I'm sure you know what I'm hinting at.
Any confirmation about Turkilency's plan of reducing the size of the ring?
Collapse
-
I think they should stick to the standard 20x20. No more 22’. Maybe go 18x18 at the smallest.
I remember watching MBilli fight Desmond Nicholson in Canada , and every time Nicholson took a step back and he wasn’t “running”, he was basically already on the ropes in what I believe was a 16x16 ring. I know we don’t want “runners” but that’s definitely too small, and I wouldn’t want personally.
Last edited by edpboxing; 06-21-2025, 03:27 PM.Comment
-
Go 18’ x 18’, Your Excellency.
And maybe even experiment with 16’ x 16’ like they used to have back in the 1920’s through 1940’s. Let’s see how viable that is.
No Tom and Jerrys would survive that.Comment
-
I'm all for it. If they're good "boxers" then they can be mobile and not get hit in any size ring.Comment
-
I haven't given much thought about this until Billy Joe Saunders made a ruckus in the media when he was demanding a large ring in the Canelo fight. Then I checked out his fight against David Lemieux on Youtube and man it was hyuuge! The undercards on lighter weights in that boxing event looked like dwarfs! And BJS's fight with Lemieux was what encouraged him to call out the Mexican superstar. He was so proud of his work in that fight.
It indeed makes a huge difference on boxers whose game plan is to run in a fight.Comment
-
Comment
Comment