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

[snake]

I love how leftwing ******* writers always try to trash the accomplishments of whites in history, in this case targeting Babe Ruth. I could say that Jack Johnson ducked every tough black fighter in his day, but what's the point? It takes nothing away from his place in history nor does Joe Louis' frequent lack of competition take away from his place.

Next he'll say what whites did in WWI, WWII, and Korea wasn't such a great accomplishment because blacks for the most part were not allowed on the front lines.

[Mr. David]

Snake, I hope you're not attempting to assume my political leaning, because you'll fail on that. And as per "targeting Babe Ruth," all I did was bring up the debate that's been had for decades about Babe Ruth vs. Roger Maris.

And here's a question for you: If the intention was to "try to trash the accomplishments of whites in history," what's the point in trashing one white baseball player (Ruth) in favor of another white baseball player (Maris)?

[Check_hooks]

the truth is babe ruth wouldnt even make it to the MLB in todays league, he was a fat smoking drunk

[BattlingNelson]

Good read as always MD.

I don't like the suggestion about instant replays. At least not DURING a fight. That would make room for lots and lots of controversies and countless protests. I like that the referee is the man in charge.

Instant replays after the action has stopped would be good though. That might determine the course of eventual foul endings. Still I can see much room for controversies. What if a fighter is down and hit while on the canvas but that particular punch was deemed insignificant by the referee? Surely the losers corner will stage a wild protest when they know there is a chance for a reversal of the result. Take Marciano-Walcott for instance. Marciano landed the famed suzy Q and Walcott was finished. As Rocky headed for the neutral corner he gave Jersey Joe a not so hard left for good measure. Had instant replay been there it might have changed history.

Then there is the standardized ring size. David you are messing with a big tradition here. Promotors fights over ringsize has been there practically since the marquis of Queensbury made the rules. What size should we universally accept as the standard? The size that favours sluggers or the size that favours runners? There's no way this can be an issue where everybody agrees.

[20/20vision]

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.

Not necessarily. Problem is the commissions have to govern the same way whether it be over an HBO televised PPV or a fight between a pair of 20-something year old non-prospects in a local gym. When you think about it, to have to have cameras set up and the equipment/personnel to quickly and efficiently relay that information to the ref for every fight under a commission's watch could get very expensive and problematic.

[Mr. David]

yevskiy, is human error preferable? I'm not talking balls and strikes. I'm talking whether a cut is caused by a punch or a head butt. The ruling can be made between rounds. If HBO has it figured out by then, why can't the commission?

Clegg, every fight in Nevada is in a 20 by 20. It works for them...

Bat, the same point as above... limit the instant replay to a certain situation and a certain time. The commission makes a ruling on butt or punch... and if there's no certain evidence to overturn a call within a certain period of time, then the original call stands.

And, again... Nevada has a requirement of 20 by 20. That hasn't kept fights from being staged there. It's only when promoters have the leeway to throw their weight around that they attempt to do so with ring size.

I can understand your argument... I just get tired of wondering whether a fighter won more because of the size of the ring than anything else...

Juan Diaz beat Paulie Malignaggi in their first fight. Was he the better fighter? Or just the better fighter in a small ring?

[Mr. David]

20/20vision, you raise a good point. Could the investment in such technology be subsidized by fees from staging a fight there?

[budfr]

They should deduct points for excessive hugging. Set a limit of two hugs per round, for whatever reason. A normal clinch is OK but black boxers and Puerto Ricans use this and end up winning, cowardly, by points. Refs and judges are not doing the sport any favors.

[budfr]

Don´t forget other ethnicities. By the way, Vietnam was a loss due to the addition of blacks.

[sniperatdk]

Don´t forget other ethnicities. By the way, Vietnam was a loss due to the addition of blacks.

I'm sure the VC's had something to do with it too.