How the three knockdown rule would have benefited knockout artists of the past.

Max Baer would have won over Primo Carnera much quicker, of course. Just call me Captain Obvious on this one, and wouldnt it have made Yvon Durelle the lightheavyweight champion in 1958 over Archie Moore? Boy that would have sure hurt Moore's legacy.

 

If Moore lost to Durelle, I dont think it would have hurt the Mongoose's legend, That would have been a bump road, in a long LIST of bumpy roads in Moore's run.

Moore lose almost 20 times in a 200 bout run, NON of thsos loses hurt Moore. I dont think this would have hurt Moore either. If anything, it may UP Durelle's legend. Former champ, and not just a good contender.

 

You can't really compare it without the neutral corner rule being in effect as well.

 

True, maybe with the neutral corner rule, Willard may have only went down once perhaps?? Maybe he have more time to standy himself, instand of being wack apound getting up.

 

Well, I've heard the theory before that the amount of facial damage Willard suffered was in part to do with the lack of a neutral corner rule. This was the case for quite a few fights, which is why they eventually came up with the rule of course.

When you can stand over or very close by your opponent, and hit him when he's rising, it's much more destructive. You have time to be more precise, can put your full effort into your shots, come in at a different angle than when they are upright including shots to the top or the back of the head and so on...much more dangerous.

Imagine a puncher like Foreman where there was no neutral corner rule and he can take free swings at a guy halfway-up and not defending themselves. Very ugly sight, and potentially fatal.

I'm all for the three-kd rule. I sympathize with the odd case where I feel the guy might've been able to go on, but it's a big big risk to fight on when your brain has been repeatedly bounced like that and not worth the danger.