Comments Thread For: “Fighting Words” – Four Boxing Rules That Can (And Should) Change Easily

[BIGPOPPAPUMP]

by David P. Greisman - Nothing is so sacrosanct as to be set in stone. Laws are amended. Court decisions are overturned. Even the Bible has long been up for debate, starting with the Talmud and continuing for centuries through theological discussions.

Why, then, are we so steadfast about sports, so stuck on a sense of tradition that we have become averse to change?

Perhaps it is because we are so obsessed with comparison.

Are the 1972 Miami Dolphins the best team ever for going 14-0 in the regular season, 17-0 overall and winning the Super Bowl? Or are the 2007 New England Patriots better for going 16-0 in the regular season and winning 18 straight before losing the Super Bowl?

Was Roger Maris and his 61 home runs better than all the record breakers who followed in a time of interleague play, juiced balls and juiced players? What about Babe Ruth, who hit 60 in fewer games but did so in an era when black baseball players weren’t allowed in Major League Baseball?

Boxing isn’t so much about the number, though, granted, there is a difference between Joe Louis defending the heavyweight championship 25 times and Sven Ottke defending his super middleweight belt 21 times. [Click Here To Read More]

[Spray_resistant]

I can agree with alot of this, there are some instances yes when a DQ should be a TKO win and FFS keep the canvas dry!

Still, I like the current scoring system and just wish the judges for the most part would use it in every fight(hint Germany)

[check hook]

the water in the corners infuriates me.............

[Dambala]

Great article. I loved the part when he compares Louis' and Ottke's title defenses, it made me think about Omar Narvaez the crappy Argentinean boxer who "beat" Carlos Monzon's title defenses record for an Argentinean.


BTW boxing really needs the use of the Instant Replay, and the water thing never occurred to me, that's a great idea.

[Russian Crushin]

MLB does have Instant Replay, but boxing doesnt need it....it could be used at the end of a fight to determine head butts but otherswise i dont see at all how it can help.

The Water on the canvas is just ridiculous, i cant believe they still havent come up with an idea other then wipping with a towel....

If they start putting in Replay then why have a ref

Its almost like using instant replay to call balls and strikes in baseball

[BennyST]

by David P. Greisman - Nothing is so sacrosanct as to be set in stone. Laws are amended. Court decisions are overturned. Even the Bible has long been up for debate, starting with the Talmud and continuing for centuries through theological discussions.

Why, then, are we so steadfast about sports, so stuck on a sense of tradition that we have become averse to change?

Perhaps it is because we are so obsessed with comparison.

Are the 1972 Miami Dolphins the best team ever for going 14-0 in the regular season, 17-0 overall and winning the Super Bowl? Or are the 2007 New England Patriots better for going 16-0 in the regular season and winning 18 straight before losing the Super Bowl?

Was Roger Maris and his 61 home runs better than all the record breakers who followed in a time of interleague play, juiced balls and juiced players? What about Babe Ruth, who hit 60 in fewer games but did so in an era when black baseball players weren’t allowed in Major League Baseball?

Boxing isn’t so much about the number, though, granted, there is a difference between Joe Louis defending the heavyweight championship 25 times and Sven Ottke defending his super middleweight belt 21 times. [Click Here To Read More]

Loved it Mr David! As always, excellent reading.

The one thing about the rules I cannot understand is that they are such simple little things. It is not changing the way the game is done or even adding anything to it. It is making everything easier and safer. Such small rules, why so much difficulty in getting them changed?

Slide a big tray onto the canvas before they sit down. Leave the tray up against the canvas. Not hard, not changing the way things are done. Instant replay: This is a big one! So, so easy. It's already there! We already watch how cuts come about and we see if a ref is wrong straight away. Are they scared to have the ref undermined? With the amount of idiotic rulings from many of them of late, that shouldn't be a problem. They do it well enough for themselves.

[..David..]

That was a good read

[BennyST]

MLB does have Instant Replay, but boxing doesnt need it....it could be used at the end of a fight to determine head butts but otherswise i dont see at all how it can help.

The Water on the canvas is just ridiculous, i cant believe they still havent come up with an idea other then wipping with a towel....

If they start putting in Replay then why have a ref

Its almost like using instant replay to call balls and strikes in baseball

Because a ref stops the fight when needed. Breaks the fighters, warns one for headbutting, gives a time out, counts knockdowns, stops clinching/holding etc etc etc. None of these can be done with replay.

What happens if the ref calls a headbutt for a punch in the third round that was caused by a punch? A fighter could get away with a ND, but with replay, he has to fight on to keep his win. Replay is one of the most needed things in boxing.

What if a cut was caused by a punch in the third round and went past the fourth but became too bad with more punches later on, and yet was ruled as a headclash? That means they go to the scorecards and what if the fighter that scored the punch was losing? He loses a fight that should have been a TKO win for him. Huge decisions!

A ref does a hell of a lot more than just rule on cuts etc. What about when Soto was DQ'd for supposedly hitting when Lorenzo was down? The ref couldn't tell properly. Use replay and Soto has a very well deserved win instead of one of the most ridiculous, and undeserved, losses in recent years.

[Clegg]

Good article David.

I agree with the points you've raised, the only one that I'm divided on is the ring size.

On the one hand, I've no doubt that there are some boxers (and your Lemieux-Ayala example is likely one of them) who are offered good money to fight a local draw, but one of the conditions is that they accept a ring size that favours the opponent. That sort of thing is certainly undesirable and it's a shame that it happens.

On the other hand, some fights are better off in a smaller ring, and I recall Ward and Kessler both wanting an 18 feet ring rather than a 20 feet one. I wouldn't want for fights like that to take place in a bigger ring than either side favoured.

Hopefully we do see changes implemented sooner rather than later. After the ridiculous scorecard turned in for Fury-McDermott in an English title fight last year, they've said that there will be 3 judges for their rematch next week rather than just one. So I guess change can happen, it just sometimes takes an injustice in order for it to take place.

[the mesiah]

I wouldnt mind seeing a change for the major big time event fights to go 15 rounds like the old days.as far as ring size , the smaller the better.all those fights were actin fights on espn fnf, better than seeing someone jab and dance all the 20x20 the whole fight after u pay to watch in person or ppv, even on a free stream.