Poll: The '13th' Round ?

[mickey malone]

When a title fight ends up in a draw, do you think it would be a good idea for them to contest a 13th and deciding round?

Yes/No?.. Please discuss

[RockyB]

YES. who wants to see a draw?

[BennyST]

It could be, but boxing is a bit different in the sense that strategies differ a lot from something like K1 where they have an extra round. Only fighting three rounds, having one extra one to decide it is fine.

In a 12 round fight though, it can be too difficult to decide the whole fight on one round. If a fighter comes in with the strategy to go really hard for the first two thirds of a fight and rack up the points, then hang on to a decision that way, having one last round would be ****ty for him because his strategy would make him possibly much more exhausted for that one extra round.

Although conversely, each fighter should be able to go thirteen rounds without too much exhaustion setting in. That in itself can separate the true champs from the contenders.

It probably is a good idea, though I don't think we will ever see it. Otherwise, in BS decisions where they had to give a draw to the popular/undefeated fighter even though he lost badly, having one extra round to decide the fight might go against that fighter so they would have to give him the loss, therefore possibly screwing up his super status.

That would be a great thing for us fans, not having to put up with so much ****.

It would be great to have that happen, but the forces that be in boxing will make sure that doesn't happen for the reason above. Unless they just screw the other guy over and give the round to the popular fighter even if he obviously loses the extra round.

Then shocking decisions like Jeff Fenech vs Azumah Nelson and Whitaker vs Chavez would have ended in a decision for the right fighter instead of ending up the terrible robberies that they were. Though in those cases, if you had say, Nelson come out and somehow win the extra round, even though in all reality he would have been knocked out in it as he was on the verge of being knocked out in the twelfth, it would have robbed the guy that won ten of those twelve rounds lose the fight on that one round instead of winning the fight based one winning nearly every single round bar that one.

This is of course an extreme, but knowing boxing this type of **** would happen. It's a cool idea, but it would always cause problems.

[mickey malone]

It could be, but boxing is a bit different in the sense that strategies differ a lot from something like K1 where they have an extra round. Only fighting three rounds, having one extra one to decide it is fine.

In a 12 round fight though, it can be too difficult to decide the whole fight on one round. If a fighter comes in with the strategy to go really hard for the first two thirds of a fight and rack up the points, then hang on to a decision that way, having one last round would be ****ty for him because his strategy would make him possibly much more exhausted for that one extra round.

Although conversely, each fighter should be able to go thirteen rounds without too much exhaustion setting in. That in itself can separate the true champs from the contenders.

It probably is a good idea, though I don't think we will ever see it. Otherwise, in BS decisions where they had to give a draw to the popular/undefeated fighter even though he lost badly, having one extra round to decide the fight might go against that fighter so they would have to give him the loss, therefore possibly screwing up his super status.

That would be a great thing for us fans, not having to put up with so much ****.

It would be great to have that happen, but the forces that be in boxing will make sure that doesn't happen for the reason above. Unless they just screw the other guy over and give the round to the popular fighter even if he obviously loses the extra round.

Then shocking decisions like Jeff Fenech vs Azumah Nelson and Whitaker vs Chavez would have ended in a decision for the right fighter instead of ending up the terrible robberies that they were. Though in those cases, if you had say, Nelson come out and somehow win the extra round, even though in all reality he would have been knocked out in it as he was on the verge of being knocked out in the twelfth, it would have robbed the guy that won ten of those twelve rounds lose the fight on that one round instead of winning the fight based one winning nearly every single round bar that one.

This is of course an extreme, but knowing boxing this type of **** would happen. It's a cool idea, but it would always cause problems.

Good insight to the topic there Benny, and some good reasons for & against. To begin with, I thought it was a good idea, but when you take into account just how much it would alter the outcome of fights, it doesn't seem so bright after all.
In some cases, the fighter who has spent a lot more energy getting the better of a dubious draw, could even be at risk, as the stronger man goes hell for leather!
This may have been the case had there been a 13th rnd in Leonard Hearns2. On the other side of the fence, I'm sure, as you say, Nelson would have been injured to, had he engaged Fenech for another round.
Unlike penalties in football, it would be an impossible thing to train for..

[Benncollinsaad]

I always thought this is a brilliant idea. It has only been used a few times so far.

[blacklodge]

Then shocking decisions like Jeff Fenech vs Azumah Nelson and Whitaker vs Chavez would have ended in a decision for the right fighter instead of ending up the terrible robberies that they were. Though in those cases, if you had say, Nelson come out and somehow win the extra round, even though in all reality he would have been knocked out in it as he was on the verge of being knocked out in the twelfth, it would have robbed the guy that won ten of those twelve rounds lose the fight on that one round instead of winning the fight based one winning nearly every single round bar that one.

Off topic, I guess, but I don't think either of those decisions were "shocking". I gave Chavez 4 rounds against Whitaker, and although I couldn't justify giving Chavez more, it wasn't sheer dominance from Whitaker.
I must have watched a different fight altogether with Nelson-Fenech I. I scored it a draw at the time, and I haven't seen it since but I'm very certain he was not on the verge of being knocked out in the 12th. 10 out of 12 rounds is entirely out of the question as well. Geez, didn't everyone who went the distance with Nelson cry about the decision?

On topic, fighting a winner-take-all 13th round is senseless, to make an understatement. Adding a tiebreaker round would be be a bit reckless, and just as untrustorthy as the previous 12. I've thought about other options, like having the judges cast a vote for who they think won the fight in a general sense (also reliant upon honesty, so toss it, or possibly deceiving like in the case of Juarez-John II), or having a 4th alternate judge that scores the fight but the card isn't used unless to break up a draw. Of course, there is still possibly corruption, and no certainty that the alternate judge wouldn't have it 114-114. Of course, in the case of Chavez-Whitaker, which if memory serves was a majority draw, they could just get rid of the majority draw altogether. Whitaker wins because one judge scored it for him, the other two had it even.
I think open scoring sucks as well, and I have always tried to figure out what Don King's angle on it was and why he was championing it so much, particularly since it was his fighters usually receiving the benefit of bias judging. But not in the case of Nelson-Fenech I.

[GJC]

I'd favour the referee having the tie breaker vote if the judges can't agree but at the end of the day if the verdict is a Don King special I am sure they will find a way to screw the other guy. With the 13th round you might well find that the robbed fighter loses all together rather than just settling for a draw.

[1SILVA]

When a title fight ends up in a draw, do you think it would be a good idea for them to contest a 13th and deciding round?

Yes/No?.. Please discuss

Excellent poll question. I'd like to take your idea a little further. Why not in case of a championship fight scored as a draw the fighters are forced to fight three additional rounds? That way, in essence, the fight could go as long as 15 rounds and give each fighter time to come up with a different strategy than just going all out in the 13th round. Also, wasn't there such a rule for the British Commonwealth title in the 70's and 80's? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[mickey malone]

Excellent poll question. I'd like to take your idea a little further. Why not in case of a championship fight scored as a draw the fighters are forced to fight three additional rounds? That way, in essence, the fight could go as long as 15 rounds and give each fighter time to come up with a different strategy than just going all out in the 13th round. Also, wasn't there such a rule for the British Commonwealth title in the 70's and 80's? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Cheers!... Well lets put it this way, I can't remember any British Commonwealth title fights ever ending in a draw, so there's probably some truth in what you're saying. However, I seem to have some recollection of referees scoring fights.
This was the case in the Bugner Cooper fight, where Gibbs gave it to Bugner by a quarter of a point???

I think your 3 extra rounds is a lot more realistic, and Yes, it would be good for the sport and change the face of boxing for the better, but the problem now days, is the Boxing HSE wouldn't agree with us.. If anything, there's more chance of them reducing it to 10 rounds.. I sincerely hope not though!

[mickey malone]

I'd favour the referee having the tie breaker vote if the judges can't agree but at the end of the day if the verdict is a Don King special I am sure they will find a way to screw the other guy. With the 13th round you might well find that the robbed fighter loses all together rather than just settling for a draw.

Is that what happened with Bugner Cooper?