Mike Tyson vs. Roy Jones - Should it be added to their records as a No-Decision? Hear me out.

Really? I haven't shown how it was similar to other no decisions? I thought I spent TOO MUCH time explaining why it was similar to no-decisions, including copying and pasting the official definition of why a fight is labeled a no-decision on Boxrec. (LOL)

It ticked every box for a no decision fight. Two name fighters agree to fight six, eight, 10, 15 however many rounds. NO official winner would be declared if it went the distance. However, there were media was on hand (in this case celebrities and social media) to report "unofficially" who they thought won if it went the distance. Major gambling on all aspects of the fight (you can still go online and see the odds - they are everywhere). Both fighters talked knockout. When the fight began, they clearly weren't going to knock each other out. (That is also consistent with no-decision fights in history where fighters who were friendly with each other agreed to just work, not try for the KO, so they could both get paid and move on.)

It went the distance. It was officially a no-decision. Not a draw.

When adding it to the boxrec records, you could put in the tag, like they do in every No-decision fight, listing which members of the news/boxing media thought which fighter won.

If you watch videos of no-decision fights from history, and there are plenty around, that's what they looked like.

I think it's an insult to the fighters to frankly lump it in with Ali falling down (like he did a thousands times in exhibitions) for example, to the Mayor of Atlanta and letting him put his foot on Ali's chest. Or Holyfield falling down against Mitt Romney, or Foreman fake falling down to Mike 'The Giant' White while the audience just wondered what the hell was going on.

Tyson-Jones WAS NOT that. Does not belong in that category. It was a classic no-decision. That's what no-decision fights were, in every way.

Perhaps I should have left off the part in the first post about whether it made you change your minds about no-decision fights 100 years ago. Clearly, some of you got a bug up your butt about that.

I was just trying to get the conversation going and trying to be PROACTIVE instead of reactive. Because these fights are going to keep coming.

And let's say, next time, Tyson fights Shannon Briggs. Same rules. 8 rounds. No official judges. And lets say tempers flare and one guy blasts the other out.

Let's say, next time, Canelo Alvarez decides to fight 8 rounds, no official judges, against someone like Agit Kabayel. Test out the heavyweight division.

Are those no-decision fights? Shouldn't those be added to the official record, like no-decisions/or KOs in no-decisions were for other boxers in history?

I see no idea why they wouldn't be.

It was just clear as day, when I watched that, that it should in no way be lumped into a "exhibition" category. That is an insult to the boxers.

That was a no-decision fight. I think they should label them all as such going forward, unless they can't (and didn't in this case) because of some regulatory reason.

 

No, those were stated throughout the night to be unofficial judges. Like asking Harold Lederman sitting next to Jim Lampley who he thought won, if you put Harold in braids and let him get stoned during the fight. (LOL)

 

If no-decision fights encourage boxers to fight more, especially if they want to move up but are nervous about losing their "O" ... then I'm all for it.

Let's see Canelo fight some heavyweights. He can sell PPVs. He'll be the new Mickey Walker.