Worst scorecard ever?

[OCPancho]

Err, no decision fights was doomed when betting started .

[BattlingNelson]

What are you me Mum? Fùck you and fùck your stupid áss thread. You're just like the rest of these peasants --- a cheerleading slobber knob that DYSAB. Hagler lost because he was B-Level. 118-110 wasn't a bad score, mine was 117-112 with the even 9th.

[billeau2]

Don't curse at me that's not necessary -- IMO you don't win a fight by winning rounds you win a boxing match.

BTW you did an excellent job on scoring that boxing match, I concur, from what I remember your scoring seems right on, I remember thinking that night that the scoring should have been a UD for Leonard not a SD. That third judge was reaching for something that wasn't there.

That night half the audience was booing the decision with the other half cheering it; I started booing halfway through the 12th round.

I will check out round 9 again, truth is I never bothered to watch that fight again because it was so boring. But if a fight did break out in the 9th then what about the other 11 rounds.

I blame Hagler more than I blame Leonard, for that dismal display, once he realized he was being so thoroughly out boxed he should have changed the rhythm of the fight and forced a brawl, he should have realized he had nothing to lose, but he didn't, instead he was content with following Leonard around and being out boxed.

I was not a fan of either; (In fact at the time I was a Mustafa Hamsho fan and often found myself rooting against Hagler). Hagler was worse than being one dimensional that night he was dismal; he followed a superior boxer around the ring and never took the risk of trying to win the fight.

As far as getting over it, it's not Hagler's loss I am complaining about, it is the state of the game I hate; many fighters today entered the ring never intending to win the fight, content with lasting out the rounds and waiting for three fat wannabees (judges) to tell them they won.

Yes I am poison to 'boxing' I am a 'fight' fan. I wish they never went to judges and kept with ND fights it would have forced fighters to fight.

Boxing should be a technique (a martial art) used to win a prize fight, not an end in itself. I don't understand why we even call them 'boxers' we don't call golfers 'swingers.' Prize fighting is the only game where we identify the participants by the technique they display, no other game does that.

I am not a revisionist I am a traditionalist. Under the dynamics of the day Leonard certainly won the 'fight,' I just hate the nature of the game today.

Really you don't have to call me an idiot, if I wasn't around you wouldn't have anyone to tell they're wrong.

P.S. in 1892 (Sullivan vs. Corbett) prize fighting was illegal in Louisiana so the fight was billed as a "boxing exhibition to the finish." LOL, What the hell is that suppose to mean? It made the anti prize fight reformers pull their hair out.

As Max Smart would say "Ahhh the old "exhibition saw." Thats really how Figg started the sport, at gatherings he would do demos of sword and boxing. Thats also how they allowed MMA... an exhibition between masters of Jiu Jitsu versus boxing in places like Hawaii. No suprise they went back to it.

looks like that idiot was banned, hope he was. Hate people like that.

[billeau2]

Are you saying that, back in the old days, boxers fought harder in the ND bouts, than in the fights that would go to an official decision (if they went the full distance)?

Bundana can I also take a stab at this? I certainly endorse what Dempsey is saying...However I am stating my view here and do not know if I speak for him on these points, but you ask a great question here.

The biggest difference is not so much how hard people compete...For example, its a known fact that the martial arts where the most documented injuries that require medical attention take place are the "gentle" arts of Judo and Aikido. All that blood shed you see in an MMA match? not really that bad...its a similar thing in boxing where the accumulation of blows in a light weight fight can be as fatal as any hard punch from a heavyweight.

What was different was the idea that people were fighting, and not in a sport where an aspect could be "gamed." Old fighting was martial: you had to protect your hands, the gloves were small enough that you could punch and transfer power through with out mufflers on, you had to grapple properly, or one hand could be tied up, and your footwork was instrumental in your ability to set up an attack...the older styles did not square up indefinitely probably because a short one on the button (lead to the front of the chin) could end a fight.

So fighters were more fighters than athletes. many of these aspects continued when boxing came into a golden age where fighters became athletes, the form and use of punches became an emphasis, and contests retained enough of the martial aspects to be interesting....for example, while a fight does not have to go 32 rounds, or indefinitely... There is imo a BIG difference to the puncher when you take a 15 round fight and further reduce it to 12 rounds.

Fighting 12 rounds has made boxers return to an ammy type style where one avoids avoids avoids the punchers. In a bruising fight, those last three rounds belong and are needed by the puncher. I just think boxing has turned into checkers instead of chess.

[Dempsey-Louis]

As Max Smart would say "Ahhh the old "exhibition saw." Thats really how Figg started the sport, at gatherings he would do demos of sword and boxing. Thats also how they allowed MMA... an exhibition between masters of Jiu Jitsu versus boxing in places like Hawaii. No suprise they went back to it.

looks like that idiot was banned, hope he was. Hate people like that.

So that's how MMA got started, interesting. Early on everyone said that MMA would replace boxing with the next generation, but I am not sure that's going to happen. Back in the 70s when ice hockey took off in popularity everyone was saying that the NFL was dead, but look how that worked out: the damn Stanley Cup is on ESPN 2. Not ESPN, but ESPN 2. LOL (They give away tickets to the Panthers down here in Florida; terrible attendance.)

So I am curious to see how MMA progresses.

You know it's funny I try not to be a dick with anyone, but every once and a while I slip and act badly myself, and I even had one post deleted because I said something I shouldn't have and I was thankful they gave me a second chance without a ban . . .but I was trying really hard not to set that guy off ... I gave him my opinion (as weird as I sometimes can be) but I went out of my way to complement him on his opinions and insights (I kinda saw I was getting involved with someone who seemed angry) but it didn't matter he just couldn't control himself. I backed off and didn't let it ramp up but when the MOD (BN) asked him to watch his language, even before he replied I kinda knew he was going to get banned, and sure enough he just went after BN with vulgarities. You would think that someone with that many posts would know not to curse out a MOD.

I felt like I was dealing with Donald Trump, if I didn't agree with everything he said he was going to lose his temper.

When he comes back I am going to avoid that man.

[Dempsey-Louis]

Bundana can I also take a stab at this? I certainly endorse what Dempsey is saying...However I am stating my view here and do not know if I speak for him on these points, but you ask a great question here.

The biggest difference is not so much how hard people compete...For example, its a known fact that the martial arts where the most documented injuries that require medical attention take place are the "gentle" arts of Judo and Aikido. All that blood shed you see in an MMA match? not really that bad...its a similar thing in boxing where the accumulation of blows in a light weight fight can be as fatal as any hard punch from a heavyweight.

What was different was the idea that people were fighting, and not in a sport where an aspect could be "gamed." Old fighting was martial: you had to protect your hands, the gloves were small enough that you could punch and transfer power through with out mufflers on, you had to grapple properly, or one hand could be tied up, and your footwork was instrumental in your ability to set up an attack...the older styles did not square up indefinitely probably because a short one on the button (lead to the front of the chin) could end a fight.

So fighters were more fighters than athletes. many of these aspects continued when boxing came into a golden age where fighters became athletes, the form and use of punches became an emphasis, and contests retained enough of the martial aspects to be interesting....for example, while a fight does not have to go 32 rounds, or indefinitely... There is imo a BIG difference to the puncher when you take a 15 round fight and further reduce it to 12 rounds.

Fighting 12 rounds has made boxers return to an ammy type style where one avoids avoids avoids the punchers. In a bruising fight, those last three rounds belong and are needed by the puncher. I just think boxing has turned into checkers instead of chess.

That is an interesting point. Years ago they use to talk about how a fighter, who had laid-off for a while, could in the course of one fight, 'fight himself back into shape.' I never quite understood what that was suppose to mean; or how that could be true, but if you take what you're saying that they use to be more fighters than athletes you can see how the 'shape' they needed to be in was less demanding than what is needed today and they probably could over the course of a fight, fight themselves back into good enough shape to compete. I suspect that old adage just wouldn't fly today considering the level of athletic conditioning fighters reach for today.

[Bundana]

Fighting 12 rounds has made boxers return to an ammy type style where one avoids avoids avoids the punchers. In a bruising fight, those last three rounds belong and are needed by the puncher. I just think boxing has turned into checkers instead of chess.

How many fights were scheduled for 15 rounds 40-50-60 years ago? Only a tiny, tiny percentage, I would imagine.

Only world title, regional title (like European championships) and some national title fights, where fought over 15 rounds.

And even those who reached the 15 rounds stage spent the majority of their career fighting 10-rounders (or less).

And then we of course had the VAST majority of all boxers, who never graduated beyond 10 rounds.

So how could the reduction of title fights from 15 to 12 rounds have had such a massive impact on boxing AS A WHOLE, that boxers went from being tough, hard-fighting men... to amateur-like sissies, who are mostly occupied with not getting hit?

[OCPancho]

How many fights were scheduled for 15 rounds 40-50-60 years ago? Only a tiny, tiny percentage, I would imagine.

Only world title, regional title (like European championships) and some national title fights, where fought over 15 rounds.

And even those who reached the 15 rounds stage spent the majority of their career fighting 10-rounders (or less).

And then we of course had the VAST majority of all boxers, who never graduated beyond 10 rounds.

So how could the reduction of title fights from 15 to 12 rounds have had such a massive impact on boxing AS A WHOLE, that boxers went from being tough, hard-fighting men... to amateur-like sissies, who are mostly occupied with not getting hit?

it has softened WORLD TITLE fights for sure .
All you do now is win 7 rounds.
In 15 rounders , you had to win 8 rounds AND survive the last 3 rounds .

[Anthony342]

I know little to nothing about that sport but what I am wondering is if the referee is in a position of authority to force the combatants to fight (as with prize fighting)?

Also you can see where two MMA fighters might grab on to each other and end up in a stalemate with neither able to move. In high school/college wrestling the referee would have the authority to break the wrestlers and force a restart, I wonder again if an MMA referee has that authority or do they just sit locked into each other.

It's hard to imagine two fighters going at it with unlimited time and no rest period unless they are deliberately refusing to engage.

It is interesting that you are saying that the judges don't have to show any kind of scoring, just announce at the end who they think won. That is sort of like early prize fighting, when using just a referee, he would immediately raise one of the fighters hand as soon as the last bell sounded. He didn't have to keep a score card.

I watched once, very early on and there was some guy named Gracey (maybe) who jumped his opponent and began to strangle him (choke him) the other guy had to quit and it was over, I swear it lasted seconds and I thought well that is it for me and I never watched again. Do they still choke each other?

I am not sure about the Leonard-Hagler scoring I do remember sitting there and thinking Leonard probably won the fight but I just didn't think it was much of a fight. I was much more impressed with Leonard in the first Hearns fight. I thought that was Leonard's best night.

It's interesting you ask that. After fans were bored with the Royce (pronounced Hoyce) Gracie vs. Ken Shamrock rematch in UFC 5 because of all the stalling, due to Shamrock being content to lay on top of Gracie in his closed guard, content to get a draw, instead of a loss this time, there was a rule change after that event where the referee could indeed stand the fighters up and restart the fight if they were considered to be in a stalemate. They do it a lot less often though, after it cost Mark Coleman a unanimous decision and got him TKO'd toward the end of the last round of a fight, but it's still legal for a referee to do so. They also don't do it as much because they have 5 minute rounds now and fighters have gotten better at escapes, reverses or getting back to their feet. MMA used to be one style vs. one style, now every fighter starts knowing mainly one style but learning a little of everything else too. They all need to have some wrestling or jiu jitsu or possibly judo skill to survive on the ground. So YES, since UFC 5, the referee has the authority to separate fighters and restart them on the feet.

I think the one minute rest period is good for the fighters too, let them get some water, some rest and some instructions from their trainers, like in boxing.

Yes, choke holds are still legal, as are all forms of submission holds. Although, they don't wear any kind of a gi, like Gracie used to in those early UFC events. Even submissions rarely seen or only thought to work in scripted pro wrestling matches, like a bulldog choke and Boston Crab, have won fighters matches in MMA. But there have also been plenty unanimous decisions using boxing and kickboxing and plenty of KOs and TKOs using striking as well. If you watched an MMA fight, odds are the technique might not be as good with most fighters you see because they only spend a small percentage of their time boxing and most fighters start out their lives training in wrestling or Brazilian Jiu Jitsu or maybe American or Muay Thai kickboxing, so their punching techniques most likely wouldn't work in boxing matches as well.

I imagine our resident martial arts expert Billeau could expand on that though, but I always hear boxing fans being very critical of the boxing technique of MMA fighters which makes sense, if you think about it. I mean, if a boxer went into an MMA cage and tried to grapple, his submission skills would most likely be lacking as he wouldn't have as much experience with that either.

As with the scoring, yeah, they used to just have to pick a name, but now they use the same 10 point boxing scoring, but I've rarely heard of 10-8 rounds in MMA even when there was a knockdown. With MMA, there's no 10 count, fighters just keep fighting, so they either stand over them and throw punches or kick the body, they don't allow head kicks or they let the opponent get up and continue fighting on the feet. They usually know if a guy's out, so they just wave it off and call it.

[Dempsey-Louis]

So how could the reduction of title fights from 15 to 12 rounds have had such a massive impact on boxing AS A WHOLE, that boxers went from being tough, hard-fighting men... to amateur-like sissies, who are mostly occupied with not getting hit?

Heh, heh, I can't believe I am actually going to push the submit button on this post, here it goes.

You make a good point but I believe the answer to that question doesn't lay in the number of rounds but in the manner we now score prize fights.

WARNING: I'm about to sound like a broken record! (and get many angry.)

The problem lies in punch stats. There is this misplaced importance on the number of punches landed regardless of their effectiveness.

I believe that Chavez-Taylor I is the perfect example of the point I am trying to make.

By the 12th two of the judges had Taylor winning going away (one judge had it close). Of course when it was over we could all see that Taylor, not Chavez was actually the beaten fighter.

All night long Taylor was landing many more punches than Chavez (wide punches that made a slapping sound, which tends to excite the uneducated fight fan).

Now I should point out that those slapping punches did have a great effect of throwing off Chavez's timing, there they were indeed effective, but at the end Chavez's face was redden from the fray but he didn't have the look of a beaten fighter.

Whereas Taylor's face on the other hand, who had caught considerably fewer punches, was swollen and distorted and had the look of a thoroughly beaten fighter.

So while Taylor's many punches did serve to throw off Chavez's timing they were having little else effect, whereas Chavez's punches which didn't have that slapping sound attached to them, (and tended to travel a shorter distance) landed instead with a thud, and were doing serious damage to Taylor's body.

Now here's my point (and the truth is I really can't prove it) I suspect that back in the 1930s and 1940s judges (and fans as well for that matter) would have been less impressed with Taylor's effort than we were and would have recognized that Chavez (with his fewer punches) was actually winning the fight.

It's this change in how we now over emphasize the number of punches landed and not how effective they are is what has changed the game to what it is today. We want to reward skill not effectiveness.

OK here comes the unpopular part: we today want prize fighting to be viewed as an athletic competition (a sporting event) and not what it actually is, a fist fight for money. We want the skill and not the brutality to be more important.

This is driven by our need to apologize for loving the violence the way we do; if we pretend that its all about the skill (the martial art of boxing) and not about its brutality we feel better about ourselves; we all like to claim we are boxing aficionados.

When we see Taylor's lighting fast hands, his brilliant combinations (and they were just that) we are quick to embrace and praise him, but it causes us to miss the fact that Taylor, that great boxer, was that night, in the ring with a better prize fighter.

It isn't the reduction in rounds that has created the "amateur-like sissies" you decried, it is our desire to convince ourselves that we are watching a 'professional boxing match' and not that base, brutal thing called a 'prize fight.'

It is this self deceiving attitude that caused that recently banned "gentleman" to scream at me that I am "poison to boxing," and he was correct, I am; it is also why when one fighter punches his opponent in the face the announcer feels the need to yell out "he is scoring points." No he's not, he just punched the other guy in the damn face. (I truly wish they would stop saying that.)

No one wants to admit (except me) that what we come for is the intense excitement created by the violence, we all want to believe we are boxing aficionados. (I marvel at their skill but I don't really understand it; it takes a decade of constant practice to truly master boxing, and you can't get there by watching it.)

IMO that is why the game today looks more like amateur boxing than the prize fighting of years gone by. The judges have bought into this attitude (denial), and that's why a thoroughly beaten fighter like Meldrick Taylor was winning on the score cards, going away.

Anyway it's not the number of rounds that has changed the game, it us that has changed, we have become apologists for the thing we love.

Now, this post I am sure has angered many people, but remember don't curse at me, you might get banned.

P.S. One last thing I want to add, I would walk right pass a Super Bowl quarterback to shake the hand of a four round Mexican bantamweight every time. I love prize fighters, I envy their courage. Lets face it LeBron James is a master of his skill, no one can put a round ball through a round hoop better than he can, but to me that Mexican kid is three feet taller. That's why I named my children Dempsey (daughter) and Louis (son), not because they were boxers, but because they were fighters.