USA Boxing rule changes

[Slythex]

I'm a bit surprised we haven't seen much commentary regarding the upcoming rule changes at USA Boxing (and probably world wide through AIBA). Given the recent Neutral Corner and Dr. Butler email releases, I figured there'd be much discussion and well, complaining :-)

First, the Neutral Corner:
https://webpoint.usaboxing.org/wp15/Ema ... ppx__qppty
(and can I add, the USAB web site layout is a mess, although I think that's just because we use the generic USOC template...)

To summarize the changes:
a- age range changes
b- no headgear for international elite boxers
b(1)- maybe no headgear for USAB nationals for elite boxers
c- 10 point must system (of which we know nothing specific)

As far as the age thing, I have no real thoughts, other than should be interesting to see what formerly master boxers wind up doing this year. We have a small but active cadre of late 30 somethings with regular bouts. I don't think any of them particularly want to compete at the elite level against the younger guys.

My main question is, in what form will the 10-point must scoring system be instituted. Will it be strictly 'pro style' or some other variant where they have 5 judges but randomly drop 2 with some computerized system. despite recently having made my pro judging debut, this makes me nervous from an amateur perspective. Or will it hearken back to something similar to the before-my-time 20 point must where counted blows dictated the winner of the round?

Also, despite being one of the ESS folks, I'm not really in favor of a computerized 10-point must. Seems like unnecessary work and overhead for something that is simple enough to do manually.

Thoughts?

[scallum]

Imo the age things is unfair, there are some kids who have already spent the most of thier lives training for 2016 Olympics and now they will miss out by not being 19 in 2016. I.was at my first Aiba tournament at Usa Worlds in Reno, At least I believe it was run by Aiba. This tournament was run with extreme professionalism and I was really impressed. There does seem to be a real desire for team Usa boxing to become among the best again. The headgear thing is debatable imo, it will be hard for folks to fight Elite fighters at Major tournaments 3-4 times in.a week with no headgear, there will be much more accumulated damage to fighters .

[JMac]

The email to the membership just went out today so complaints or compliments will start to increase, maybe...maybe not on this forum but on the local level.
I just sent a reply to Dr Butler asking if the Youth boxers can compete with the Elite boxers as it was somewhat confusing to me as well. As for the no headgear rule, the powers to be are producing some stats and studies that it is the opposite of what some people think regarding how safe a headgear really is. No doubt it helps eliminate cuts and we will probably see some more bruising over the course of a tournament. Remember, headgear have only been mandatory for the past 29 years. Boxing has been going on for well over 100 years. The last Olympics that did not have any boycotts and no headgear was the Montreal Olympics in 1976. USA won 5 gold medals and a boxer by the name of "Sugar" Ray Leonard became a superstar. There was a huge number of kids who signed up to box in the local gyms in the US after '76. Boxing got a lot of press back then and I would bet that AIBA is looking to bring those days back as well as prep for their APB and the takeover of pro boxing.

[Slythex]

I would bet that AIBA is looking to bring those days back as well as prep for their APB

Sort of my take on this as well.

As for...

the takeover of pro boxing.

Somehow, despite their hopes and dreams, I don't see this happening in a million years.

[scallum]

The email to the membership just went out today so complaints or compliments will start to increase, maybe...maybe not on this forum but on the local level.
I just sent a reply to Dr Butler asking if the Youth boxers can compete with the Elite boxers as it was somewhat confusing to me as well. As for the no headgear rule, the powers to be are producing some stats and studies that it is the opposite of what some people think regarding how safe a headgear really is. No doubt it helps eliminate cuts and we will probably see some more bruising over the course of a tournament. Remember, headgear have only been mandatory for the past 29 years. Boxing has been going on for well over 100 years. The last Olympics that did not have any boycotts and no headgear was the Montreal Olympics in 1976. USA won 5 gold medals and a boxer by the name of "Sugar" Ray Leonard became a superstar. There was a huge number of kids who signed up to box in the local gyms in the US after '76. Boxing got a lot of press back then and I would bet that AIBA is looking to bring those days back as well as prep for their APB and the takeover of pro boxing.

Just goes to show my limited knowledge, I had assumed headgear was Mandatory from way back in.the days . Maybe the no headgear will make the sport more exciting n fan friendly

[JMac]

The email to the membership just went out today so complaints or compliments will start to increase, maybe...maybe not on this forum but on the local level.
I just sent a reply to Dr Butler asking if the Youth boxers can compete with the Elite boxers as it was somewhat confusing to me as well. As for the no headgear rule, the powers to be are producing some stats and studies that it is the opposite of what some people think regarding how safe a headgear really is. No doubt it helps eliminate cuts and we will probably see some more bruising over the course of a tournament. Remember, headgear have only been mandatory for the past 29 years. Boxing has been going on for well over 100 years. The last Olympics that did not have any boycotts and no headgear was the Montreal Olympics in 1976. USA won 5 gold medals and a boxer by the name of "Sugar" Ray Leonard became a superstar. There was a huge number of kids who signed up to box in the local gyms in the US after '76. Boxing got a lot of press back then and I would bet that AIBA is looking to bring those days back as well as prep for their APB and the takeover of pro boxing.

Just goes to show my limited knowledge, I had assumed headgear was Mandatory from way back in.the days . Maybe the no headgear will make the sport more exciting n fan friendly

The LA Olympics in '84 was the 1st Olympics that they wore headgear. The US got 9 gold medals but Cuba and all of the Soviet countries boycotted to retaliate that the US and many allies boycotted the Moscow Olympics in 1980 because of Russia's invasion into Afghanistan. Funny how it is now the US in Afghanistan, obviously for different reasons.
I think you are right that AIBA is looking to get the fans back by getting rid of the computer scoring which made amateur boxing really lose fans but the headgear also has changed it when you can't see their face. Same thing happened in pro hockey when they made helmets mandatory. It took something away from the game when you could see their hair flying and missing teeth

[boxmel]

I.was at my first Aiba tournament at Usa Worlds in Reno, At least I believe it was run by Aiba.

Tournament was run by USA Boxing and USA AIBA officials officiated.

[scallum]

I.was at my first Aiba tournament at Usa Worlds in Reno, At least I believe it was run by Aiba.

Tournament was run by USA Boxing and USA AIBA officials officiated.

Boxmel were you there?

[boxmel]

Boxmel were you there?

Nope. I'm not an AIBA official. 8)

Just saw my update from Dr. Butler. Seems as if, due to popular vote, there will be two divisions at the U.S. Championships this year: one for 19-40 WITH headgear and one for 19-40 WITHOUT headgear. In my opinion, that's a waste of money and resources. What's the point of competing in a "tournament" where you won't advance to international competition because you don't want to wear headgear? And where is USAB going to get the money to fund this? I'm not a proponent of the 10-point must system but I did judge with the 20-point must system back in the "old days."

[ezb16124]

HI all I'm newbie to the board but I enjoy the sport of boxing. I am a little disappointed to hear there will be two national tournaments now. Is there anyone who agrees with this approach that could shed some light on how this would make the program better? Seems this will weaken the program instead of strengthening it because your pool of atheletes are now split between two different tournaments. If i'm a great boxer, but I am a little nervous about fighting without headgear (even though I probably don't need it), whats the incentive to fight in the elite tournament if I can win the headgear national tournament? I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with fighters who win the headgear national tournaments but who are better than the no headgear national champions.

An approach I sent to USA Boxing would start with each boxer wearing headgear during the preliminary qualifying rounds of all national tournaments. As the tournament progresses to say the quarter final rounds or even semifinal rounds, head gear would not be used at that time up through the championship round where the winner is declared. Winners would then get more training as they prepare to compete internationally. I believe this approach would make the transition to this new rule easier, while still allowing most of our amateur fighters who compete in national tournaments but never compete on international level to still have the headgear during competition.

[T Duquette]

Why not have all of the boxers where headgear straight through the national championships and then take them off when they need to at international tournaments. That way we are allowing a much smaller window for the fighters to get cut and develop scar tissue. This also makes AIBA the ultimate bad guy because it would be them forcing our boxers to remove the headgear.

[ezb16124]

Why not have all of the boxers where headgear straight through the national championships and then take them off when they need to at international tournaments. That way we are allowing a much smaller window for the fighters to get cut and develop scar tissue. This also makes AIBA the ultimate bad guy because it would be them forcing our boxers to remove the headgear.

From my limited understanding, I believe some national competitions have to follow AIBA rules in order for our atheletes to qualify to compete internationally. For these tournaments, if the entire competion has to be done without headgear, seems another alternative approach could have been to just split the tournament into two pieces. The prelim (headgear) rounds would not technically be "tournament" rounds. They would be tournament qualifiers. Quarterfinals through championship rounds would be classified as the "actual" national tournament (no headgear) which should satisfy AIBA requirement while still allowing headgear to be used in majority of the bouts.

[Tarquin Tarpaulin IV]

The email to the membership just went out today so complaints or compliments will start to increase, maybe...maybe not on this forum but on the local level.
I just sent a reply to Dr Butler asking if the Youth boxers can compete with the Elite boxers as it was somewhat confusing to me as well. As for the no headgear rule, the powers to be are producing some stats and studies that it is the opposite of what some people think regarding how safe a headgear really is. No doubt it helps eliminate cuts and we will probably see some more bruising over the course of a tournament. Remember, headgear have only been mandatory for the past 29 years. Boxing has been going on for well over 100 years. The last Olympics that did not have any boycotts and no headgear was the Montreal Olympics in 1976. USA won 5 gold medals and a boxer by the name of "Sugar" Ray Leonard became a superstar. There was a huge number of kids who signed up to box in the local gyms in the US after '76. Boxing got a lot of press back then and I would bet that AIBA is looking to bring those days back as well as prep for their APB and the takeover of pro boxing.

It's difficult to build a case against headgear when everybody uses it in sparring where they'll do many more rounds than they'll compete in the course of a career!

[T Duquette]

The email to the membership just went out today so complaints or compliments will start to increase, maybe...maybe not on this forum but on the local level.
I just sent a reply to Dr Butler asking if the Youth boxers can compete with the Elite boxers as it was somewhat confusing to me as well. As for the no headgear rule, the powers to be are producing some stats and studies that it is the opposite of what some people think regarding how safe a headgear really is. No doubt it helps eliminate cuts and we will probably see some more bruising over the course of a tournament. Remember, headgear have only been mandatory for the past 29 years. Boxing has been going on for well over 100 years. The last Olympics that did not have any boycotts and no headgear was the Montreal Olympics in 1976. USA won 5 gold medals and a boxer by the name of "Sugar" Ray Leonard became a superstar. There was a huge number of kids who signed up to box in the local gyms in the US after '76. Boxing got a lot of press back then and I would bet that AIBA is looking to bring those days back as well as prep for their APB and the takeover of pro boxing.

It's difficult to build a case against headgear when everybody uses it in sparring where they'll do many more rounds than they'll compete in the course of a career!

Its difficult to build a case against headgear by using one obscure "study" that was funded by AIBA and hasnt even been published yet from my understanding. With the creation of APB and the monetization of amateur boxing, its pretty clear that AIBA has all the incentive in the world to make the sport more marketable. I know Dr Butler personally and he has always treated me with respect, but I am very against this!

[Tarquin Tarpaulin IV]

I am told that headgear in domestic tournaments will no longer have to bare the AIBA stamp...

[hbomb2]

Amateur boxing in the last 59 years. Impact
of rules changes on the type of verdicts
recorded and implications on boxers’ health
Massimiliano Bianco,1 Mike Loosemore,2 Gianlorenzo Daniele,1 Vincenzo Palmieri,1
Marcello Faina,3 Paolo Zeppilli1
1Sports Medicine Unit, Internal
Medicine and Geriatrics
Institute, Catholic University of
Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
2University College London
Institute for Sport, Exercise &
Health, London, UK
3Institute of Sports Medicine
and Science, Italian Olympic
Committee, Rome, Italy
Correspondence to
Dr Bianco Massimiliano,
Sports Medicine Unit, Internal
Medicine and Geriatrics
Institute, Catholic University of
Sacred Heart, Largo Agostino
Gemelli, 8,Rome 00168, Italy;
massimiliano.bianco@
fastwebnet.it
Received 12 September 2012
Revised 28 November 2012
Accepted 18 December 2012
To cite: Bianco M,
Loosemore M, Daniele G,
et al. Br J Sports Med
Published Online First:
[please include Day Month
Year] doi:10.1136/bjsports-
2012-091771
ABSTRACT
Background/aim Several changes have occurred in
Olympic boxing (OB) in the last few decades, influencing
the results in official competitions. The aim of this study
was to assess how the evolution of rules changed the
rate of the results that can influence boxers’ health.
Methods From a web-research, the results of OB
tournaments from 1952 to 2011 were reviewed (29 357
bouts). For each event, rate of knockout (KO), refereestop
contest (RSC), RSC-Head (RSCH), RSC-Injury (RSCI),
RSC-Outclassed (RSCO), abandon, disqualification and
points decisions were recorded. In our analysis we
investigated the changes that occurred after the
introduction of the standing-count rule (1964),
mandatory head guard (1984), computerised scoring
system (1992), RSCO (2000–2009) and modification
of bout formula 3×3 min rounds (3×3, until 1997,
5×2 min rounds (5×2) until 1999, 4×2 min rounds
(4×2) until 2008, 3×3 from 2009).
Results The most important results were: (1) an RSCI
rate increase (0.72–2.42%, p<0.03) after the standingcount
rule; (2) a lower RSCI (0.60%, p<0.001) and
higher RSCH (1.31–4.92%, p<0.001) and RSC (9.71–
13.05%, p<0.03) rate with mandatory head guard; (3)
a KO rate reduction (6.44–2.09%, p<0.001) with the
computerised scoring system; (4) an RSC (13.15–5.91%,
p<0.05) and RSCH (4.23–1.41%, p<0.001) rate
reduction comparing 5×2–4×2 bouts.

Conclusions In the last six decades, along with rule
changes in OB, a clear reduction of health challenging
results was observed. In the near future, older rules will
be adopted (no head guard and a manual scoring
system). Continued medical surveillance is important to
ensure that new rule changes do not result in poor
medical outcomes for the boxers.

INTRODUCTION
Boxing is an ancient sport; wall paintings from
Ethiopia and ancient Egypt suggest that it is well
over 4000 years old. Boxing was first introduced
into the ancient Olympic Games in 688 BC.1
Boxing as we know it today developed in England
in the 18th and 19th centuries. In 1814, to regulate
the sport, the London prize fight rules were introduced
and, in 1867, the Queensbury rules were
first published. The first amateur contests took
place in 1860 and the amateur boxing Association
started in London in 1880.2 Since this time the two
codes have diverged: professional boxing (based in
the tradition of prize fighting) has several sanctioning
bodies which make the rules and a multitude of
champions and belts, while amateur boxing is
regulated only by the Amateur International Boxing
Association (AIBA), an International Federation
within the International Olympic Committee
(IOC). The IOC has sanctioned contests at
Olympic Games since 1904 (St Louis). In the last
century, several changes occurred in amateur
boxing not only to increase the safety of the
boxers, but also to meet audience and media expectations.
The most important rule changes in the last
few decades are shown in figure 1.
Although international amateur boxing is a wellregulated
sport practised in many countries worldwide,
there are still concerns about safety and some
medical organisations call for a ban on boxing.3–6
However, at this time there is no strong scientific
evidence that amateur boxing is associated with
serious health consequences and, in particular, with
chronic traumatic brain injury.7 8 As a result,
amateur boxing has been defined as a safe sport.9
A surrogate measure of the acute consequences
of boxing can be made from looking at the results
of boxing contests, particularly those which were
stopped before the scheduled rounds had been
completed. A knockout (KO) is recorded if a boxer
cannot continue within 10 s of a blow from an
opponent. If the referee decides that the boxer is
unable to defend himself adequately and is getting
or may get injured, then a referee-stop contest
(RSC) decision is taken. Where this occurs from a
blow to the head, then a RSC head (RSCH) decision
is recorded. If an injury occurs to a boxer (ie,
a dangerous cut, a fracture, a dislocation, etc) then,
together with the ringside doctor, the referee can
stop the contest and the recorded decision is RSC
injury (RSCI). Finally, from 2000 to 2009 the RSC
outclassed (RSCO) decision was recorded when the
points’ gap between the two contenders was 20
points, suggesting that one athlete was outclassing
the opponent.
The aim of this study was to assess how the evolution
of rules in modern Olympic boxing has
influenced, and continues to influence, the prevalence
of one result over another paying particular
attention to decisions that can influence boxers’
safety and health. To test this hypothesis the results
of official amateur boxing tournaments held in the
last 59 years were reviewed.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
From a worldwide web search10–12 the results of
official amateur boxing tournaments held from
January 1952 to December 2011 (59 years) were
reviewed. These tournaments included 15 Olympic
Bianco M, et al. Br J Sports Med 2013;0:1–6. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2012-091771 1
Original article
Downloaded from bjsm.bmj.com on January 14, 2013 - Published by group.bmj.com
Games, 14 World Championships, 89 Continental
Championships, 52 International Tournaments (including
Olympic qualifications, World Cups, Military World
Championships, Commonwealth Games, Mediterranean Games,
Pan-American Games) and 99 National Championships for a
total of 269 tournaments. Only when complete results were
present (198 tournaments), the event was included for further
analysis. For each competition, we collected the rate of KO,
RSC, RSCH, RSCI, RSCO (RSCO, from 2000 to 2009), contest
abandoned, disqualification and points decisions. Until 1970 the
technical KO decision was adopted in the same circumstances as
RSC verdicts, in view of this technical KO was included with
RSC for statistical analysis.
Our analysis mainly investigated changes which occurred in
the rate of the RSC, RSCH, KO, decisions that can affect the
boxers’ health. In particular we analysed changes that occurred
after the introduction of the standing count rule (1964), mandatory
head guards (1984), computer scoring system (1992),
RSCO verdict (2000) and modification of bout length formula
(3×3 until 1997, 5×2 from 1997 to 1999, 4×2 from 2000 to
2008 and 3×3 from 2009). Figure 1 summarises major rule
changes that occurred in the analysed time period.
To understand how the different rules could have modified
the kind of results, we classified the competitions into segments
of time depending on the number and length of rounds plus
major rule changes, as follows:
A. 1952–1963, just before the introduction of the standing
count (3×3 old-old);
B. 1964–1984, immediately before Los Angeles Olympics
(3×3 old);
C. 1984 Olympics (when head guards became mandatory) to
1997 (3×3 head guard). This group was divided into two
subgroups (3×3 head guard no score-machine and 3×3
head guard score-machine) after the introduction of the
computerised scoring system in 1992;
D. the sum of the previous three groups, including all the
bouts competed with the old-time 3×3 formula (3×3
total old);
E. 1997–1999, when the 5×2 formula was adopted (5×2);
F. 1999–2009 (4×2), dividing this group in two subgroups
(4×2 no RSCO and 4×2 RSCO) following the introduction
of RSCO verdict in 2000;
G. 2009–2011, coming back to the old 3×3 formula and
RSCO verdict abolition (3×3 new).
Statistical analysis
All data are expressed as mean value±SD unless indicated. The
95% CIs, moreover, are shown. Statsoft Statistica V.6.0 was used
for the analysis. All data showed a normal distribution, estimated
by Shapiro-Wilk’s test. An analysis of variance was conducted
and, when a significant difference was observed, a
Student’s t test for unpaired data (comparing two groups) or
post hoc analysis for multiple comparison (more than two
groups), was used. Differences were considered statistically significant
when p!0.05.
To analyse how the introduction of the standing count rule in
1964 could have influenced the kind of decisions, 3×3 old-old
contests (ie, from 1952 to 1963) were compared with 3×3 old
bouts (ie, from 1964 to 1984). No further comparisons were
drawn, as other newer rules could have effect on the rate of different
decisions.
When investigating how the mandatory head guard influenced
the contest, 3×3 old-old and 3×3 old bouts (separately and
taken together) were compared with the 3×3 head guard group
(ie, from 1984 to 1997).
The introduction of the computerised scoring system was
investigated comparing the subgroup 3×3 head guard no scoremachine,
with 3×3 head guard score-machine inside the bigger
group 3×3 head guard.
To analyse the impact of RSCO on the kind of verdicts, the
4×2 RSCO group was compared with 4×2 no RSCO, 3×3
head guard and 3×3 new groups.
In order to evaluate how the different length bout formulas
changed the kind of decisions over the time, all the subgroups
(3×3 old-old, 3×3 old, 3×3 head guard, 3×3 head guard no
score-machine, 3×3 head guard score-machine, 3×3 total old,
5×2, 4×2, 4×2 no RSCO, 4×2 RSCO and 3×3 new) were
compared with the others.
RESULTS
From January 1952 to December 2011, we collected data from
269 events, complete results were available for 198 (73.6%)
competitions, and this produced a total of 29357 bouts which
were the object of our analysis.
Standing count rule (1964)
After the introduction of the standing count rule, we observed a
significant (p<0.03) increase of RSCI verdict rate, from

[hbomb2]

2.42±2.51% (CIs 1.42% to 2.88%) in 3×3 old contests. In the
following years, also after the introduction of other rules, the
RSCI rate was lower: 0.60±0.98% in 3×3 head guard (CIs
0.17% to 1.17%), 1.17±1.88% in 5×2 (CIs 0.04% to 2.31%),
0.95±1.35% in 4×2 no RSCO (CIs 0.38% to 1.88%), 1.33
±1.70% in 4×2 RSCO (CIs 0.93% to 1.76%) and 1.45±1.12
in 3×3 new (CIs 0.98% to 1.94%).
Mandatory head guard (1984)
After the introduction of mandatory head guard, there was a
significant reduction of RSCI (from 2.04±2.35% in 3×3
old-old+3×3 old, CIs 1.26% to 2.47%, to 0.60±0.98% in
3×3 head guard, CIs 0.17% to 1.17%, p<0.001) and KO
(from 6.31±5.65% in 3×3 old-old+3×3 old, CIs 5.45% to
8.41%, to 3.78±3.99% in 3×3 head guard, CIs 2.23 to 4.71%,
p<0.03) rates, balanced, however, by a higher rate of RSCH
(from 1.31±4.05% in 3×3 old-old+3×3 old, CIs 0.19% to
2.06%, to 4.92±5.31% in 3×3 head guard, CIs 1.39% to
4.57%, p<0.001) and RSC (from 9.71±5.72% in 3×3 old-old
+3×3 old, CIs 8.98% to 12.66%, to 13.05±7.77% in 3×3,
CIs 9.01 to 15.39%, p<0.03). Taking together these results, a
significant (p<0.04) increase in the rate of contests ended
before the time limit (as the sum of RSC, RSCH and KO rates)
was observed, rising from 17.33±8.34% in 3×3 old-old+3×3
old (CIs 16.40% to 21.34%) to 21.75±10.70% in 3×3 head
guard (CIs 14.69% to 22.62%). A similar result was observed
when comparing the 3×3 old-old (global rate of RSC, RSCH
and KO of 14.61±4.71%, CIs 12.06% to 18.26%) to 3×3
head guard group (p<0.04), but no difference was observed
between 3×3 old (18.11±9.03%, CIs 16.81% to 22.71%) and
3×3 head guard group. However, the difference in the rate of
contests ended before time limit between 3×3 old-old and 3×3
old was not significant.
Computerised scoring system (score-machine, 1992)
Following some scandals in point decisions, in 1992 the computer
scoring system was adopted. In the group 3×3 head
guard, after the introduction of the score-machines’ system,
there was a significant (p<0.001) reduction of KO rate changing
from 6.44±4.67 (CIs 4.30% to 7.55%) to 2.09±2.33% (CIs
1.13% to 4.24%). No changes were observed in all the other
decisions.
RSCO verdict (2000)
From 2000 to 2009, a mean rate of 15.49±11.21% (CIs
12.13% to 17.60%) of contests ended by the new RSCO rule.
Consequently, comparing 4×2 no RSCO with 4×2 RSCO
groups, the rate of bouts ended by points decreased (p<0.0001)
from 82.56±8.73% (CIs 78.51% to 85.81%) to 69.86
±12.29% (CIs 67.13% to 72.94%). All other differences met
after the introduction of RSCO are summarised in table 1.
Noteworthy are the significant reduction of RSC, RSCH, KO
and their sum with the new rule. Moreover, no significant
change in the rate of contests ended before time limit was
observed in comparison with the 3×3 new formula.
Bout length formula
Comparing the 3×3 total old group (ie, from 1952 to 1997)
with the new 5×2 formula, a significant (p<0.03) reduction of
KO rate (from 5.33±5.19%, CIs 4.23% to 6.19% to 1.58
±1.48%, CIs 0.65% to 2.44%) was observed, with no significant
changes in all the other decisions’ rate.
From the comparison of 5×2 and the total 4×2 group
(including both 4×2 RSCO and 4×2 no RSCO), a significant
rate reduction was observed with the new 4×2 formula for RSC
and RSCH decisions, as well as for the sum of RSC, RSCH and
KO rates (table 1). All these differences remained significant
(p<0.05) when splitting the 4×2 group in the subgroups 4×2
no RSCO and 4×2 RSCO (table 1). Comparing these two subgroups
to each other, no changes were observed except for the
expected difference in the rate of point verdicts and this can be
partly explained by the rate of the new RSCO verdict.
Comparing the 3×3 new group to the global 4×2, no
changes were observed, points decisions’ rate apart; similar
results were observed comparing 3×3 new with 4×2 RSCO
groups (table 1). From the comparison of 5×2 group with 3×3
new, instead, a significant rate reduction in RSC, RSCH, KO
and their sum was observed with the comeback to the 3×3
formula (table 1).
Finally, a comparison of the new formula 3×3 new with all
the previous groups with the same bout length is summarised in
table 2.
DISCUSSION
Boxing is an ancient sport, with a worldwide following. At the
last Olympic Games (London 2012), boxing was represented by
79 countries with a total of 286 athletes (36 of whom were
Table 1 Comparison of 4×2 formulas (with and without the introduction of outclassed decision) with the formulas adopted in the years
immediately before and after
3×3 head guard
(1984–1997)
5×2
(1997–1999)
4×2 no RSCO
(2000)
4×2 RSCO
(2001–2009)
4×2
(2000–2009)
3×3 new
(2009–2011)
RSCO (%) – – – 15.49±11.21 10.51±11.79 –
RSCI (%) 0.72±0.84 1.17±1.88 1.13±1.97 1.35±1.72 1.28±1.79 1.45±1.21
RSCH (%) 4.92±5.31* 4.23±4.92*,**,† 0.88±1.62*** 1.27±2.05*** 1.41±1.62*** 0.91±1.19***
RSC (%) 13.05±7.77* 13.15±7.67*,**,† 8.42±8.85*** 5.29±6.01*** 5.91±6.38*** 6.29±4.47***
KO (%) 3.78±3.99* 1.58±1.48† 0.89±1.44 0.97±1.35 0.94±1.37 0.70±0.89***
Points (%) 78.76±6.77 74.05±9.70**,† 82.56±8.73*,*** 69.86±12.29† 73.59±12.71† 84.92±5.84*
RSCH+RSC+KO (%) 21.75±10.70* 18.92±9.69*,**,† 10.19±10.01*** 7.53±6.34*** 8.27±6.90*** 7.89±4.76***
*p<0.05 in comparison with 4×2 RSCO.
**p<0.05 in comparison with 4×2 no RSCO.
***p<0.05 in comparison with 5×2.
†In comparison with 3×3 new.
KO, knockout; RSC, referee stops contest for any other reason he/she believes opportune (hard blow to the body, lack of stamina, etc); RSCH, RSC due to heavy head blow(s); RSCI, RSC
due to injury; RSCO, RSC due to outclassed.
Bianco M,

[hbomb2]

women, competing for the first time at the Olympics)13 and
194 national federations (of 205 recognised National Olympic
Committees) are currently affiliated to AIBA.14
The medical community expresses several concerns about
boxing. Independent from the ethical considerations of boxing,
is boxing unacceptably harmful for athletes? Since the first
decades of the last century, some reports highlighted the risk of
traumatic brain injury in former boxers, appearing both as cognitive
impairment and parkinsonism.15–18 However, all these
reports referred to single cases or to very few athletes competing
many years ago (in the late 19th or the first decades of 20th
century), when there were fewer safeguarding rules.
At the beginning of the last century, each boxing match could
last dozens of rounds (until the bout was abandoned or the KO
of one competitor). At this time, boxers fought with bare
knuckles or with very light gloves (2–6 ounces, that is 56.70–
170.10 g instead of 10 ounce gloves, that is 283.50 g currently
used), without a gum-shield and with no kind of medical check.
Most of these reports refer to former professional boxers, many
of whom had hundreds of contests.
When medical literature has been systematically reviewed, no
strong evidence clearly linking amateur boxing with chronic
traumatic brain injury was found.7 8 The AIBA has been very
mindful of boxers’ health and through several rules’ changes
introduced over the last six decades, boxing has become safer.
In the London 2012 Olympics, of 272 boxing matches, there
was no KO, RSCH and RSCI decision, with only four bouts
ended by RSC (1.5%).
At the beginning of our analysis (Helsinki Olympic Games in
1952) amateur boxers used to compete in three rounds of 3 min
each, without any head guards and less emphasis on safety, such
as the standing count rule, RSCO decision and more detailed
medical checks.
In the 1952 Games, the rate of KO was 17.1%, compared
with the London 2012 Olympics (0%) and to the currently used
rules (0.7±0.9% from 2009 to 2011). However, in Helsinki
1952 there was no technical knock-out decision (that means no
RSCH and RSC), suggesting that the referee did not end the
contest until the boxer was knocked out. Of interest, neither the
sum of RSCH, RSC and KO verdict rate in the last Games
(1.5%), nor the mean value recorded in our analysis from 2009
to 2011 (7.9±4.8%) was similar to the Helsinki results.
The first important modification to the rules of amateur
boxing took place in 1964 when the standing-count rule was
adopted: the referee was allowed to start an 8 s count if a boxer
was in difficulties for any reason ( particularly after a blow by
the opponent), without the boxer having been knocked to the
canvas. Even if this rule was adopted with the purpose of
safeguarding boxers’ health, our analysis showed a minor and
not significant reduction in KO rate (from 7.6% to 5.9%), with
other results of medical interests substantially unchanged, but an
unexpected significant increase (table 2 and figure 2) of matches
ended due to medical reasons (mainly lacerations). Only after
the introduction of the mandatory head guard in the 1984
Olympics did the RSCI reduce, it was clear that the introduction
of the head guard reduced facial cuts by up to 90%.9 19 The
mean rate of RSCI decisions showed a 3.3-fold reduction after
the adoption of mandatory head guard and KO rate also significantly
decreased balanced, however, by a higher rate of RSCH
and RSC (table 2; figure 2). Taking together these results, a significant
increase of the rate of contests ended before the time
limit (as the sum of RSC, RSCH and KO rates) was observed,
rising from 17.3% to 21.8%, even if this difference is partly
blunted by the overlap of their CIs (16.4% to 21.3% before and
14.7% to 22.6% after head guard introduction). One can
hypothesise that the boxers, feeling more protected by the head
guard, exposed themselves to blows that before the introduction
of head guards, they would have avoided. It may also be the
case that the new rules allowed the referee to stop the contest
early before harm could befall a boxer.
There is a limited evidence demonstrating that boxing head
guards reduce the impact force to the athletes’ head.20 21 Some
coaches, moreover, believe that the head protector may be detrimental
to boxers’ health, as it can obscure peripheral vision not
allowing a boxer to defend lateral blows.22 It is important to
recognise that even wearing head guards, amateur boxers still
have the potential to suffer significant brain injury ranging from
intracranial trauma to changes in brain cellular biomarkers postfight.
23 It is not clear if removing head guards would make any
difference to such events. For these reasons, and to meet media
and audience expectations (the head guard makes all the boxers
quite similar and anonymous), the head guard will not be mandatory
in international amateur boxing from 2013.22 It will be
important to monitor this change, not only to see if the number
of KO and RSCH increases, but also to see if the number of
RSCI increases due to cuts. Our figures would predict that KO
and RSCH will remain the same but RSCI will increase.
In 1992, following some well-publicised scandals in point
decisions, a computerised scoring-system was adopted. The new
rule changed the sport. It was more effective to land clear
(usually single) punches, the main target being the head (a blow
to the head was more easily scored by the judges than one to
the body), with no importance set on the power of the blow. In
this way the sport became less aggressive. Immediately after the
insertion of this new rule, comparing competition of the same
length and with the same rules (apart from the scoring system)
Table 2 Comparison of all the formulas characterised by three round of 3 min each in the last six decades of amateur boxing
3×3 old-old (1952–1963) 3×3 old (1964–1984) 3×3 head guard (1984–1997) 3×3 new (2009–2011)
RSCI (%) 0.72±0.84 2.42±2.51* 0.60±0.98** 1.45±1.21
RSCH (%) 0.00±0.0 1.69±4.54 4.92±5.31*,** 0.91±1.19***
RSC (%) 7.06±6.14 10.48±5.44 13.05±7.77* 6.29±4.47***
KO (%) 7.55±4.43 5.94±5.73 3.78±3.99*,** 0.70±0.89*,**,***
Points (%) 78.76±6.77 73.68±9.85 70.66±10.34* 84.92±5.84**,***
RSCH+RSC+KO (%) 14.61±4.71 18.11±9.03 21.75±10.70* 7.89±4.76*,**,***
*p<0.05 in comparison with 3×3 old-old.
**p<0.05 in comparison with 3×3 old.
***p<0.05 in comparison with 3×3 head guard.
KO, knockout; RSC, referee stops contest for any other reason he/she believes opportune (hard blow to the body, lack of stamina, etc); RSCI, RSC due to injury; RSCH, RSC due to heavy
head blow(s).
4 Bianco M, et al. Br J Sports Med 2013;0:1–6. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2012-091771
Original article
Downloaded from bjsm.bmj.com on January 14, 2013 - Published by group.bmj.com
the rate of KO significantly decreased. However, the rate of
bouts ended before time limits (ie, the sum of RSC, RSCH and
KO) did not change. One can hypothesise that, with the new
scoring system, it was easier to record an RSC/RSCH decision.
However, there is the possibility that the referees were
instructed to be more cautious and to stop the contests more
quickly with the main purpose to safeguard athletes’ health. In
those years, following some physiological reports suggesting a
relatively high fatigue with the 3×3 formula,24 25 AIBA decided
to change the bout length to five rounds of 2 min each (from
1997 to 1999) and, then, to four rounds of 2 min (from 1999
to 2009). With the 5×2 formula, another significant reduction
in KO rate was observed remaining more or less at these values
until the present day. With the 4×2 formula, a significant reduction
in RSC and RSCH rate, together with a reduced rate of
matches ended before time limits was observed and it was
increasingly evident after the introduction of the new rule of
outclassed in 2000. This rule was adopted to safeguard athletes
with evidently lower boxing skills in respect to their opponent.
Boxing bouts were less spectacular and several competitions in a
single tournament (mean value 15.5%) could end by RSCO. For
this reason, this rule was revoked in 2009 and, at the same time,
AIBA decided to go back to the old 3×3 formula. No increase
in the rate of KO, RSC, RSCH and their sum was observed.
One can speculate that other factors played a role in this decade
so rich in rule changes, factors certainly influenced by AIBAs’
will to protect boxers’ health. For example, great steps forward
have been made in materials selection, with current use of safer
energy-dissipating gloves and head guards. Also careful system
of training for ringside officials (referees, judges, doctors, etc) is
actively running at international level and in most national federations
in order to guarantee the highest level of safety inside
and around the ring. Recently new AIBA’s rules to make boxing
more spectacular have been adopted with other rule changes to
follow from 2013, AIBA will start organising professional contests
(AIBA Professional Boxing), allowing amateur boxers to
compete in this form of professional boxing while still allowing
them to return to take part to the Olympic Games. In professional
boxing health risks are greater, as the athletes compete
without head guards, for greater number of rounds (from 4 to
12) of 3 min each. Hand bandaging will be similar to current
professional practice which gives the fist a much firmer
covering.
In the last 59 years, improvements in health challenging verdicts
recorded have been achieved by changes in the rules of
boxing. It is of concern that the recent rule changes will be a
backward step in athletes’ health safety. Continued medical surveillance
is important to ensure that new rule changes do not
result in poor medical outcomes for the boxers. A neutral structure
as a specifically designed medical commission inside the
AIBA or the IOC could take care of this epidemiological
monitoring.
Study limitations
This is the first study to make a comprehensive analysis of
amateur boxing rules’ changes over a six-decade period, trying
Figure 2 Comparison of different kinds of verdicts in amateur boxing from 1952 to 2011. Please note, the significant reduction of the rate of
verdicts ended by points in 4×2 RSCO groups can be explained by the new rule of the outclassed, accounting for the 15.49±11.21% of all verdicts
in 2000–2009 period * p<0.05 in comparison with 3×3 old-old; ^p<0.05 in comparison with 3×3 old; § p<0.05 in comparison with 3×3 helmet;
# p<0.05 in comparison with 5×2; and p<0.05 in comparison with 4×2 no RSCO; @ p<0.05 in comparison with 4×2 RSCO. KO; knockout; RSC,
referee stops contest for any other reason he/she believes opportune (hard blow to the body, lack of stamina, etc); RSCH, referee-stop contest due to
heavy head blow(s); RSCI, RSC due to injury; RSCO RSC outclassed.
Bianco M,

[hbomb2]

to assess their influences on verdicts of possible medical interest.
For the long-time interval evaluated, our analysis could not take
into account some factors that surely influenced the results. We
tried to split the entire time period in several subperiods characterised
by the change of a single rule, so to extrapolate the real
effect of that single rule. At times, however, this was not possible.
In 1984, for example, following some severe eye injuries,
the boxing glove shape was changed, adopting the so-called
thumb-less gloves, with the thumb attached to/hidden by the
hand to avoid entering the orbit.
Gloves’ weight changed: until 1984, boxers used 8 ounce
gloves; in the following decade, lighter boxers (up to 67 kg)
wore 8 ounce gloves, with the heavier athletes adopting 10
ounce gloves; in 1994 all weights used 10 ounce gloves. In the
same time period several other rules were changed (mandatory
head guards in 1984, computerised scoring system in 1992,
5×2 formula in 1997) and so, the result could have been
affected by other confounding factors.
We were not able to evaluate other issues that have influenced
the rate of results over the time, as continuous advances in
materials technology have occurred, with gloves and head
guards more energy dissipating than those used even a decade
before.
Another issue that could have affected our results is that until
1970 the technical KO decision was adopted in the same circumstances
as RSC and RSCH. As, in the following years, the
majority of the matches stopped before the time limit ended
with an RSC decision (3.7-fold the RSCH rate), we decided to
include technical KO verdicts in the RSC group for statistical
analysis. In this way, from 1952 to 1970, we could have lost
some decisions caused by head blows, but we used the sum of
RSC, RSCH and KO decisions as a comprehensive marker of
verdicts of medical interest.
CONCLUSION
Several changes have occurred in the rules of amateur boxing in
the last 59 years and modern Olympic boxing is a quite different
sport from that observed in the early 1950s. Looking at the
rate of results of medical interest, a clear and significant reduction
of health challenging results can be observed. There is no
doubt that modern amateur boxing is a safer discipline than
observed some decades ago.
From 2013, in International boxing, the head guards will be
removed and computer scoring will be replaced with the old
manual system.
It is of paramount importance to continue the surveillance of
the trend in results of medical interest so that the international
governing body can intervene immediately in case of any
increase in poor medical outcomes.
What are the new findings?
▸ Rules’ changes in Olympic boxing clearly influenced results
of medical interests in the last six decades.
▸ After mandatory head guard rule, a significant reduction of
bouts ended due to medical decision (injuries) was
observed.
▸ With the come back to the old 3×3 bout formula length
(2009), no changes were observed in results of medical
interest.
How might it impact on clinical practice in the near
future
▸ New rules’ changes in international boxing will be inserted
in 2013. In particular, head guards will be removed and
computer scoring will be replaced with the old manual
system.
▸ A strict surveillance of the trend in results of medical interest
is fundamental to intervene immediately in the case of
increase in poor medical outcomes.
Contributors Each author provided substantial contributions to (1) conception and
design of the study, acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data; (2) drafting the
article and revising it critically for important intellectual content and (3) final
approval of the version to be published.
Competing Interests None.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
REFERENCES
1 Swaddling J. ed. The ancient Olympic Games. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2008:54.
2 Attwood A, Loosemore M, Knowles CH. Amateur boxing association of England ltd
official handbook 2003. Fox Promotions Media, London, 2003:10.
3 American Medical Association. H-470.963: boxing injuries. https://ssl3.ama-assn.
org/apps/ecomm/PolicyFinderForm.pl?site=www.ama-assn.org&uri=/ama1/pub/
upload/mm/PolicyFinder/policyfiles/HnE/H-470.963.HTM (accessed 16 Aug 2012).
4 Australian Medical Association. Boxing: 1997—reaffirmed 2007. http://ama.com.au/
node/444 (accessed 16 Aug 2012).
5 World Medical Association. WMA statement on boxing. www.wma.net/en/
30publications/10policies/b6/index.html (accessed 16 Aug 2012).
6 American Academy of Pediatrics. Committee on sports medicine and fitness.
Participation in boxing by children, adolescents, and young adults. Pediatrics
1997;99;134–5.
7 Loosemore M, Knowles CH, Whyte GP. Amateur boxing and risk of chronic
traumatic brain injury: systematic review of observational studies. Br J Sports Med
2008;42:564–7.
8 McCrory P, Zazryn T, Cameron P. The evidence for chronic traumatic encephalopathy
in boxing. Sports Med 2007;37:467–76.
9 Jako P. Safety measures in amateur boxing. Br J Sports Med 2002;36:394–5.
10 http://amateur-boxing.strefa.pl/ (accessed 16 Aug 2012).
11 http://www.boxing.org.au/results.html (accessed 16 Aug 16 2012).
12 http://frontpageboxing.com/amateurs/usa (accessed 16 Aug 2012).
13 http://www.aiba-london2012.com/index.php/boxers (accessed 16 Aug 2012).
14 http://aiba.org/default.aspx?pId=1296# (accessed 16 Aug 2012).
15 Martland S. Punch drunk. JAMA 1928;91:1103–7.
16 Critchley M. Medical aspects of boxing, particularly from a neurological standpoint.
Br Med J 1957;1:357–62.
17 Betti CO, Ottino CA. Pugilistic encephalopathy. Acta Neurol Latinoam
1969;15:47–51.
18 Unterharnscheidt F. About boxing: review of historical and medical aspects. Texas
Rep Biol Med 1970;28:421–95.
19 Zazryn TR, McCrory PR, Cameron PA. Neurologic injuries in boxing and other
combat sports. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 2009;20:227–39.
20 Viano DC, Casson IR, Pellman EJ, et al. Concussion in professional football:
comparison with boxing head impacts—part 10. Neurosurgery 2005;57:1154–72.
21 Bartsch AJ, Benzel EC, Miele VJ, et al. Boxing and mixed martial arts: preliminary
traumatic neuromechanical injury risk analyses from laboratory impact dosage data.
J Neurosurg 2012;116:1070–80.
22 McCrory P, Falvey E, Turner M. Returning to the golden age of boxing. Br J Sports
Med 2012;46:459–60.
23 Graham MR, Myers T, Evans P, et al. Direct hits to the head during amateur boxing
is associated with a rise in serum biomarkers for brain injury. Int J Immunopathol
Pharmacol 2011;24:119–25.
24 Ghosh AK, Goswami A, Ahuja A. Heart rate & blood lactate response in amateur
competitive boxing. Indian J Med Res 1995;102:179–83.
25 Dal Monte A, Faina M. eds.Metodi di valutazione funzionale: applicazioni pratiche.
Pugilato. In: Valutazione dell’atleta. analisi funzionale e biomeccanica della capacità
di prestazione. Turin: UTET, 1999:413–16.
6 Bianco

[JMac]

Interesting study Ron. It would have been easier to just link the study instead of printing the whole thing. It looks like it comes from the British Journal of Sports Medicine. Is that correct and what was the article named and when was it published?

[hbomb2]

Report on Kazakhstan National Championships
Test Event without Headgear
The Kazakhstan National Championships were contested without using the new Universal Rules of AIBA--- three two minute rounds, 10 point must scoring, no headgear. A total of 1014 Boxer Rounds were completed in this tournament.

At the start of the tournament the Referees and Judges were given a seminar on the new rules and the importance of having the boxers keep their heads up. Each Bout was three rounds.

Once the tournament started over the first 4 days (594 Boxer Rounds), there were a total 14 cuts. All but one of these cuts was from a clash of heads. Some of the cuts were insignificant but the bout was often stopped by the ringside physician.

This meant there were two problems. 1) The Boxers did not know how to enter a clinch without hitting their heads as they were used to headgear. 2) The Ringside Doctors were unsure when to allow or stop bouts based on these injuries. A coaches' clinic and a doctors' clinic was given after the 4th day.

In the next 420 Boxer Rounds only 5 cuts occurred. The overall cut-rate counting even minor skin abrasions was 1 per 56 boxer rounds of competition. After the clinic for the coaches, the rate dropped to 1 per 100 boxer rounds.

The concussion rate is the key measure of the safety of any sport. After 1014 Boxer rounds the concussion rate was 0.3%. This is less than half the concussion rate we see at the average AIBA tournament with headgear.

Summary: The Kazakhstan National Championships with 1014 total Boxer Rounds had one concussions (0.3% athletes) and 1 cut per 56 rounds each athlete competed. After the clinic on technique, the rate of cuts dropped to 1 per 100 rounds each boxer competed.

This demonstrates that Boxing under the new rules without headgear is extremely safe.



Respectfully submitted,

Charles Butler

[tonywhelan]

Interesting study Ron. It would have been easier to just link the study instead of printing the whole thing. It looks like it comes from the British Journal of Sports Medicine. Is that correct and what was the article named and when was it published?

Below is a link to the Abstract of the article pasted by available on the web. (Full article requires a payment or membership.)

http://bjsportmed.com/content/early/201 ... 1.abstract

"Amateur boxing in the last 59 years. Impact of rules changes on the type of verdicts recorded and implications on boxers’ health". Massimiliano Bianco, Mike Loosemore, Gianlorenzo Daniele, Vincenzo Palmieri, Marcello Faina, Paolo Zeppilli. Br J Sports Med doi:10.1136/bjsports-2012-091771

[JMac]

Interesting study Ron. It would have been easier to just link the study instead of printing the whole thing. It looks like it comes from the British Journal of Sports Medicine. Is that correct and what was the article named and when was it published?

Below is a link to the Abstract of the article pasted by available on the web. (Full article requires a payment or membership.)

http://bjsportmed.com/content/early/201 ... 1.abstract

"Amateur boxing in the last 59 years. Impact of rules changes on the type of verdicts recorded and implications on boxers’ health". Massimiliano Bianco, Mike Loosemore, Gianlorenzo Daniele, Vincenzo Palmieri, Marcello Faina, Paolo Zeppilli. Br J Sports Med doi:10.1136/bjsports-2012-091771

Thanks

[zojo]

Was the IOC's decision to drop wrestling from the Olympics a catalyst for these changes?

Wrestling thought it was safe (tons of history, one of the original Olympic sports, wrestlers from just about very country were sent to the Olympics, strong showing by both men and women, etc... - sound familier?) then was cut. Right now, FILA is in the process to change amateur wrestling to make it more viewer friendly and easy to understand by those not familier with the sport.

With the proposed changes to amateur boxing (no headgear & 10-9 scoring) it will make the sport look more in tune with the professional sport of boxing. More people seem familier with pro boxing compared to the rules of Olympic boxing. These are preemptive changes that should protect the sports from future decisions from the IOC. If the cutting of wrestling taught us anything, it is NO sport is safe from getting the ax.

This seems like a way to get more viewers, which will help the sport.

I must say, Olympic boxing is hard to follow: body punches don't count in the scoring and flurries only get one point. These changes may help the sport.

My one concern is: without headgear, will this lead to more cuts? it would be horrible if a guy wins a semi-final match, but can't compete in the gold medal match because his cut didn't heal. A couple of days between matches does not give enough time to heal

[gilgamesh]

The email to the membership just went out today so complaints or compliments will start to increase, maybe...maybe not on this forum but on the local level.
I just sent a reply to Dr Butler asking if the Youth boxers can compete with the Elite boxers as it was somewhat confusing to me as well. As for the no headgear rule, the powers to be are producing some stats and studies that it is the opposite of what some people think regarding how safe a headgear really is. No doubt it helps eliminate cuts and we will probably see some more bruising over the course of a tournament. Remember, headgear have only been mandatory for the past 29 years. Boxing has been going on for well over 100 years. The last Olympics that did not have any boycotts and no headgear was the Montreal Olympics in 1976. USA won 5 gold medals and a boxer by the name of "Sugar" Ray Leonard became a superstar. There was a huge number of kids who signed up to box in the local gyms in the US after '76. Boxing got a lot of press back then and I would bet that AIBA is looking to bring those days back as well as prep for their APB and the takeover of pro boxing.

It's difficult to build a case against headgear when everybody uses it in sparring where they'll do many more rounds than they'll compete in the course of a career!

All I'll say about headgear is this. I trained and boxed one amateur match and I always wore headgear in the gym and in my fight. I HATE HEADGEAR!!!!!! I would just assume get hit in the head without that crap on me. It screws up your peripheral vision and it's uncomfortably hot. Let's put it this way, if it had been optional for me to decide whether or not I wore headgear. I wouldn't even have considered wearing it.