You Get to Change 1 Thing About Boxing

[QueensburyRules]

What would it be?

I’d make it one belt per weight class

Now there’s pressure on fighters to fight the best in their division ASAP.

You beat the best guys to earn the respect of being champ

- -I'd have U properly declared as GranmaBernice.

[Vlad_]

15 rounds. And the scoring needs to be publicly announced round by round.

[Roadblock]

15 rounds.

This but only in unification bouts, and if you hold a WT you MUST defend it against another WC with the idea of a single unified champ.

He is then a free agent and the next contenders fight for the single belts again, with the winners unifying again and that guy can fight the other Super champ, giving us a few earned super fights every generation. I see this melting pot not holding the contenders back while churning out great champions .

Then I woke up lol.

[Tails]

It would involve all sanctioning bodies to be on board but I think it would make things interesting. Mandatory title unifications every other year whether it be a lottery system or some other method. No exception can be made to avoid the unification.

Something like every other year WBC must be unified with WBO and WBA must be unified with IBF. And then a final unification must be made the following year. Under the condition that there is already an establish undisputed champion then any challenger must be ranked in at least #1 or #2 in one of the rankings and have beaten at least #1 or #2 in another organizations ranking. This would prevent people from jumping up in weight and immediately being granted a title shot against a fading champion without first having to defeat a contender.

[Willy Wanker]

I would make a change to the current 10 point must system.

I had this idea of giving half points for close rounds. Like if a fighter wins a round, but barely edges it then he should get a 10-9.5 score. 10-9 score should be used only when a fighter clearly wins a round. Currently, I like how 10-8 scores are given when a fighter gets completely dominated regardless if there's a knockdown.

I think it'll reduce the number of draws. I also believe that not all 10-9 rounds are created equal. Sometimes a fighter can barely edge a round that could arguably go to his opponent or he could school his opponent and win clearly, but he would get still the same 10-9 score which doesn't seem right to me even though that's how the point system has been for a long time.

In a hypothetical fight, imagine all 3 judges having the same score where one boxer won 6 rounds that were close and contested, but his opponent also won 6 rounds but he won all of them clearly without any doubts. But the scores end up being 114-114. Doesn't seem fair.

I also think 10-10 rounds should be given more often.

That being said, it's all fantasy and just something fun to think about. Boxing is plagued with so much corruption and politics, I'm sure robberies will happen regardless.

[REDEEMER]

Either give some clarity to the "no holding" rule or take it off the books.
When every ref gets to interpret the rule any way he wants, what usually happens is a "name" fighter is allowed more leeway than a fighter who is not as well known.

Clinching was a huge part of the boxing roots as why many guys like Jack Johnson was as effective as he was , clinching happened more during the old days because holding and hitting was legal . You can’t change the rule much because it would be impossible to determine if a fighter is clinching on purpose or if it’s because both fighters clash coming forward so it would also bring more corruption if a referee reprimanded a fighter for holding while letting another clinch to smother the other guys work .

Clinching is an art ,I don’t mind it when it’s not excessive , the art of the clinch is an art ( Fury vs Wilder 2 where Fury really picks the right moments to impose on Wilder and lean on him ) and enables guys to take breaks in stride Or impose his physical attributes ,if no clinching happened the fights would not look as graceful ,everyone would tire rather fast and the more aggressive fighters would have a huge advantage so it would change the game entirely more so at heavyweight.

[REDEEMER]

1 champ per class = no more meaningless mandatories against random euros

This 1 adjustment changes boxing entirely. Crawford would have fought somebody already. Spence/manny/Thurman would have mixed it up with each other

Everyone fights each other quickly for the top contender spot and their shot to dethrone the champ

Crawford didn’t fight anyone because a guy named Spence was never going to take that fight .

If you mashed all the fighters together and magically had 1 sanctioning body and 1 belt even though that can’t be changed you then don’t see other fights , I know for a fact fans today would never go for 2 title fights a year per class .What if the fighter gets injured ? There would be times only 1 title fight took place and the boxing commissions and board member of whatever they work for aren’t going to let anything squeeze them out of the sport where to much money is involved.


What your claiming is only possible if someone had their own boxing promotion,with their own title and their own rankings rules etc . Boxing is not the UFC it is a under a one umbrella sport .

[ruedboy]

Clinching was a huge part of the boxing roots as why many guys like Jack Johnson was as effective as he was , clinching happened more during the old days because holding and hitting was legal . You can’t change the rule much because it would be impossible to determine if a fighter is clinching on purpose or if it’s because both fighters clash coming forward so it would also bring more corruption if a referee reprimanded a fighter for holding while letting another clinch to smother the other guys work .

Clinching is an art ,I don’t mind it when it’s not excessive , the art of the clinch is an art ( Fury vs Wilder 2 where Fury really picks the right moments to impose on Wilder and lean on him ) and enables guys to take breaks in stride Or impose his physical attributes ,if no clinching happened the fights would not look as graceful ,everyone would tire rather fast and the more aggressive fighters would have a huge advantage so it would change the game entirely more so at heavyweight.

Good points, you're probably right. I just hate a hug fest, but there is an art to clinching effectively.

[QueensburyRules]

I would make a change to the current 10 point must system.

I had this idea of giving half points for close rounds. Like if a fighter wins a round, but barely edges it then he should get a 10-9.5 score. 10-9 score should be used only when a fighter clearly wins a round. Currently, I like how 10-8 scores are given when a fighter gets completely dominated regardless if there's a knockdown.

I think it'll reduce the number of draws. I also believe that not all 10-9 rounds are created equal. Sometimes a fighter can barely edge a round that could arguably go to his opponent or he could school his opponent and win clearly, but he would get still the same 10-9 score which doesn't seem right to me even though that's how the point system has been for a long time.

In a hypothetical fight, imagine all 3 judges having the same score where one boxer won 6 rounds that were close and contested, but his opponent also won 6 rounds but he won all of them clearly without any doubts. But the scores end up being 114-114. Doesn't seem fair.

I also think 10-10 rounds should be given more often.

That being said, it's all fantasy and just something fun to think about. Boxing is plagued with so much corruption and politics, I'm sure robberies will happen regardless.

- -Half points for U half point IQ sounds perfectamente!

[Boxxymcboxface]

Bring back 15 rounders