IPB  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> If Implimented, What Things Could Make You Stop Watching Boxing?
Jack 1000
post Feb 9 2014, 06:19 PM
Post #1


The Consultant


Group: Root Admin
Posts: 9,718
Joined: 2-December 02
Member No.: 14



Don't get me wrong. I am for improved education and safety in monitoring fighters' training, nutrition habits, ring record. I support an international record keeping database so that fighters, managers, commissions, and sanctioning bodies can use this as a tool to help prevent mismatches when doing the ratings. More gyms should be visited to see how well they maintaining their fighter's needs. However, there are some things that if I ever see in the pros, I would consider this, safety overkill, and it would destroy my interest in the sport. They are:

1.) 10-round world championship fights
. This was a rarity but in 1926 and 1927, both Dempsy-Tunny fights were world championship fights set for 10 rounds, because 10 rounds was the maximum allowed by the Illinois Commission at that time. I RELUCTANTLY supported the move from 15 to 12 round fights. It took a long, long time to get used to this. However, I hope the premise being developed is that "Well if 12 rounds was safter than 15 rounds, 10 rounds is safer than 12." That's going overkill. There should be SOMETHING significant about championship fights with regards to the rounds that makes them longer than the non-title fight. I would, however, like to see ONLY world championship fights set at 12 rounds and the other fights for state and regional titles set to 10 rounds. Not for safety, but to perhaps allow the 10 round distance to stop the polluting of bogus belts. You can fight 12 rounds for a Cracker Jack Belt, that isn't right. I would never support main event caliber matches set to only 8 rounds on a premium cable or PPV situation either!

2.) Shortening of pro rounds from 3 to 2 minutes:
Another overkill and knee jerk reaction, which hopefully never comes to pass. The three minute round has been the automatic time clock for all of boxing, going back 50-100 years. You get the point. It is one tradition that hopefully never goes away.

THE WORST OF ALL, ALTHOUGH ANY OF THESE PROPOSALS WOULD SUCK IF PASSED:


1.) Headgear in the pros:
This would take so much of the magic and intensity out of boxing. It would take safety and make it to such an extreame that fans would stop watching. Headgear is actually more dangerous because it impeeds a fighter's vision. There are doctors out there that want to outlaw blows to the head in boxing! No kidding! In the amateurs I sort of understand headgear, which I understand is not being used in the Olympics for the first time at the next Summer Games. Gloves protect the hands, not the head.

Jack
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ryustuh
post Feb 9 2014, 06:29 PM
Post #2


Bantamweight


Group: Members
Posts: 303
Joined: 2-January 14
From: redwood city, ca
Member No.: 14,090



QUOTE (Jack 1000 @ Feb 9 2014, 06:19 PM) *
THE WORST OF ALL, ALTHOUGH ANY OF THESE PROPOSALS WOULD SUCK IF PASSED:[/b]

1.) Headgear in the pros:
This would take so much of the magic and intensity out of boxing. It would take safety and make it to such an extreame that fans would stop watching. Headgear is actually more dangerous because it impeeds a fighter's vision. There are doctors out there that want to outlaw blows to the head in boxing! No kidding! In the amateurs I sort of understand headgear, which I understand is not being used in the Olympics for the first time at the next Summer Games. Gloves protect the hands, not the head.

Jack



dont think you have to worry about this one...at least not for a while. i know in the amateurs, they were talking about removing headgear...this was middle of last year. not sure how that proposal has developed, but it's based on the evidence that headgear doesnt actually help and may actually cause further damage. theory is a bunch of repeated blows that are "muffled" and dont have as much direct impact on the brain are far worse than the 1 or 2 clean shots that can drop or KO a dude. course there's no right or wrong answer when it comes to this...jus saying if they're thinking of taking away headgear in the amateurs they wont implement in the pros.

here's what i don't want to see in pro boxing:

1) more weight classes and going along with that more catch-weight fights
2) more sanctioning bodies/committees, they should just do their best to unify them all
3) this is actually based on a quote from arum that was mentioned in another thread, but if it came to the point where promotional venues had a explicit contract with only one network, that would be disastrous. with the stalemate between GBP and TR, and HBO/SHOWTIME i could actually see things developing towards this type of situation, which would be a nightmare for the fans as well as the fighters.
4) anything over 10 ounce gloves


This post has been edited by ryustuh: Feb 9 2014, 06:34 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BrutUalBK
post Feb 9 2014, 06:45 PM
Post #3


Junior Welterweight


Group: Members
Posts: 1,092
Joined: 20-June 12
From: UrANUS
Member No.: 13,708



QUOTE (ryustuh @ Feb 9 2014, 05:29 PM) *
dont think you have to worry about this one...at least not for a while. i know in the amateurs, they were talking about removing headgear...this was middle of last year. not sure how that proposal has developed, but it's based on the evidence that headgear doesnt actually help and may actually cause further damage. theory is a bunch of repeated blows that are "muffled" and dont have as much direct impact on the brain are far worse than the 1 or 2 clean shots that can drop or KO a dude. course there's no right or wrong answer when it comes to this...jus saying if they're thinking of taking away headgear in the amateurs they wont implement in the pros.

here's what i don't want to see in pro boxing:

1) more weight classes and going along with that more catch-weight fights
2) more sanctioning bodies/committees, they should just do their best to unify them all
3) this is actually based on a quote from arum that was mentioned in another thread, but if it came to the point where promotional venues had a explicit contract with only one network, that would be disastrous. with the stalemate between GBP and TR, and HBO/SHOWTIME i could actually see things developing towards this type of situation, which would be a nightmare for the fans as well as the fighters.
4) anything over 10 ounce gloves



+1
You took nearly everything said straight out of my mind.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
checkleft
post Feb 9 2014, 07:08 PM
Post #4


Super Middleweight


Group: Members
Posts: 3,256
Joined: 18-August 11
From: Golden State of Mind
Member No.: 13,079



What do you fellas think about Bradleys talk about adding a 5th judge??
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ryustuh
post Feb 9 2014, 07:13 PM
Post #5


Bantamweight


Group: Members
Posts: 303
Joined: 2-January 14
From: redwood city, ca
Member No.: 14,090



QUOTE (checkleft @ Feb 9 2014, 07:08 PM) *
What do you fellas think about Bradleys talk about adding a 5th judge??


to me, it'd be a case of having too many chefs in the kitchen. everyone's got a slightly different perspective on things. more judges would just lead to more controversial decisions in my mind.

This post has been edited by ryustuh: Feb 9 2014, 07:20 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jack 1000
post Feb 9 2014, 07:30 PM
Post #6


The Consultant


Group: Root Admin
Posts: 9,718
Joined: 2-December 02
Member No.: 14



QUOTE (ryustuh @ Feb 9 2014, 06:13 PM) *
to me, it'd be a case of having too many chefs in the kitchen. everyone's got a slightly different perspective on things. more judges would just lead to more controversial decisions in my mind.


+1

When Bradley says a fifth judge, is he counting the referee and the three judges as four officials? Refs have not scored fights in most venues within the USA since the early 80.'s. In some areas of the United Kingdom, for non-title fights, the ref is the sole judge.

Jack
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrchitown
post Feb 9 2014, 08:40 PM
Post #7


Cruiserweight


Group: Members
Posts: 5,749
Joined: 21-July 11
Member No.: 12,858



I don't think anything could deter me away from boxing but if I had to nitpick I'd say more title belts. Something should be done about that. I can fight tomorrow and be the WBC office champion. Its too many belts. At least one belt per sanctioning body if they keep adding belts then I'd go crazy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AZWildCat
post Feb 9 2014, 09:34 PM
Post #8


Welterweight


Group: Members
Posts: 1,593
Joined: 9-December 12
From: Arizona
Member No.: 13,789



Man you guys sum'd up everything already
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gambit808
post Feb 10 2014, 05:19 AM
Post #9


Junior Welterweight


Group: Members
Posts: 1,151
Joined: 19-October 11
From: Brooklyn, New York
Member No.: 13,329



Before I even got to reading the options, based off the title, I thought to myself "headgear in the pro's". All the main sports I love seem to be going into the direction of a "safety first" faze to protect there investment anytime a star or "face" of the brand is dealt with the worst fear blow that effects his stock, game, and livelyhood... or the kind of blow that's able to grab headlines and get the attention of main stream media when they have nothing else to talk about. I get the feeling if the worst possible thing (death in the ring) were to happen to a public/iconic figure in front of live cameras, I have no doubt the thought of adding headgear to deduce risk would most definitely be one of the top topics of conversation. If a guy like Manny Pacquiao, whom before Marquez was the espn "darling", if he were to suddenly die in that ring on that night, I have no doubts being in the society we live in today, the spot light later on into the week would be if headgear should be included into the pro's. Now weather it works out, I doubt it, but if it did, that to me would somewhat compare to how the WWE ended the Attitude era, or football being more protective of CERTAIN QB's than any other player with there rules etc., or basketball being all less physical where a ref can be all in the right of with handing out fouls or Tech. fouls and all the other bs that goes on there. I mean I'd luv to give all the ranting I got into this subject, but this early bird is on the hunt.

Hope I made this somewhat understanding of where I'm trying to go with this.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cshel86
post Feb 10 2014, 03:30 PM
Post #10


"The Meanest Nice Guy"


Group: Moderators
Posts: 13,348
Joined: 11-May 11
From: Wherever Greatness is Bred
Member No.: 12,050



I may be in the minority here, but if all of the HBO (BAD, Championship Boxing) and Showtime (ShoBox, Championship Boxing) were to fight on network television, then that would turn me off from the sport a bit. Mind you, I wouldn't stop watching boxing, I never said that. Lol

I'm not sure what it is about network television, maybe its those damn commercials that throw me off. That's why I like premium TV...no damn commercials. I know that guys would complain about their cable bills and how much premium tv costs...suck it up. I would like to hear both corners after the actions, or possibly Lampley as well as the Showtime crew promoting their network shows and so on, at most.

Nowadays, it's almost standard to have premium channels...even if you don't have all of them. It's almost like having high-speed internet...get more up to speed with how things are now, especially being that it's actually affordable, compared to what it used to be YEARS ago. You don't see people clamoring over dial-up internet packages...high-speed is a bit more affordable...I think.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th August 2014 - 05:00 AM