Boxing Would Be Much Better If These Rules Were Implemented

[ironmike2012]

Only 2 makes any sense.


Bare fist fighting, go to a bar and get some.
Boxing is a sport, not a toughman contest, it would be illegal if they did that.

15 rounds would have been a better recommendation.

[Furn]

I agree with 1. but how do you do it ?

You cant have judges just watch a fight and then just pick a winner. Id like to see 10-9.5 and 10-8.5 grounds brought in.

[asgarth]

how do fighters have a comeback if it's not judged round by round?

how will there be unifcation bouts if there's one champ?

Back hand punches will allow more shots to the back of the head

Fighting bare fisted is illegal

What is with you and unification fights. There should not be a need for unifications fight in the beginning.

One division, one champ. If you want to be at the top, you need to earn your shot at the crown. Most guys currently are avoiding big risk, because they just wait until they get a shot at the belt.

Decades ago the matchups were much better, because of only one belt. The Matchups in the UFC are much better, partly because of having only one champ.

The only real advantage is the economical perspective for a boxer, because having a belt entitles you to bigger paydays.

Without the belts, many of the current fake beltholder would have much lower paydays.

[davef]

They need to bring in a system to improve the judging what that could be i dont know ex pros as judges would be good but agendas and rivalry will come into play too much to expect it to be fair

[SN!PER]

Can you imagine the damage that Joshua or Wilder would be capable of with bare fists?

We want to see knockouts, not deaths.

[Larry the boss]

[asgarth]

They should enforce a maximum amount of clinch per round... I know it somehow belongs to the sweet science of boxing, but there are too many boxers who abuse the system and suck the excitement out of fights.

Or at least they should standarized the rules for all referees. The flow of the fight cant depend on how the referee personally wants to deal with clinches.
Klitschko loses points against Jennings and Haye, but in the clinchfest against Povetkin not? lol

[Sadiqkingofko]

What is with you and unification fights. There should not be a need for unifications fight in the beginning.

One division, one champ. If you want to be at the top, you need to earn your shot at the crown. Most guys currently are avoiding big risk, because they just wait until they get a shot at the belt.

Decades ago the matchups were much better, because of only one belt. The Matchups in the UFC are much better, partly because of having only one champ.

The only real advantage is the economical perspective for a boxer, because having a belt entitles you to bigger paydays.

Without the belts, many of the current fake beltholder would have much lower paydays.

UFC is a league, it gets the good fighters from MMA, boxing it's everyone you can't pick fighters like UFC, or a draft like the NBA

[asgarth]

UFC is a league, it gets the good fighters from MMA, boxing it's everyone you can't pick fighters like UFC, or a draft like the NBA

What does having one belt have to do with picking fighters?
If you have one sanctioning body, with an objective ranking list, with meaningful eliminators for mandatory, which are 100% enforced. You will get big fights unless the champion vacates his belt.

With four sanctioning body, you have four different ranking lists and if you had an eye on the different ranking list, you will recognize that many names on the top10 are garbage and should not be anywhere near a title shot.

All in all, four belts => weaker matchups
These unfication fights are just fights which should normally happen to crown a champ

[club fighter]

1-the round by round system already reflects the overall performance.................... all you have to do is add.
2-this is the only valid statement, and we all wish it was true. One champion per division.
3 and 4 are just too ridiculous to entertain.