15 rounds to 12 rounds

[Vasyl’s dad]

In a fight you could die from rounds

1 - 12

What does it matter what round from 1 - 12 they die in?, That's the risk of the sport.

---

1 - 15

Anything above 12 which would be the usual fight finish would by your stats equal more death.

The 56 people that died... died in a FIGHT THAT WAS MORE THAN 12 ROUNDS!

CHANCES ARE IF I WAS IN A 12 ROUND FIGHT I WOULDN'T HAVE DIED!!!!!!!!

THE FACT THAT ALOT MORE PEOPLE DIED IN ROUND 6 DOESN'T MATTER!! WHY????????

BECAUSE ROUND 6 COULD BE IN A 12 OR 15 ROUND FIGHT!!!!!, ROUNDS 13,14,15+ ARE NOT IN A 12 ROUND FIGHT!...


Thats it i'm outta here.

And all I'm saying is,

there is no evidence to support the "common sense" theory that "more rounds equals more damage".

You're outta here because the actual statistics don't support your claim and you have no foundation to stand on.

[Aussie!]

Actually it does.

If more rounds equaled more damage,

why do 5 earlier rounds have more deaths?

Based on "common sense",

we'd be seeing a high rate of deaths in the rounds past 12,

but the rate was much lower.

Round 4 alone has produced 84 deaths, almost 30 more than 4 rounds past 12 combined.

the nfl is proposing an 18 game season which is 2 more than what they have right now.

guess what is the players' main gripe about the 2 extra games?

injuries.

the more games, the more chances of injuries.

same with boxing.

the more rds, the more chances of getting hurt.

now, it doesn't mean you'll 100% get hurt, but chances are you'll be.

emphasis on 'chances'.

that's where you pull the 58 deaths from.

[Check]

Are you really serious?

There are no other factors involved in people dying in a boxing ring other than each round lasts 3 minutes and each round provides for more punishment?


I guess I do expect it to be so simple to some of you since the majority of you aren't all that bright and always think in such simple ways.

You quoted a guy saying its 9 minutes less so it's obviously safer, asking if he had any scientific evidence. Obviously if you are in the ring 9 minutes less, you will be safer because less punishment is given out. Before you try to attack someone make sure you properly read your posts and quotes.

As for your opening post. IMO, talking deaths in the sport, they have not decreased drastically since the rule change. Like I said it was a bad decision to do.

[Konstantin]

And all I'm saying is,

there is no evidence to support the "common sense" theory that "more rounds equals more damage".

You're outta here because the actual statistics don't support your claim and you have no foundation to stand on.

Ok how bout we stop putting things into individual rounds. Because the doesnt paint the right picture at all. I will take the numbers you have given and present them in a more sensible manner.

_________________Total deaths
Round 1 45 deaths 45
Round 2 62 deaths 107
Round 3 54 deaths 161
Round 4 82 deaths 243
Round 5 49 deaths 292
Round 6 95 deaths 387
Round 7 46 deaths 433
Round 8 91 deaths 524
Round 9 44 deaths 568
Round 10 92 deaths 660
Round 11 13 deaths 673
Round 12 35 deaths 708
Round 13 10 deaths 718
Round 14 10 deaths 728
Round 15 13 deaths 741
Round 16 9 deaths 750
>16 rounds 14 deaths

Deaths inside 15 rounds 741 > Deaths inside 12 rounds 708

[Vasyl’s dad]

OK I understand your argument now.

You are arguing that the 4 round is deadlier than round 14 because it has 50ish more deaths? Is that right?

No, thats not my argument.

My argument is that its not as simple as "more rounds equal more damage".

The data doesn't support that at all. In fact, there is a drastic reduction in deaths past round 12 in comparison. In rounds past 12, the death rate is almost 3 times less in most cases. Looking at rounds 11 and 12, those are the rounds with the lowest instances of death.


Possible reasons why?

A trainer might be more inclined to stop his fighter in rounds 11, 12 and beyond than 4 because round 4 is much earlier in the fight so he might feel his fighter is much fresher and able to mount a comeback.

As I've said already a few times, there is more to consider than just "more rounds equal more damage". The experience level of the fighter and corner, his health and boxing attributes, his ability to take a punch, his recovery rate, etc., etc.


If it was as simple as "more rounds equal more damage", don't you think the numbers past round 12 would be much higher than 10, 10, 13 and 9?

[Vasyl’s dad]

Ok how bout we stop putting things into individual rounds. Because the doesnt paint the right picture at all. I will take the numbers you have given and present them in a more sensible manner.

_________________Total deaths
Round 1 45 deaths 45
Round 2 62 deaths 107
Round 3 54 deaths 161
Round 4 82 deaths 243
Round 5 49 deaths 292
Round 6 95 deaths 387
Round 7 46 deaths 433
Round 8 91 deaths 524
Round 9 44 deaths 568
Round 10 92 deaths 660
Round 11 13 deaths 673
Round 12 35 deaths 708
Round 13 10 deaths 718
Round 14 10 deaths 728
Round 15 13 deaths 741
Round 16 9 deaths 750
>16 rounds 14 deaths

Deaths inside 15 rounds 741 > Deaths inside 12 rounds 708

Thats nice.

Since you can't give a logical explanation, you just skew the numbers to fit your agenda.

Perhaps you should consult the Journal of Combative Sports with your brilliance and correct them on their errors.

[Konstantin]

No, thats not my argument.

My argument is that its not as simple as "more rounds equal more damage".

The data doesn't support that at all. In fact, there is a drastic reduction in deaths past round 12 in comparison. In rounds past 12, the death rate is almost 3 times less in most cases. Looking at rounds 11 and 12, those are the rounds with the lowest instances of death.


Possible reasons why?

A trainer might be more inclined to stop his fighter in rounds 11, 12 and beyond than 4 because round 4 is much earlier in the fight so he might feel his fighter is much fresher and able to mount a comeback.

As I've said already a few times, there is more to consider than just "more rounds equal more damage". The experience level of the fighter and corner, his health and boxing attributes, his ability to take a punch, his recovery rate, etc., etc.


If it was as simple as "more rounds equal more damage", don't you think the numbers past round 12 would be much higher than 10, 10, 13 and 9?

Look at the data I provided. More people die the longer the fight goes on.

Obviously there are other things to consider however that doesn't mean make less rounds irrelevant...

[Konstantin]

Thats nice.

Since you can't give a logical explanation, you just skew the numbers to fit your agenda.

Perhaps you should consult the Journal of Combative Sports with your brilliance and correct them on their errors.

You're a complete dumbass, only numbers that are screwed are yours. Your argument is that rounds 4 has more deaths than round 12 therefore it is more dangerous.

Everyone in this thread is wrong and your right

[Vasyl’s dad]

You quoted a guy saying its 9 minutes less so it's obviously safer, asking if he had any scientific evidence. Obviously if you are in the ring 9 minutes less, you will be safer because less punishment is given out. Before you try to attack someone make sure you properly read your posts and quotes.

As for your opening post. IMO, talking deaths in the sport, they have not decreased drastically since the rule change. Like I said it was a bad decision to do.

Yea, thanks captain obvious.

I was clearly asking for data to support the claims that fights being 9 minutes less are any safer and all you could say was 9 minutes less is safer because they're not in the ring.


Some actual data would help instead of just relying on "common sense".

[Aussie!]

Look at the data I provided. More people die the longer the fight goes on.

Obviously there are other things to consider however that doesn't mean make less rounds irrelevant...

based on your chart, i sometimes wonder if those 33 deaths is worth reducing the number of rds from 15 to 12.

33 dead is just like strafing a small rice field in vietnam.

it's no biggie.