Anyone else consider this a determining factor in fantasy H2H matchups, particularily between one fighter who fought under the rule and another that didn't? The Dempsey-Louis thread got me thinking about this. As a second question, how does everyone think the neutral corner rule (or rather, lack of it) would've affected more modern finishers like Louis, Frazier, Foreman, Tyson, et. al? Sam Peter-Wladimir Klitschko? Peter-McCline? Pacquiao-Marquez I/II? How about Shavers/Snipes-Holmes?
Can you imagine if tyson had been standing over douglas for example when he put him down,was there much time left in that round been ages since i watched it?
That is one of the fights I was thinking of, actually, it just didn't quite make the list for fear of inciting too much controversy . Obviously, anytime a fighter gets off the deck to win, this rule could be a factor.
Not sure Tyson had the time to finish Douglas, Sure Douglas would have been down again "Perhaps", but the bell would have saved Douglas from a count out. Just like Dempsey Willard.
It would be a big factor in pairing Dempsey with any modern Heavyweight prone to knockdown, IMO. Examples would be Dempsey-Louis or Dempsey-Patterson- would the rules allow for him to pummel them as they rise or not? I would say the fair thing to do is to say no, but maybe Dempsey would be at a disadvantage.
Without the neutral corner rule, finishers would sure have an advantage over boxers, just as, to a lesser extent they do when there's no standing eight in effect. Maybe modern boxing values boxing technique alot more than they did in the old days.
I've always thought the pre-neutral corner rule that allowed you to just stand there and pummel them as they were rising was barbaric bull s**t much like this new 'ultimate fighting' crap imo... It savagery not sport. If 'boxers' fought 'slugger/brawlers in a bathroom or elevator the boxer would never win. I don't know, too early in the morning and I'm a bit tired :nut
One has to wonder just how much of a finisher you really needed to be back in the day when no neutral corner rule applied. This is not a knock against anyone, I'm just saying. Imagine Foreman standing over Frazier with little gloves on, just waiting for Joe's gloves to leave the floor. Tyson over Bruno, Hearns over Duran etc. The grim reaper would be at ringside for those fights, especially since refs were not in the least bit squeamish back then either.
If the neutral corner rule had been in place at Toledo, then Dempsey/Willard would have looked like Johansson/Patterson I. After the neutral corner was implemented, there was still no standing eight count after a knockdown. Thus, the continued emphasis on taking the benefit of a nine count before rising. From my perspective, the mandatory eight count after a knockdown is far more important. If the eight count had preceded the neutral corner, then perhaps the neutral corner rule would have never come into being. In Schmeling's rematch with Louis, he did not initially go down to avoid further punishment as Archie Moore might do. When Joe first hurt him, Max struggled to stay upright, holding onto the ropes to avoid falling, exposing himself to the bone fracturing bodyshot which effectively decided the outcome. When Max did fall, he got up as quickly as he could, depriving himself of a maximum opportunity to recover. With no mandatory eight count, there might as well have been no neutral corner. After the second visit to the deck, Max rose so quickly that Joe didn't even have time to get to the farthest neutral corner. Given the choice between a neutral corner rule with no mandatory eight count or a mandatory eight count with no neutral corner, I'd select the eight count.
Some verry valid observations. Dempsey would probably have beaten Tunney without the neutral corner rule. I think. Louis and Tyson would basicaly have had you once you hit the canvas unless it wasnear the end of the round. On the flip side of the coin, without the three knockdown rule a lot of fighters would rescue themselves by taking a knee at the crucial moment.
Neutral corner was in effect from Tunney vs Dempsey 2 on...So it was in effect during Louis vs Schmelling.
Yeah, I agree with you on both counts, especially on the Ultimate Fighting "crap". I think if someone prefers that kind of contest over a boxing match they're into it for the wrong reason; they get a twisted, sadistic thrill out of seeing someone else endure that kind of violence, someone other than themself that is. How far will it go? Maybe we should just be done with it and hand out baseball bats.
If you're going to hate the UFC, hate them for their advertisement policies and image. Mixed martial arts, independent of the "brand", is as respectable a sport as boxing is.
Yeah, I agree it's a sport, but respectable? I'm not so sure. How much is too much? If there's no such thing as too much then why have a neutral corner or a standing eight? Maybe it's to prolong the violence, and there's probably an argument to be made there; but surely boxing could spice up its allure and gain a wider audience by taking measures to increase the violence and blood flow. Un-padded gloves, knees to the groin in a clinch, ok, forearms pressed into the throat to cut off all access to oxygen with no interference by the ref, a locking of your opponent's arm to snap the elbow joint or detach an earlobe by way of gnawing ala a frustrated Iron Mike? More people might tune in, but something would be lost, no?
