If you could change one rule about boxing what would it be?

How so?
With mandated 50/50 splits?

You think that if there is a potential $100 million dollar fight, the "A Side" fighter will rather make zero dollars than make $50 million if it meant his opponent also had to get $50 million?

 

A lot of people think this. Some say to have more 10-8 rounds without knockdowns.

I heavily disagree. If you think we get dodgey decisions now, giving the judges more room to pay with the numbers won't fix that. It will make it easier for the to play catch up on the cards for their preferred fighter.

The 10 point must system makes the fighters work to earn a round, and forces the judges to commit to a more standardized scoring system. It's not perfect, but it's better than giving more leeway on the points.

 

Heavily penalize runners. 1st infraction = verbal warning. 2nd infraction = yellow card and 10% fight purse confiscation. 3rd infraction = red card DQ and entire purse withheld.

 

You will kill the lower tier matchmaking. Boxing cards will become exponentially more expensive, and now promoters nor networks wont be able to incentivize boxers to join them, without throwing out ridiculous amount of money.

 

Hard to pick one as there's so many good ones, lots of which have already been mentioned.

For me I'd like to see a rule where the ref and judges should all be from neutral countries, especially title fights/eliminators.

The amount of American fighters who have defended their belt with a American ref and 3 American judges is absurd.

Wouldn't eliminate corruption of course but would definitely improve things in my view.

 

50-50 purse split at all times is actually an interesting idea. There are so many nice matchups being made with second and third tier japanese or mexicans. It might then be like this everywhere. More 50-50 matchups. Might kill the fetish of 0 losses. Many more exciting fights instead of showcasing second tier prospects against #500 fighters that stand no chance against them. Probably would be a big problem for boxing matchmaking and buildup, but good thought experiment nonetheless!

Killing runners I would just penalize holding, pushing, forearm with points-losses quicker. Then running is actually really hard and it's fine if someone manages it. And it would bring back the infight. Boxing is a much better sport without it.

 

Maybe you’re right but I have seen myself giving more and more 10-10 rounds and I feel better about doing that than being forced to pick a fighter in a razor tight fight.

I think this change would hand in hand with my other point about accountability, I guess if the judging system changes but judges still remained untouchable they would suddenly start giving Canelo 10-8 rounds for landing a heavy shot

 

Allowing for a certain amount of time before clinches are broken except it would be impossible to implement bar a soft suggestion.

 

In Australia, it is common for undercard fights to be 5 x 3 minute rounds and with an odd number of rounds it much more likely to produce a winner.

 

8 divisions, each with a single belt.

Otherwise, forget about calling people world champions because they just aren't. How many worlds are there? Only one, last time I looked.

 

You can easily trace the lineage and don't care about the belts.

 

The lineage trail got murky years ago. That's why people stopped trying to keep a record.

 

It really didn't tho. At least when it comes to heavyweights. Lewis > (Vitali?) > Wlad > Fury > Usyk.

 

Heavyweight is less messy than some divisions but most amount to murky messes.

 

Lineage is in many cases just as bad as anything else. Winning against the lineage holder is not in all cases equal to being the best.
The ranking idea is the best when done by an good open, known algorithm like elo-ratings. Then like with all other options, the relevant fights have to happen.