and the only 15 rounders were for the major titles wba/wbc the other regional title fights and eliminators were limited to 12,and non titles were 10
     
  15. Hmmm

    Hmmm :P Full Member

    4,418
    0
    Jan 17, 2005
    This is why I voted 15