Changing rules of amateur boxing over the years

Hesketh Vampire · Post by **Hesketh Vampire** » 20 Jul 2005, 15:06

Can anyone enlighten me as to when headguards were introduced into international competition, and what other significant changes have occurred over the past 30 years? I'd be interested to know how the amateurs went from a much closer resemblance to pro boxing to the modern, computer-scored sport.

ABA Boxing · Post by **ABA Boxing** » 20 Jul 2005, 16:57

It was the 1984 Olympic Games in Los Angeles when the compulsory wearing of head guards was introduced.

An electronic scoring machine to make judges' officiating more objective was also introduced in 1992.

Venceremos · Post by **Venceremos** » 20 Jul 2005, 17:51

I have other question:

When was etablished the limit of 34 years old for the amateur level?

Lickszz · Post by **Lickszz** » 21 Jul 2005, 17:52

[quote="ABA Boxing"]It was the 1984 Olympic Games in Los Angeles when the compulsory wearing of head guards was introduced.

An electronic scoring machine to make judges' officiating more objective was also introduced in 1992.[/quote]

Can you confirm. That headguard rule was solely for the Olympics in 1984? When did Mandatory headguards come in for the ABA?

Hesketh Vampire · Post by **Hesketh Vampire** » 21 Jul 2005, 18:00

I sometimes wonder about headguards in the pro ranks, just to keep the problem of cuts at bay, not that it would ever be commercially acceptable to the TV networks. It would have to be a very minimalist headguard that didn't make the fighter "anonymous", and also tight-fitting so the referee didn't have to keep adjusting it.

locoxelbox · Post by **locoxelbox** » 22 Jul 2005, 00:29

Here are some of the most important rule changes in amateur boxing the last 25 years:

1981 Super heavyweight division

1984 Mandatory headgear at the Olympics (I think it became mandatory for all competitions in 1986)
10 oz gloves for the weights from 152 lbs to +201 lbs

1989 Electronic scoring system at all international championships. Boxers must wear red or blue vests.

1994 10 oz gloves for all weights. Women's boxing officially recognized.

1997 Duration of the bouts changes from 3x3 to 5x2

1999 Duration of the bouts changes from 5x2 to 4x2
Jury can stop a bout that is 15 points difference (RSC-O).

2003 Elimination of the 152 lbs division. Now only 11 weights. A bout must be stopped at 20 points inside three rounds. 13 weights for women and cadets.

boxmel · Post by **boxmel** » 22 Jul 2005, 11:22

1994 10 oz gloves for all weights.

I don't know where you got that information, but it is incorrect. 10 oz. gloves are used up through 152 Lbs. Any weight over 152 uses 12 oz. gloves.

2003 Elimination of the 152 lbs division.

Actually, the 139 and 147 Lb. weight divisions were eliminated and replaced with 141 and 152 Lbs.

locoxelbox · Post by **locoxelbox** » 23 Jul 2005, 09:04

boxmel wrote:I don't know where you got that information, but it is incorrect. 10 oz. gloves are used up through 152 Lbs. Any weight over 152 uses 12 oz. gloves.

I don't know how it is in the USA but under AIBA rules all weights use 10 oz gloves, that's 100% sure.

Actually, the 139 and 147 Lb. weight divisions were eliminated and replaced with 141 and 152 Lbs.

Actually the Light Middleweight (156 Lb.) division was eliminated. The Light Welterweight (139 Lb.) was raised to 141 Lb. and the Welterweight (147 Lb.) div was raised to 152 Lb.

boxmel · Post by **boxmel** » 23 Jul 2005, 09:17

Actually, you got me.

walshb · Post by **walshb** » 03 Aug 2005, 14:21

From what I know, 8 oz gloves have not been used for at least 20 yrs and I always wore 10 oz gloves as a Flyweight. Maybe the heavier guys wear 12 oz gloves, but certainly the light guys wear 10 oz and have been for many yrs. Also the two new divisions are 64 kg and 69kg. They used to be 63.5 and 71 respectively. I don't know why they did away with the 5x2 min rds and went a round less??....To be quiet honest, I see the only decent change being the headgear introduction. The computers have ruined amateur boxing to a degree and there have been far more dubious decisions since its introduction. Also, the 3x3 mins should have stayed. I think it demands slightly more of the fighters than the 5x2 or 4x2....Back to the computer scoring. I find it very disheartning for a boxer who has given it his all for 8 mins and has to settle with 5-6 bloody points when it is clear to anyone watching that he has landed a damn sight more. The amount of real close ding dong battles I've seen, and the margins of victories do not tell the proper story....it's disgusting and very sad for a boxer to have to put up with....

boxmel · Post by **boxmel** » 03 Aug 2005, 15:04

Maybe the heavier guys wear 12 oz gloves, but certainly the light guys wear 10 oz and have been for many yrs

No. you're correct. ALL weights wear 10 oz. in international tournaments.

I don't know why they did away with the 5x2 min rds and went a round less??....

The first year the 5/2's were boxed at the World Championships, it too too much time to have all the boxers entered compete. They were running two or three rings, double sessions. AIBA decided that format caused to many logistical problems, let alone adding to the length of the event.

The computers have ruined amateur boxing to a degree and there have been far more dubious decisions since its introduction.

I do disagree with this statement. There have been less dubious decisions, or certainly around the same as when manual scoring was in place. There have NOT been more.

Also, the 3x3 mins should have stayed

They didn't because television was much happier with the 4-2's.

I find it very disheartning for a boxer who has given it his all for 8 mins and has to settle with 5-6 bloody points when it is clear to anyone watching that he has landed a damn sight more.

Please, please remember that what you see as the final score is the ACCEPTED score as determined by the computer - NOT the raw score. Each judge must punch the same button for the same boxer within a 1-second window to have the point accepted. Does this mean that most boxers would rather see how many punches they threw rather than a win or a loss?

We definitely DO NOT want to go back to manual scoring, where a judge can mark whatever he or she wants on their scorecard. With the computer scoring, you can see who's scoring high for any given boxer; our system has a cheating report that can be run. The computer scoring allows for accountability in scoring. Manual scoring does not. Remember the Roy Jones fiasco in 1988 (that forced the computer scoring into being)?
Two juges had it for the Korean and two for Jones. The Hungarian judge was so sure that Jones had won and he "felt sorry" for the home town boxer and "gave" him the bout - that feeling sorry fix made it a 3/2 in favor of the Korean. IOC said to fix the scoring problems or boxing would be out of the Olympics. So, it's here to stay, like it or not.

I do have a couple of tips for boxing with computer scoring - stay in the middle of the ring and move so all judges can see you. Stay out of corners and off ropes - you will lose two, if not three, judges who can't see you - if the judge can't see a legal punch thrown, he doesn't push the button.

Lickszz · Post by **Lickszz** » 04 Aug 2005, 15:34

Computer scoring has changed the game for the worse.

Boxers don't get credit for inside work or body punches. I'd rather go back to manual scoring.

boxmel · Post by **boxmel** » 04 Aug 2005, 17:07

Credit has never been given for "inside work" unless the punches can be seen clearly by the judges. Remember, amateur judges don't score a legal effective blow unless they can see it. And we'll just have to agree to disagree on whether or not body punches are scored. Yes, they are, if seen. That's one of the reasons to stay in the middle of the ring. You can dream about going back to manual scoring, but it will never happen.

Lickszz · Post by **Lickszz** » 05 Aug 2005, 05:53

Many times with the computer scoring I've seen fighters whom I know have won the round still trailing on the computer score. That's not accurate. The computer score has ruined the game IMO. In a game of styles you now have a system tailored for the stand up boxer with the straight shots. Very boring.

boxmel · Post by **boxmel** » 05 Aug 2005, 09:18

Maybe you should become a judge, since you appear to know a great deal about who won a round and who didn't. Remember, 3 to 5 judges have different points of view - they don't always see the same punches thrown. If you watched the 2004 Olympics, you will note that due to AIBA's policy of calling very few fouls, there was more wrestling and grappling than actual stand-up boxing. I prefer the stand-up style. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I also prefer accountability in judges which you don't have with manual scoring.

locoxelbox · Post by **locoxelbox** » 05 Aug 2005, 10:38

Lickszz wrote:In a game of styles you now have a system tailored for the stand up boxer with the straight shots. Very boring.

You don't need any special style, you only have to land more clean blows than your opponent. That's the only thing the computer will register. That's why it's better than manual scoring system.

boxmel · Post by **boxmel** » 05 Aug 2005, 11:10

Thanks, Locoxelbox - excellent explanation.

Lickszz · Post by **Lickszz** » 05 Aug 2005, 20:20

[quote="locoxelbox"][quote="Lickszz"]In a game of styles you now have a system tailored for the stand up boxer with the straight shots. Very boring.[/quote]
You don't need any special style, you only have to land more clean blows than your opponent. That's the only thing the computer will register. That's why it's better than manual scoring system.[/quote]

Not true. The straigher shots are the shots that get picked up by the computer scoring. Why else do you think all boxers box the same these days looking for the straight shots? As widely mentioned, fencing with gloves. Boxes who would have had success in the past simply don't get a look in with this scoring system and don't make national squads because of it. And the sport has moved even further from the pro game.

Lickszz · Post by **Lickszz** » 05 Aug 2005, 20:21

[quote="boxmel"]Maybe you should become a judge, since you appear to know a great deal about who won a round and who didn't. Remember, 3 to 5 judges have different points of view - they don't always see the same punches thrown. If you watched the 2004 Olympics, you will note that due to AIBA's policy of calling very few fouls, there was more wrestling and grappling than actual stand-up boxing. I prefer the stand-up style. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I also prefer accountability in judges which you don't have with manual scoring.[/quote]

Wrestling and grapping is part of the game, this in the old day suited the smaller boxer who depended on inside work which they do not get credit for with this new system.

boxmel · Post by **boxmel** » 05 Aug 2005, 22:24

If wrestling and grappling were part of the game. why did all the Eastern European, and Cuban, boxers have the stand-up, straight punch style for years? This was even before the computer. Wrestling and grappling became a part of the game during the 2004 Olympics - and, in my humble opinion, it sucks.

Inside work probably doesn't get counted on the computer scoring system as much because inside work is not easy to see by judges. Judges only count the punches they clearly see. If you have one, or both, boxers flurrying on the inside, seeing any cleanly thrown legal punches is almost impossible. "Shoe shining" doesn't get a boxer any points, either.

Not quite sure what you mean by "the smaller boxer." Smaller boxers can be just as effective as larger boxers by working the body, as well as the head.

Just out of curiosity - are you a boxer? How much boxing have you seen with computer scoring (not just the Olympics every 4 years)?

locoxelbox · Post by **locoxelbox** » 06 Aug 2005, 02:03

Lickszz wrote:Not true. The straigher shots are the shots that get picked up by the computer scoring. Why else do you think all boxers box the same these days looking for the straight shots? As widely mentioned, fencing with gloves. Boxes who would have had success in the past simply don't get a look in with this scoring system and don't make national squads because of it. And the sport has moved even further from the pro game.

In what way do you mean the style of Mario Kindelan is the same as the style of Alexander Povetkin? There is not only one style in amateur boxing. Straight shots are very effective as you don't have to get close to score.
In my country most people said Omar Narvaez, a two-time olympian, had had too many amateur bouts to ever succeed as a pro. It took Narvaez 1,5 years and 11 bouts to become WBO world champion. I know the WBO belt isn't highly regarded in the US but I think you can get my point. Narvaez conqueror at the Sydney Olympics, ukrainian Wladimir Sidorenko had some 300 amateur bouts and won the WBA bantamweight champion after only 17 pro fights. If you're a good boxer you'll adapt to both systems.

Lickszz · Post by **Lickszz** » 08 Aug 2005, 08:47

[quote="boxmel"]If wrestling and grappling were part of the game. why did all the Eastern European, and Cuban, boxers have the stand-up, straight punch style for years? This was even before the computer. Wrestling and grappling became a part of the game during the 2004 Olympics - and, in my humble opinion, it sucks.

Inside work probably doesn't get counted on the computer scoring system as much because inside work is not easy to see by judges. Judges only count the punches they clearly see. If you have one, or both, boxers flurrying on the inside, seeing any cleanly thrown legal punches is almost impossible. "Shoe shining" doesn't get a boxer any points, either.

Not quite sure what you mean by "the smaller boxer." Smaller boxers can be just as effective as larger boxers by working the body, as well as the head.

Just out of curiosity - are you a boxer? How much boxing have you seen with computer scoring (not just the Olympics every 4 years)?[/quote]

We have seen that body work doesn't get the credit that head punches do. It's very evident with the computre scoring you see blows landed and no score given. This happens in each and every round of every bout. It the score is close then obviously it is flawed system as the wrong person could get the verdict.

There was nothing wrong with the previous system except the corrupt fuckers needed to be outed, but that's same with most sports. Scoring round by round is much fairer system. Can you image computer scoring in the pros.

Lickszz · Post by **Lickszz** » 08 Aug 2005, 08:50

[quote="locoxelbox"][quote="Lickszz"]Not true. The straigher shots are the shots that get picked up by the computer scoring. Why else do you think all boxers box the same these days looking for the straight shots? As widely mentioned, fencing with gloves. Boxes who would have had success in the past simply don't get a look in with this scoring system and don't make national squads because of it. And the sport has moved even further from the pro game.[/quote]
In what way do you mean the style of Mario Kindelan is the same as the style of Alexander Povetkin? There is not only one style in amateur boxing. Straight shots are very effective as you don't have to get close to score.
In my country most people said Omar Narvaez, a two-time olympian, had had too many amateur bouts to ever succeed as a pro. It took Narvaez 1,5 years and 11 bouts to become WBO world champion. I know the WBO belt isn't highly regarded in the US but I think you can get my point. Narvaez conqueror at the Sydney Olympics, ukrainian Wladimir Sidorenko had some 300 amateur bouts and won the WBA bantamweight champion after only 17 pro fights. If you're a good boxer you'll adapt to both systems.[/quote]

Eastern Europeans have always had that same style. Not many of them manage to do well in the pros after having much success in the amateurs compared to americans who don't fully adopt the amateur upright style.

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 08 Aug 2005, 11:37

I agree with Lickzz on a few points, but I like the computer scoring better. With the round system, it is more easily corrupted by outside figures. With computer scoring it is almost impossible to be corrupt or biased and have it figure into the scoring when two other judges must press too.

But also with the round system, a boxer can just squeak by the first 3 rounds but get dominated in the next round and still win comfortably. The computer scoring allows for more comebacks by a continuing tally that keeps boxers on there toes for every round.

Lickszz · Post by **Lickszz** » 09 Aug 2005, 07:23

There has been all kinds of controversy with this computer scoring. Like judges pressing the wrong button and for instance if a boxer throws a 5 punch combination only 2 of them might register because the button can't be pressed in sequence.

And what about this outclassed rule. What is it 20 points? If a fight is getting too one sided it's the referees job to step in and stop the action. It may be unlikely, but a boxer can always score the equaliser at any time. So it doesn't really matter what the score is until the final bell.