Does anyone Prefer 15 rounds to 12 rounds

i prefer 12 rounds because its less dangerous for the boxers and 15 rounds fights that went the distance would be boring like Leonard-Duran I. but for fights like Tito Trinidad vs Oscar De La Hoya i would've preferred if it went 15 rounds just so that i could've seen Feliz ko/tko chicken de la hoya or win by an unanimous decision instead of the close majority decision we got... You thought Duran-Leonard 1 was boring?

Floyd's in excellent condition, so 12 or 15, I don't think it matters.

i think 15 round suits fighters like froch and abrahams

12 rounds is enough, just imagine Bernard for 15 rounds instead of 12 zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

how many middleweights can endure 15 rounds of hopkins' head in dey face? http://www.boxnews.com.ua/photos/1362/Joe-Calzaghe-Bernard-Hopkins72.jpg

Guys like Taylor and Cotto would never have went far in 15 rounders. same goes for hopkins i think watching a 15 rounder borefe... i mean, hopkins fight would be torture. i'd likely end up offing myself

Well for todays type of fan I think 12 rounders are better they provide more sustained action since it is a shorter race they need to worry less about conserving energy. 15 rounders are like a marathon and the beginning is often rather dull but those last 3 rounds are very good. Different styles do well according to distance a more hyper active fighter will do well at todays distance while a more conservative fighter would do well in 15 rounders.

i prefer 12 rounds because its less dangerous for the boxers and 15 rounds fights that went the distance would be boring like Leonard-Duran I. but for fights like Tito Trinidad vs Oscar De La Hoya i would've preferred if it went 15 rounds just so that i could've seen Feliz ko/tko chicken de la hoya or win by an unanimous decision instead of the close majority decision we got...

It's not just a matter of the punishment you take during the 13th-15th rounds in a specific fight, it's the accumulation of more punches built up over many fights. If a fighter has four fights going the distance in a fifteen rounder, that's 12 rounds more than he would have gone if the fights were 12 rounders. That's an extra fight by today's standards. I know there's the argument that fighters pace themselves differently for a longer fight. But in reality, certain fighters are just too brave for their own good. Fighters can also take a lot more punishment in those rounds due to exhaustion.

No. They changed it for a reason, 15 rounds is too many and it is too dangerous. It should remain at 12.

I prefer 15 rounds. Some fighters died in the 13th-15th rounds, but some died in the 11th and 12th as well. Michael Watson's near-death came from what happened in the 11th and 12th rounds. Does that mean we should go to ten rounds? Tragedies will sadly always happen, it's the nature of the sport. Changes are often made to make the sport safer (I, like many, have my doubts whether the REAL reason for the change was fighter safety anyway), but is it really safer? How do we know that if Mancini-Kim were scheduled for 12, that a tragedy really would've been averted? The two guys fought at a grueling pace, perhaps in a scheduled 12 rounder they fight at an even faster pace and the tragedy still happens. Kim was dehydrated to begin with from making 135. Although I've read one report that a doctor said the real serious damage was caused by ONE blow (I find this very strange and unusual), maybe the real damage was already done by the first 12 rounds. I remember Jim Lampley saying that for the two ring deaths he worked on, both fighters walked back to their own dressing room and appeared alright. Mancini was asked about the changes and he said there is no evidence that shows 12 rounds are safer. I think he prefers 15 rounds as well. Boxing is no longer on network TV much in the states, they don't have that "fit everything in an hour" to worry about, so I wouldn't mind at all for a change to 15 rounds. But there's many other more important things to worry about first.

3 more rounds over time is just more damaging.

15 rounds should never have been changed...separates the men from the boys. i say no to 15rd fights. too dangerous for fighters

I do. Round 13-15 is a game tester. Many fighters that would win decisions in 12 rounds would wither and lose in 15. The reason they took away the 15 rounders is because fighters have died during those rounds.wrong. it sounds good but the facts do not support the theory. the number of deaths from rounds 13-15 are negligible in comparison to rounds 1-12. the championship rounds separated the men from the boys as the ts stated. 15 rounds were reserved for world title fights. i.e. wba wbc,ibf. minor belts were 12 rounds. the information on ring deaths is available on wiki. and it clearly shows that 13-15 did not produce more deaths. that being said, although i prefer 15 rounds, in todays climate of fabricated champions, it would be dangerous as many so called champions are defending against overmatched oponnents, which over 15 rounds does have the possibility of putting the lesser fighter in a dangerous situation.

Ray Mancini has blamed himself for Kim's death. In addition, Kim's mother committed suicide four months after the fight, as did the bout's referee, Richard Green, in July 1983. As a result of this bout, the WBC took steps to shorten its title bouts to a maximum of 12 rounds. The WBA and WBO followed in 1988, and the IBF in 1989.

When boxing went from 15 to 12 rds it fell off dramatically in popularity. Stop letting the pu$$ys make the rules.

I do. Round 13-15 is a game tester. Many fighters that would win decisions in 12 rounds would wither and lose in 15. The reason they took away the 15 rounders is because fighters have died during those rounds.

no man.....12 is good for boxers sake......

I prefer the No Decision era. Can't earn a win without finishing off your opponent. If you can't you get a ND. Of course I would never personally fight with these rules, only watch. That's just insane...

Chris John wouldn't have a title right now if fights lasted 15 rounds.