do 12 rounds just add to bad decisions?

Science had not found enough evidence to show what damage was being done. In 1920, sixty was an excellent innings for someone of the working class...

Times have change, expectations have changed and thus to survive boxing has changed.

 

Which is one of the many reasons I've '****ed off' modern boxing.
There were no '20' rounders in the 60's/70's...
Why ten then? Why not eight? You want amateur rules?
There's a level of 'extreme risk' in every sport.
Horse racing, football, etc...
Many of the greatest fights EVER had the tide turned in rounds 13-15.
And most of the deaths or major damage to fighters in fights occurred or started to occur LONG before the 13th round.
Fighters are making millions of dollars for simply beating up on each other??? Why not give some of the purse to the poor?
If you can't stand the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen and leave the bouts to the ones that want to s**** for 15.
Let's outlaw the climbing of Mount Everest while we're at it. atsch
Police put their lives on the line, Firefighters put their lives on the line. You want to be a world class fighter and not be prepared to go 15? Find another profession.
I've seen so many fighters, since the 12 round dictate, adjust their styles to either survive or slink by with a decision.
My opinion, feel free to disagree.

 

Why not? indeed. It is a constant battle to justify boxing as a legal sport. When arguments are lost and concerns raised, the sport needs to adjust, I think in due course fights will be a maximum of eight rounds, and there may also be a merging with our amateur cousins.

The problem boxing has, is that one of the ways of winning (directly) is to knock the opponent senseless. You do not get that in other 'dangerous mainstream' sports.

Good idea, but the one thing this sport does better than any other is capitalism.

The problem is 'want' is an abstract concept in that sentence. There are far too many intangibles.

Certainly an interesting idea, and for most a good thing.

The police and firefighters have a camaraderie with fighters no doubt. And like fighters I suspect there are plenty of police and firefighters who while accepting the risks of their profession, just want to look after themselves and/or their families, and have a healthy life, with as little risk as possible.

Well if you fighting a 12 rounder there seems little point preparing for 15 rounds!

 

The knee jerk move to reduce title bouts from 15 to 12 was something akin to the efforts to ban the Confederate flag following the S.C. shootings...a mindless, hysterical, meaningless action that only served to *******ize the great sport of boxing. Today's young fans cannot really grasp the significance of it...it's like a diner which once served high quality filet mignon, and later switched to an inferior version of hash in it's place. As the years go by, the patrons of the diner gorge on the inferior hash, think it's great, and have no real idea of what they're missing...they could be having filet mignon instead.

 

Some fighters back then weren't much good at navigating 15 rounds...I can imagine that there are surely plenty around today who wouldn't be any good at it. Again, it was a way of separating the men from the boys.

 

Anyone who has gone 12 rounds against a world class fighter is clearly a 'man' not a 'boy'!

 

Arguments to reduce the number of rounds are arguments against boxing altogether. I don't see the need to give ground to the antis. If the limit goes down to eight rounds then the argument will be six or four. After that it will be why not ban the sport altogether.

Driving around in a car at 200mph will always carry some risk, as was tragically shown again a few weeks ago. Tbh I've seen injuries in rugby that are a match for anything I've seen in boxing. Those guys really do smash the hell out of one another.

 

That is what is going to come down to, hopefully though by 'being reasonable' the sport can continue for as long as possible.

Again I agree, I have done Union and Boxing (both very poorly), and after playing a match on a Saturday afternoon, I have at times barely got out of bed on Sunday, and I remember once having to get dressed on the floor, slide down the stairs and into the car on a Monday! And after manning up to walk to my desk, I spent the rest of the day moaning and squealing at the slightest movement.

But the difference is getting beat did not mean the opposition won on the Saturday, thankfully I had better/fitter players around me! We may know different having played, but the object of playing Rugby is to get the most points, not beating up your opposition.

 

Why be reasonable with people who ultimately want to ban the sport anyway? Someone who thinks 12 rounders are unsafe is unlikely to accept that 8 rounders are. It's short-sighted anyway, as banning boxing won't put an end to it. Men have always fought, and will always fight, for money, for sport, for the hell of it. If there aren't legal, regulated and relatively safe avenues like organised boxing, it will just go underground, which is a whole lot worse.

The concept of rugby may be scoring points rather than damaging your opponent, but the way you go about scoring those points is pretty brutal. A really hard tough game that is pretty much the equivalent of being beaten up (it felt like that to me at least!). Players leave the pitch with black eyes and busted noses and carry on playing after being concussed. In boxing if you get knocked out, they don't revive you and send you out for the next round!

 

Definitely agree with this. Short of putting headgear on pros and making them wear 18-ounce gloves, there is no way to eliminate the inherent hazards of the sport.
(And let's be honest, who would watch it if they did?)

Boxing does have it's problems and I'd still like to see cases like Ruddock fighting at 51 being squashed and done away with, but the sport does do more good than harm I feel.
In any event, I have not seen any reliable data that proves 12-rounders are any safer than 15-rounders, or that 10-round bouts are safer than 12-round bouts.

 

Come off it,..You know what I'm talking about. You apparently don't remember the 15 round era. It was a common adage "way back then" because some fighters didn't cut it in the deep waters of rounds 13 through 15. It's what distinguished a title fight from a 12 round non title bout.

 

Aggressive defence is likely to attract more media attention. I do not think boxing would survive as a legal sport in many countries if a powerful media outlet called for it to be banned.

Compromising, whilst pointing out like you have, that the sport would go underground if banned, is the way to do it.

 

I agree with the op and i wouldn't be that against 11 rounds, which is the only real solution, but it further favours defensive fighters and although it might give less draws has a lot of other drawbacks.

 

Good points TBooze! :good
Just watch that 'capitalism' thing.
The problem with capitalism is greedy capitalist's.
The problem with socialism is...socialism...