Let's go back to the Good old days

bill.lockhart · Post by **bill.lockhart** » 05 Nov 2005, 19:29

Sanctioning bodies. Curse them

Eight divisions & 8 champs. Every fan knows who they are & most of the contenders.
May I live to see it again.
Weigh in here fight fans. Our sport is dying.

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 05 Nov 2005, 19:38

bill.lockhart wrote:Sanctioning bodies. Curse them

Eight divisions & 8 champs. Every fan knows who they are & most of the contenders.
May I live to see it again.
Weigh in here fight fans. Our sport is dying.

Don't forget 15 rounders!!!

wlvrne · Post by **wlvrne** » 05 Nov 2005, 20:38

Hey, why not bare-knuckle fights?

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 05 Nov 2005, 20:42

The worst thing about modern day boxing is the WBA, WBC, IBO, etc. One champion per weight class is all you need. What is even more irritating is when I used to follow boxing closly in the eighties is the difficulty they had in unifying the title. You even had people like Michael Dokes saying he had no desire to unify the title. What would also help boxing is if you had exiting fighters like Hagler, Salvador Sanchez, Hearns and Leonard around today.

I would prefer fifeteen rounders for a championship fight also.

wlvrne · Post by **wlvrne** » 05 Nov 2005, 20:45

Hey Bill, any relation to June Lockhart?
I agree with KA about 1 champion per weight class. Not too sure about 15 rounds tho. Even back in the day some of them got pretty fricken boring.

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 05 Nov 2005, 20:54

On the boring aspect they could deal with that by enforcing the rules. You can be penelized for holding but it is rarely called. I would start deducting for it. I have seen fights where to much holding made it virtually unwatchable. Also if a fighter is continuing to dance out of range, I would call it much sooner. Or anytime I thought a fighter was stalling.

wlvrne · Post by **wlvrne** » 05 Nov 2005, 21:11

KA, I could see that, but then it opens up the can of worms about which refs are good or not.
But boxing does need some kind of overhaul, that's for sure.

barry · Post by **barry** » 05 Nov 2005, 23:48

8 weight classes and 8 champions...I could live with just about anything else...Although I think there should be no more than 9, maybe 10 total weight classes, I could even live with 17 weight divisions if there were only one champion per division!

sockdolager · Post by **sockdolager** » 06 Nov 2005, 01:23

kick asner wrote:On the boring aspect they could deal with that by enforcing the rules. You can be penelized for holding but it is rarely called. I would start deducting for it. I have seen fights where to much holding made it virtually unwatchable. Also if a fighter is continuing to dance out of range, I would call it much sooner. Or anytime I thought a fighter was stalling.

the point you make on stalling is a good one. In wrestling (real not wwe), A fighter is penalized for stalling, I mean were talking about any inactivity for more then 5 seconde. I wouldnt take it that far, but Boxers need to box not "measure" shots. I also am torn about the 15 round Champ fight. I dont like to see brutal unnesicary finishes, But it is noted that certian fights of the past have changed in those final 3 rounds. Most notably for me Hearns vs Leonard I. Hearns seemingly ahead on cards after 12, but a 14 round TKO loss is the result. We are all concerned with the health of a fighter, But Leonard showed he deserved the win.

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 06 Nov 2005, 07:10

The wrestling analogy is a good one. Each man must initiate action at all times, even backing up can cost you a warning or point. The only time I can understand where a fighter might stall is when he is trying to recover from a knock down, but if you were to crack down on stalling, to be consistent you would have to say that a fighter commence with action at all times.

In the Leonard and Hearns fight in a twealve rounder Leonard might have still been able to score a knockout. He probably would have altered his style and fought more aggressivly early on knowing he had only twealve rounds instead of fifteeen. Which in that case you could make the argument that you could condense more exitment in a twealve rounder. Personally I still prefer fifteen, but can understand the argument for twealve. It really is a matter of the fighter making the adjustment.

bill.lockhart · Post by **bill.lockhart** » 06 Nov 2005, 08:28

I don't see any real disagreement here so far. I didn't think I would.
No, I'm not related to June. Perhaps Lassie though. Speaking of dogs , the sanctioning bodies are a real dog & pony show. No champion could possibly satisfy them all. Anybody seen a fight between two top contenders lately. I think it was around 1975 the last time that happened.
Every televised fight is for some title of some kind. They figure that
we'll all buy this crap. I'm still a boxing fan , but if you may have noticed by my posts their all rooted back to the 50's , 60's, & 70's before all this
started happening. I don't live in the past & I don't think all of the fighters of yesterday are superior to to-day, but I just can't follow it anymore. Anybody know who the WBO jr. lightweight champ is off the top of your head? If you do, you need to get a life. Why can't we , the paying public change all this. No business can succeed for long without listening to its
customers. If they don't , they will soon be out of business. That is where the sanctioning bodies should be. Smokey the Bear says only you can prevent forest fires.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 06 Nov 2005, 13:44

The problem is that there isnt enough money to make them go away.

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 06 Nov 2005, 21:04

bill.lockhart wrote:I don't see any real disagreement here so far. I didn't think I would.
No, I'm not related to June. Perhaps Lassie though. Speaking of dogs , the sanctioning bodies are a real dog & pony show. No champion could possibly satisfy them all. Anybody seen a fight between two top contenders lately. I think it was around 1975 the last time that happened.
Every televised fight is for some title of some kind. They figure that
we'll all buy this crap. I'm still a boxing fan , but if you may have noticed by my posts their all rooted back to the 50's , 60's, & 70's before all this
started happening. I don't live in the past & I don't think all of the fighters of yesterday are superior to to-day, but I just can't follow it anymore. Anybody know who the WBO jr. lightweight champ is off the top of your head? If you do, you need to get a life. Why can't we , the paying public change all this. No business can succeed for long without listening to its
customers. If they don't , they will soon be out of business. That is where the sanctioning bodies should be. Smokey the Bear says only you can prevent forest fires.

If you take away the alphebet soup situation the eighties were a great decade for boxing.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 06 Nov 2005, 23:55

theres one thing i miss about the old days that hasnt been discussed yet. its a little silly, and maybe people dont agree, but its the trunks and the ring. i miss the plain black trunks that were above the knees, not pant like trunks..i miss ali's while trunks with the simple black stripe. joe louis' purple trunks. braddocks trunks with the shamrock on them or max baers star of davis..trunks that were personal to fighters, not advertisement areas.

another thing i miss is the simple rings, without all the advertisements and logos and colors. i miss the simple rings, the rings that were there to simply showcase 2 warriors going to battle, not an unessecary source of revenue.

i think this boils down to me missing the simplicity of boxing. its all become so locked in between contracts n advertisement adds, i just miss the good ole days were it was about the fight.

thats all i have to say

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 07 Nov 2005, 11:45

Let me get this straight. Your saying ..these days are not the good old days? This is not the pinnacle?

wlvrne · Post by **wlvrne** » 07 Nov 2005, 15:01

Rory McCloskey wrote:theres one thing i miss about the old days that hasnt been discussed yet. its a little silly, and maybe people dont agree, but its the trunks and the ring. i miss the plain black trunks that were above the knees, not pant like trunks..i miss ali's while trunks with the simple black stripe. joe louis' purple trunks. braddocks trunks with the shamrock on them or max baers star of davis..trunks that were personal to fighters, not advertisement areas.

another thing i miss is the simple rings, without all the advertisements and logos and colors. i miss the simple rings, the rings that were there to simply showcase 2 warriors going to battle, not an unessecary source of revenue.

i think this boils down to me missing the simplicity of boxing. its all become so locked in between contracts n advertisement adds, i just miss the good ole days were it was about the fight.

thats all i have to say

Let's see about this Rory. First you express interest in visiting Rahway State Prison. Now on this thread you say you miss the fighters' trunks.
Is there anything you might want to tell us Rory?

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 07 Nov 2005, 15:29

Rory McCloskey wrote:theres one thing i miss about the old days that hasnt been discussed yet. its a little silly, and maybe people dont agree, but its the trunks and the ring. i miss the plain black trunks that were above the knees, not pant like trunks..i miss ali's while trunks with the simple black stripe. joe louis' purple trunks. braddocks trunks with the shamrock on them or max baers star of davis..trunks that were personal to fighters, not advertisement areas.

another thing i miss is the simple rings, without all the advertisements and logos and colors. i miss the simple rings, the rings that were there to simply showcase 2 warriors going to battle, not an unessecary source of revenue.

i think this boils down to me missing the simplicity of boxing. its all become so locked in between contracts n advertisement adds, i just miss the good ole days were it was about the fight.

thats all i have to say

Trust me on this one, no matter how much money boxing promoters make they will never see a source of revenue as unessesry.

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 08 Nov 2005, 13:10

bill.lockhart wrote:Sanctioning bodies. Curse them

Eight divisions & 8 champs. Every fan knows who they are & most of the contenders.
May I live to see it again.
Weigh in here fight fans. Our sport is dying.

I agree, there should be ONE champ per weight. I do see a need for the cruiserweight division though, theres no way 175lb+ fighters could be competetive with the monster sized heavys of today.

wlvrne · Post by **wlvrne** » 08 Nov 2005, 14:03

Or if they do away with Cruiser, establish a "super-heavy" division.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 08 Nov 2005, 14:22

Controversial wrote:
bill.lockhart wrote:Sanctioning bodies. Curse them

Eight divisions & 8 champs. Every fan knows who they are & most of the contenders.
May I live to see it again.
Weigh in here fight fans. Our sport is dying.
I agree, there should be ONE champ per weight. I do see a need for the cruiserweight division though, theres no way 175lb+ fighters could be competetive with the monster sized heavys of today.

tell that to joe louis, jack dempsey, rocky marciano, ezzard charles, walcott, tunney, etc

and i dont see any monsters, i see fat overweight tub of lards

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 08 Nov 2005, 15:13

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Controversial wrote:
bill.lockhart wrote:Sanctioning bodies. Curse them

Eight divisions & 8 champs. Every fan knows who they are & most of the contenders.
May I live to see it again.
Weigh in here fight fans. Our sport is dying.
I agree, there should be ONE champ per weight. I do see a need for the cruiserweight division though, theres no way 175lb+ fighters could be competetive with the monster sized heavys of today.

tell that to joe louis, jack dempsey, rocky marciano, ezzard charles, walcott, tunney, etc

and i dont see any monsters, i see fat overweight tub of lards

The cruiserweight division was created because the gulf between light-heavys and heavyweights was too big and the smaller guys were at a serious disadvantage. If you got rid of the cruiserweight division do you honestly think there would be many guys weighing around 180lbs who could be serious heavyweight challengers or title holders?

We are talking about todays fighters not those in the past.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 08 Nov 2005, 22:33

wlvrne wrote:
Rory McCloskey wrote:theres one thing i miss about the old days that hasnt been discussed yet. its a little silly, and maybe people dont agree, but its the trunks and the ring. i miss the plain black trunks that were above the knees, not pant like trunks..i miss ali's while trunks with the simple black stripe. joe louis' purple trunks. braddocks trunks with the shamrock on them or max baers star of davis..trunks that were personal to fighters, not advertisement areas.

another thing i miss is the simple rings, without all the advertisements and logos and colors. i miss the simple rings, the rings that were there to simply showcase 2 warriors going to battle, not an unessecary source of revenue.

i think this boils down to me missing the simplicity of boxing. its all become so locked in between contracts n advertisement adds, i just miss the good ole days were it was about the fight.

thats all i have to say
Let's see about this Rory. First you express interest in visiting Rahway State Prison. Now on this thread you say you miss the fighters' trunks.
Is there anything you might want to tell us Rory?

well i live 20 minutes from the prison..but i never said i wanted to visit it. i was just stating how close i lived

barry · Post by **barry** » 09 Nov 2005, 05:27

I could see a need for the cruiserweight division at 190, but changing it to 200, like all other decisions of sanctioning orgs that over did it and a super heavyweight division would put the last nail in the coffin and if it ever happens I'll no longer follow current boxing!

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 09 Nov 2005, 05:36

What about if the sanctioning bodies rated one another's champions at each weight then those who kept their titles for more than 2 defences would quickly be the number one contenders. This would force unification fights. The alphabet boys could continue to feel important and we'd get more top fights and have more proper champions.

I take everyone's points on the junior divisions but these don't bother me as much as the proliferation in titles. I'd say that Cruiserweight is a fair division.

barry · Post by **barry** » 09 Nov 2005, 07:50

>>>I take everyone's points on the junior divisions but these don't bother me as much as the proliferation in titles. I'd say that Cruiserweight is a fair division.<<<

I agree and like I stated earlier, I could live with 17 different divisions if there were only one champ per division...hell I would happy with 17 if only champ represented each class!