You must be joking. Have you seen the stuff that gets voted for on t.v. You would get the most riddiculous results ever.
Any reason why a body water minimum limit cant be introduced to stop boxers dangerously boiling down? A simple bmi test wont take long
People see different things, as you see in the Froch-Kessler fight. Judges sit at ringside, in three different positions, so that they see the same fight from different angles. They also will have their own preferences. This way you hope that the combination of opinions, biases and perspectives will allow a fair overall scoring of the fight. Changing the scoring system might make it more measurable and consistent in a shallow sense, but it wouldnt make it fairer. How many bad decisions come from the fencing-with-fists approach of Olympic amateur boxing? On your points: 15-20 round fights become about endurance as much as boxing skill. I dont see how this would make things better. It would give tactical, measured fighters more of an advantage. Also, along with a safety aspect, theres no way the TV networks are going to be happy with nearly an hour per fight on a three hour scheduled programme. Same day weigh-ins What does that help? A better solutions would be enforced weight limits after the weigh-in. A 147lb fighter ballooning up to 160-165lbs is vastly unfair, but if they had a 7lb water-weight maximum, that would allow fighters to be healthy but not markedly bigger. Taking the title this comes back to the stupidity of you need to TAKE the title from the champion, not steal it. No, you dont. You need to win the fight to be the champion. The people that complain about this most are the ones who get out-boxed in a safety first style by their opponent. Shouldnt the champion, I dont know, actually DEFEND their title with the same vigour? Anyway, this would make the sport completely unfair. It would always favour bigger, stronger, harder-punching guys. Even if you were the fastest, most skilful challenger around, if you couldnt knock the guy out, you could never win a title. Thats even worse than the current scoring system. If you arent a hard puncher, you wont win a title. How **** is that? Guys like Whitaker would never win a title.
Its not that Gaz, that was just the straw that broke the camels back...the fight was definately close, but according to the judges it was far from clear. At least one of the three judges gave Froch 7 of the 12 rounds and only the one with the most unreasonable card (IMO) gave Froch the 11th which in my opinion was the clearest round of the lot. I am sick of titles being held in effect as hostage to fortune, with the competance of judges being the deciding factor rather than the fighters skill in the ring.Watch it again and I am certain that you will change your stance whether you mark it wider for Kessler or closer for Froch doesn't matter, you will definately change your opinion from the first watching. As for same day weigh-ins, like I said, i'm sick of SMWs being able to take physical advantage and fighting down at Welter....its not the same for everyone because everyone is not capable of dropping 20 pounds and then rehydrating before the fight. A welterweight should fight in the welterweight division, he shouldn't have to drop down to LW to gain a supoposed advantage...as for safety, thats the fighters look out. As for safety first displays by champions, when you think about it you would have to be an all round fighter to win and then keep the title...I honestly think that proper boxers would be the most successful, which is surely what we want. At the end of the day all i'm after is a definitive method to judge the winner of a fight...I would still insist on 15 round title fights and same day weigh ins but I can't accept the buggers muddle we are in now where 3 judges watching the same fight come to a completely different conclusion, its daft. Having the ref score fights like the old British and Empire title fights has to be better than being judged by 3 duffers with trestricted views. At least the ref has an unfettered view of the action and probably a much better feel for who is doing the better work and landing more.
Hell of a rant !!! , provided a decent read to be honest !!!! I share your views on the scoring brother i really do , ill give you an example , last week after watching Adamek Arreola and one of the judges scored the fight a draw , i completley lost it !!!!! HTF on God's green earth can you score a ****in like that a draw , done a bit of banging around said im not watching boxing no more and eventually calmed down so im with you on your passionate reasons as to why we need to change . However i think your ideas belong in the old times , there just not practical in todays more technical era !!!! (Fleaman im not trying to cause an argument) , i mean i look at some fights and think that fight needed another 3 rounds man , and then i look at others and think damn that fight went on too long , in summary i think if your fighting for a recognised world title or linear title you should be fighting for 15 rounds to aid in a clear decision . I think this does 2 things , it will make fighters look to finish fights and decisiveley put there stamp on the outcome , and it widens the margin of error for judges , if 1 or 2 rounds go the wrong way for what ever reason in a razor close world title fight over 12 , the outcome can be astronomical , over 15 your much more likeley to have a clear winner , in summary im all for world title fights going back to 15 !!!! Added to that i think the board should look at employing ex coaches and fighters as judges (apologies if they already do that , i was under the impression that the judges are fat educated nobody's in the sport world) , and there needs to be more clarification on what actually scores and what actually wins you a round , in summary we need judges who know the sport inside out and who could sit there and score a fight based on technical knowledge of the sport through experience , we all class ourselves as knowledgable of the sport of boxing , but the real knowledge lies in the fighters who have become students of the game thats where the real real boxing knowledge is , your Teddy Atlas , Angie Dundee , Freddie Roach , Manny Stewards of the world !!!!!
15 rounds and same day weigh-in won't happen for safety reasons (percieved or real). To say that its tough on the boxer if he's stupid enough to dehydrate won't stop the sport from getting banned if the deaths/ injuries go the same way as it was in the 80s/90s before the weigh-ins were moved back. The knocking out champions would be massive step back for boxing, it didn't do the sport any favours when it was forced upon boxing either. The history books are full of fighters that dominated champs but couldn't get the KO so didn't get the title, a lot (suprisingly) found it had to get rematches or "proper" title shots afterwards. That rule would be the final nail in the coffin of the sport. You won't get a definitive method for scoring boxing, its subjective by nature. Thats why theres 3 judges. Lets keep things in perspective, Froch was fighting away from home and lost a decision because he wasn't aggressive enough, thats not a modern day problem in boxing. The challlenger knows the score and has to fight accordingly. 2 of the cards were 2 or 3 rounds too wide (for the right winner IMHO) but thats no reason to start suggesting that "Knockout rule". Sorry mate but I'm truly gobsmacked you've suggested that. If its not about Froch-Kessler then where were all these ideas when Martinez got jobbed 3 times in one fight against Cintron? Or after Froch-Dirrell for that matter...;O)
Nice one, Icemax has finally had a nervous breakdown. I knew it was coming. Time to shuttle him off to that old people's asylum where he should have been at least 10 years ago.
I take on board your other points because obviously they are your opinions and thats fine, however I've got to take issue with the above...are you telling me that fighters like Robinson, Armstrong, Ali, Louis, Duran, Pep, Greg, Leonard (benny and Sugar Ray) would have been disadvantaged? these supremely skilled fighters all won titles by stoppage in the longer form of the game...and I would be willing to wager that Whitaker would have won more by stoppage if his title fights had been of the longer duration. The longer a fight goes on the more it suits the more skilled and conditioned opponent, a banger is likely to blow and be stopped over the longer distance.
exactly, can people not remember what public/tv voting was like only a few short years ago?? we're talking about a public who voted Ryan Giggs sports personality of the year 2009, and voted for Will Young over this guy... This content is protected the public are ****ing morons. but then sometimes so are the judges. i agree with the original post - belts should only change hands by KO or by unanimous decision (with scorecard margins of four rounds or more).
What about the fighters that don't measure up the the ATGs? Did Pavlik deserve to retain his title for being able to absorb enough punishment from Martinez without getting stopped? Hopkins would be 175 champ until the day he dies, a crafty spoiler with a decent chin would take some shifting from the title. Who'd tune it to watch Hopkins lose a 15 round fight and keep his title time after time?
15 rounds, same day weigh-ins, and the original (as per turn of the century British amendment, so Bantam is 118 and not feather) weight classes are whats required to get Boxing back to its best. And most importantly ONE ****ING BELT PER WEIGHT CLASS!!!!!!!!!!!