We've come to live with the norm of 4-rounders, 6-rounders, 8-rounders, 10-rounders ... and title fights are 12 now after they were scheduled for 15 for decades. But there are oddities. I noticed recently that Mike Rossman's win over Mike Quarry in 1977 in Madison Square Garden was scheduled for 11. No title on the line. No idea how they settled on making it an 11-rounder. Of course, Dempsey's two fights with Tunney were 10-round title fights. But in between, Jack (no longer champ) fought Jack Sharkey in a scheduled 15-rounder, so it wouldn't see that it was a concession to Dempsey's inactivity to shorten it to give him an edge. (And if it was, why would Tunney agree to it in the rematch?) Yet most of Jack's title fights (Miske was set for 10) were 15-rounders, or 12-round affairs. So why were those set for 10? And Tunney's defense against Heeney after his two bouts with Dempsey was scheduled for 15. Which further begs the 10-round title question. I've also heard of 5-round preliminary fights here and there on undercards in more recent days. So I was wondering what fights you know of that were scheduled for an odd number of rounds (by which I mean unusual, not divisible by two). And if you know why they weren't contracted for a more conventional distance. (And, also, if anyone has any idea why the Dempsey-Tunney bouts were 10s, and how Rossman-Quarry ended up at 11 rounds?) Oh, and when was the last 10-round world title fight? Interested to see what kind of replies this generates.
In 1908 Abe Attell and Owen Moran couldn't agree whether their featherweight title fight should be over 20 or 25 rounds... so a compromise was reached, where it was scheduled for 23.
The Youtube fight film of the 1977 M.Quarry vs Rosman fight stated "both fighters had won one fight each, and they scheduled it for 11 rounds so there would be no draw in the 3rd fight".
Dempsey was banned by NYSAC (for refusing to meet Wills) to stage a bout in New York, and since Philadelphia had a world's fair in 1926, they offered him enough money to satisfy his greed (although far fewer people attended the bout than they expected).
The title fight limit of 10 rounds for the two Dempsey-Tunney fights has always irked me....why Tunney would have agreed to 10 rounds...if both fights were for 15, I believe that Tunney would have twice stopped Dempsey.
The reduction of the title fight limit from 15 to 12 has always angered me. It's one of the reasons why I'm so turned off of the present boxing scene, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if further reductions were to take place...reducing the limit from 12 to say,..10...with "nontitle" bouts limited to 8....all in the interest of prostituting the sport into being more "immediate" and exciting like MMA and the like. The low memory retention, short attention span fruit flies who get bored with the subtleties of boxing. tradition be damned types. Boxing's heritage, tradition and history were cheapened in the 80's by the powers that were at the time...and I bet it'll happen again...to cheapen boxing to the level of MMA and other pretender "warrior" sports.
Future British Bantamweight Johnny Clark boxed a 9 rounder with British flyweight champ John McCluskey in November 1968. I think it was because they couldn't agree on it being an 8 rounder or a 10 rounder. The fight went the distance.
Crazy to have even numbered rounds for fights....should be odd numbers. Less chance for draws. I can recall when they experimented with "overtime" rounds in the case of a draw. Dumbest idea ever to make boxers wait 10 minutes, cool off, then box again.
At first the reduction from 15 to 12 annoyed me. But now I think it is sensible and better. Some fight that were 15 rounds you could see they were pacing themselves too much and there could be boring rounds especially rounds 12 and 13 With boxers becoming more fitter and stronger and able to do more damage I think 12 rounds is the best for the.sport the fighters and the fans