BoxRec

APerno wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:I agree that in an "overtime" round, a referee should be able to score the round even if that is what he really believes. Then if the other two judges don't both call it for the same fighter, then it would be a draw.
Sort of like in the an NFL regular season game where no one scores in overtime.
Doubtful that this would come into play too often anyway.

As for the champion, well he did have 12 rounds to win. If the champion loses in overtime, then he lost to the better man. There is probably a 90% chance he would get a rematch if he wants it.

Really is it fair for the challenger who fought his heart out and gets only a draw? He doesn't get recognized as a champion when he was just as good as the champion.

Think about non-title fights. A draw usually hurts both fighters and sets them back.

Think how exciting the overtime round would be if both fighters and the fans know that this round would probably settle it. It almost would always be an exciting finish.

Allowing the judges to vote even rounds as you state, ending in an eventual draw works for me . . .

I agree, more often than not a champ losing a close-one will get a rematch, but this is the fight game after all . . .

what about the old adage that a challenger must take the title from a champion, if it ends in a draw the challenger has failed to do this, but this scenario gives him a second chance; is it fair to say a champion only needs to defend his title not win it each time (or am I just playing with words?). . .

I am not sure I agree that a draw sets back a fighter, although I recognize the television pressure to be perfect; being that the fighter might lose in overtime might he prefer the draw. . . .

finally, is there a negative affect on fighters who have to wait for the draw decision to be announced and then resume fighting again, after they (have been deliberately) cooled down?

It most certainly would be exciting for the fans, yes.

Why not just make them 13 rounds from the outset? Personally I wouldn't want a draw to be announced and then make them fight another round but if they just announce a decision after 13 rounds then there's more chance of a clear winner.

There is still about as much of a chance of it being a raw if it is set for 13 rounds as there is 12. If one round is scored even, the score will probably 124-124. If one round is scored even in a 12 round fight, it will be probably 115-114.
If a fight goes 13 rounds, one guy could win 7 rounds to 6, but gets knocked down or loses a point on a foul. The score would then be 123-123.
Those are common scenarios.

APerno wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:I agree that in an "overtime" round, a referee should be able to score the round even if that is what he really believes. Then if the other two judges don't both call it for the same fighter, then it would be a draw.
Sort of like in the an NFL regular season game where no one scores in overtime.
Doubtful that this would come into play too often anyway.

As for the champion, well he did have 12 rounds to win. If the champion loses in overtime, then he lost to the better man. There is probably a 90% chance he would get a rematch if he wants it.

Really is it fair for the challenger who fought his heart out and gets only a draw? He doesn't get recognized as a champion when he was just as good as the champion.

Think about non-title fights. A draw usually hurts both fighters and sets them back.

Think how exciting the overtime round would be if both fighters and the fans know that this round would probably settle it. It almost would always be an exciting finish.

Allowing the judges to vote even rounds as you state, ending in an eventual draw works for me . . .

I agree, more often than not a champ losing a close-one will get a rematch, but this is the fight game after all . . .

what about the old adage that a challenger must take the title from a champion, if it ends in a draw the challenger has failed to do this, but this scenario gives him a second chance; is it fair to say a champion only needs to defend his title not win it each time (or am I just playing with words?). . .

I am not sure I agree that a draw sets back a fighter, although I recognize the television pressure to be perfect; being that the fighter might lose in overtime might he prefer the draw. . . .

finally, is there a negative affect on fighters who have to wait for the draw decision to be announced and then resume fighting again, after they (have been deliberately) cooled down?

It most certainly would be exciting for the fans, yes.

As for for the old adage: I would argue that is dumb. Have always thought so. If you really think about it, why should the champion get to keep his title with a draw? Why is he he any more worthy of the title than the challenger whom he was unable to beat?

I recognize the fact that if you are going to have draws, then you can only man have that title. Therefore you have to give the title to someone. However, he really doesn't deserve it it more than the challenger.

As for the fighter cooling down waiting for the verdict: Well yes. But they would also have a second wind. They would each go all out. You would usually have a very exciting overtime round.

Ambling Alp II wrote:There is still about as much of a chance of it being a raw if it is set for 13 rounds as there is 12. If one round is scored even, the score will probably 124-124. If one round is scored even in a 12 round fight, it will be probably 115-114.
If a fight goes 13 rounds, one guy could win 7 rounds to 6, but gets knocked down or loses a point on a foul. The score would then be 123-123.
Those are common scenarios.

Of course it could be a draw after 13 but the fact its an odd number makes the chances slimmer, especially in fights where no rounds are scored even.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

Controversial wrote:It would make more sense for them to be 13 rounds, cuts down the chances of a draw. Ron Essett and Sanderline Williams fought an extra round back in 1988 as it ended in a draw after 12.

Doug DeWitt and Tony Thornton also fought over 13 rounds in 1987 for the same reason.

Never understood why there can't be an "overtime round" if it's a draw.

What do you do if the 13th round is a 10-10 tie??? Go to double or triple over-time like the NBA? ... I don't think there's anything wrong with a draw if that's the real result... Primo Carnera fought 102 fights with no draws.. Carlos Monzon fought 100 fights with 9 draws.. Some draws are expedient. Of course Monzon won his last 30 fights, hitting his stride big time.. It's always how you finish your career that's most important.. Finish on a high note not a draw.

Kalan wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:

Controversial wrote:It would make more sense for them to be 13 rounds, cuts down the chances of a draw. Ron Essett and Sanderline Williams fought an extra round back in 1988 as it ended in a draw after 12.

Doug DeWitt and Tony Thornton also fought over 13 rounds in 1987 for the same reason.

Never understood why there can't be an "overtime round" if it's a draw.

What do you do if the 13th round is a 10-10 tie -- go to double or triple over-time like the NBA? ... I don't think there's anything wrong with a draw if that's the real result... Primo Carnera fought 102 fights with no draws... Carlos Monzon fought 100 fights with 9 draws... Some draws are expedient.

No just set them as 13 round fights instead of 12

The Dempsey-Tunney fights were 10 rounders -- and they were the highest attended boxing matches, drawing the most fans and biggest gates, for the first 71 years of the 20th Century... So a shorter distance doesn't turn off the fans and I like the 12-round format... It's the perfect distance because 10 rounds is really too short... 13 rounds is too odd and too tedious... You wear the viewers out.

That’s why they shortened fights to 20 rounds… then 15… then 12… all the cat calls --because often nothing was happening except for 2 boxers stalling around.

Anyway that's part of the reason... Another was the safety factor of course.

Kalan wrote:The Dempsey-Tunney fights were 10 rounders -- and they were the highest attended boxing matches, drawing the most fans and biggest gates, for the first 71 years of the 20th Century... So a shorter distance doesn't turn off the fans and I like the 12-round format... It's the perfect distance because 10 rounds is really too short... 13 rounds is too odd and too tedious... You wear the viewers out.

That’s why they shortened fights to 20 rounds… then 15… then 12… all the cat calls --because often nothing was happening except for 2 boxers stalling around.

Anyway that's part of the reason... Another was the safety factor of course.

Ideally 15 instead of 13

If you are stuck on an odd amount, I would prefer 11. (Though I am curious statistically, what % of 12 rounds consist of the judges scoring every round 10-9.)

The less rounds the more action in an individual round. The longer the fight is scheduled, the longer most fighters will pace themselves. Most 15-round fights were not close, exciting fights. On of the few good things in boxing since the 1980s was reducing the rounds from 15 to 12.

Ambling Alp II wrote:If you are stuck on an odd amount, I would prefer 11. (Though I am curious statistically, what % of 12 rounds consist of the judges scoring every round 10-9.)

The less rounds the more action in an individual round. The longer the fight is scheduled, the longer most fighters will pace themselves. Most 15-round fights were not close, exciting fights. On of the few good things in boxing since the 1980s was reducing the rounds from 15 to 12.

It's harder to split an odd number than an even one, probably why they have three judges and not two or four. Personally I prefer 15 rounds, a few fights in history might've ended differently if 12, Marcianos 13th round KO over Walcott springing to mind. I think Hagker was behind to Duran after 12 too

Hearns would have beaten Leonard in their fist fight if it were a 12-rounder.. and Walcott would have beaten Marciano.. and Billy Conn would have finished strong and beaten Joe Louis on points.. Ray Robinson would have beaten Joey Maxim instead of quitting after the 13th... Obviously Jack Johnson would have shutout Jess Willard...but he would have tanked the fight earlier... and there other in more minor fights were the loser would have won.

But those fights would have been fought at a harder and faster pace if they were 12-rounders... so actually, except for the Johnson-Willard Fight which went 26 rounds, the outcomes may not have been different at all.. Jim Corbett would Have been the first man to beat Jim Jeffries if their first fight were a 20-rounder.. a 15-rounder.. or a 12-rounder... It was scheduled for 25-rounds and hopelessly behind Jeffries put Corbett out with a brutal left hook in the 23rd.

Kalan wrote:Hearns would have beaten Leonard in their fist fight if it were a 12-rounder.. and Walcott would have beaten Marciano.. and Billy Conn would have finished strong and beaten Joe Louis on points.. Ray Robinson would have beaten Joey Maxim instead of quitting after the 13th... Obviously Jack Johnson would have shutout Jess Willard...but he would have tanked the fight earlier... and there other in more minor fights were the loser would have won.

But those fights would have been fought at a harder and faster pace if they were 12-rounders... so actually, except for the Johnson-Willard Fight which when 26 rounds, the outcomes may not have been different at all.. Jim Corbett would Have been the first man to beat Jim Jeffries if their first fight were a 20-rounder.. a 15-rounder.. or a 12-rounder... It was scheduled for 25-rounds and hopelessly behind Jeffries put Corbett out with a brutal left hook in the 23rd.

Good point regarding how the fight would have paced differently over 12 rounds; add Bramble-Mancini I

Controversial wrote:

Kalan wrote:The Dempsey-Tunney fights were 10 rounders -- and they were the highest attended boxing matches, drawing the most fans and biggest gates, for the first 71 years of the 20th Century... So a shorter distance doesn't turn off the fans and I like the 12-round format... It's the perfect distance because 10 rounds is really too short... 13 rounds is too odd and too tedious... You wear the viewers out.

That’s why they shortened fights to 20 rounds… then 15… then 12… all the cat calls --because often nothing was happening except for 2 boxers stalling around.

Anyway that's part of the reason... Another was the safety factor of course.

Ideally 15 instead of 13

I have a hunch 15 round title fights will be back one of these days. Some enterprising promoter will come up with something like, "REAL championship boxing - 15 rounds!" and will pay large enough sanctioning fees to make the sanctioning bodies forget all about 12 rounds being for safety. It might be a few years, but, hey, boxing's on free network television in prime-time again. Who thought we'd ever see that?

APerno wrote:

Kalan wrote:Hearns would have beaten Leonard in their fist fight if it were a 12-rounder.. and Walcott would have beaten Marciano.. and Billy Conn would have finished strong and beaten Joe Louis on points.. Ray Robinson would have beaten Joey Maxim instead of quitting after the 13th... Obviously Jack Johnson would have shutout Jess Willard...but he would have tanked the fight earlier... and there other in more minor fights were the loser would have won.

But those fights would have been fought at a harder and faster pace if they were 12-rounders... so actually, except for the Johnson-Willard Fight which when 26 rounds, the outcomes may not have been different at all.. Jim Corbett would Have been the first man to beat Jim Jeffries if their first fight were a 20-rounder.. a 15-rounder.. or a 12-rounder... It was scheduled for 25-rounds and hopelessly behind Jeffries put Corbett out with a brutal left hook in the 23rd.

Good point regarding how the fight would have paced differently over 12 rounds; add Bramble-Mancini I

I don't agree, shorter fights just mean less opportunities to win. The extra rounds are a game changer.

There may be, but I don't want to watch an hour long fight... 45 minutes is long enough... Boxers go harder if they're only fighting for 36 minutes

I won't even watch a baseball game unless it's the world series anymore -- because the only guys doing any work of the 9 guys on the field are the pitcher and catcher.. and the count has been 3-2 for the last 4 pitches. The song says "I don't care if I never get back." I do. I used to play baseball when I was a kid. I guess I didn't have a good concept of time as a youngster. But things are different today. People don't want to take that much time.

Controversial wrote:

APerno wrote:

Kalan wrote:Hearns would have beaten Leonard in their fist fight if it were a 12-rounder.. and Walcott would have beaten Marciano.. and Billy Conn would have finished strong and beaten Joe Louis on points.. Ray Robinson would have beaten Joey Maxim instead of quitting after the 13th... Obviously Jack Johnson would have shutout Jess Willard...but he would have tanked the fight earlier... and there other in more minor fights were the loser would have won.

But those fights would have been fought at a harder and faster pace if they were 12-rounders... so actually, except for the Johnson-Willard Fight which when 26 rounds, the outcomes may not have been different at all.. Jim Corbett would Have been the first man to beat Jim Jeffries if their first fight were a 20-rounder.. a 15-rounder.. or a 12-rounder... It was scheduled for 25-rounds and hopelessly behind Jeffries put Corbett out with a brutal left hook in the 23rd.

Good point regarding how the fight would have paced differently over 12 rounds; add Bramble-Mancini I

I don't agree, shorter fights just mean less opportunities to win. The extra rounds are a game changer.

Miscommunication - I am an advocate of 15 round championship fights; don't like 12 rounds - I was just agreeing with Kalan that when we look at past 15 round fights, we need to be aware that the fighters would have fought (paced themselves) differently if it had been scheduled for 12 rounds; so saying Billy Conn would have been champion in a 12 rounder, may not necessarily be true . . . if Louis knew he was only going 12 rounds he may very well have fought a different fight.

APerno wrote:

Controversial wrote:

APerno wrote:
Good point regarding how the fight would have paced differently over 12 rounds; add Bramble-Mancini I

I don't agree, shorter fights just mean less opportunities to win. The extra rounds are a game changer.

Miscommunication - I am an advocate of 15 round championship fights; don't like 12 rounds - I was just agreeing with Kalan that when we look at past 15 round fights, we need to be aware that the fighters would have fought (paced themselves) differently if it had been scheduled for 12 rounds; so saying Billy Conn would have been champion in a 12 rounder, may not necessarily be true . . . if Louis knew he was only going 12 rounds he may very well have fought a different fight.

Sure, I agree with that.

I believe, let's say, a big mega million fight like GGG vs Money/Pretty Boy Floyd, should be 15 rounds instead of 12. They are making too much money (150 million dollars or more for each fighter) for my taste for 12.

That if they win their respective coming fights of course.

Fact is, 15 three-minute rounds is too long for a combat sport... Championship Fights should be no different than fights between contenders vying for a title shot... Those are important fights too... Do Football, Baseball, and Basketball players play more minutes in Championship games??? Hell NO!!!

Kalan wrote:Fact is, 15 three-minute rounds is too long for a combat sport... Championship Fights should be no different than fights between contenders vying for a title shot... Those are important fights too... Do Football, Baseball, and Basketball players play more minutes in Championship games??? Hell NO!!!

The absence of scoring: I suspect the reason championship fights took on more rounds was to avoid NC outcomes. A fight to the finish was a better way to choose a champion then having three wannabees (judges) sitting ringside expressing an opinion.The increased length between preliminary and championship fights was not meant to improve excitement but instead to force an outcome. Football and baseball don't suffer this problem.

APerno wrote:A fight to the finish was a better way to choose a champion then having three wannabees ... expressing an opinion.The increased length between preliminary and championship fights was not meant to improve excitement but instead to force an outcome.

The judges aren't expressing an "opinion." Their professional presence is there to tabulate the RESULT to a boxing match. Fans or writers seldom complain about the judging of Gymnastics, Diving, and Figure Skating events. The judges working a world-class competition have a strong background in their sport. If they score a high bar, floor exercise, or balance beam performance 9.975 -- that's most likely EXACTLY what it was -- because they're experts with sharp vision, a powerful attention span, and they're very good at basic math, fractions, and decimals -- which is what they're dealing in. There's no delay handing in the scores.

Boxing judges often lack any background in the sport, have the attention span of Lulu, and lack the intelligence to add their own score cards correctly. "There's been a further delay in re-checking the scorecards folks... but we should have the decision momentarily. There were a couple errors but the commissioner just okayed the cards. Here's Michael Buffer." ... "Ladies and gentlemen, After 12 rounds of action we have a Split Decision." ... Right. What else?

The concept of a "fights to the finish" is delusionary. Jim Corbett and Peter Jackson fought for 61 rounds -- the last 36 of which were so painfully slow that fans were literally falling asleep. Both boxers were severely injured by then and could barely move. Finally the fight was stopped and declared "unsatisfactory to the members of this club" and a NC. The purse was withheld from the boxers and both of them declared they were done with Boxing.

A fight to the finish is a barbarian concept anyway...like a fight to the death. The Dempsey-Tunney fights were extremely well received by the public though they were scheduled for only 10 rounds -- a very good thing for Dempsey because he was headed for certain KO losses that nobody wanted to see.

Kalan wrote:Fans or writers seldom complain about the judging of Gymnastics, Diving, and Figure Skating events. .

What, does that include the East German judge's score? - (What Olympics have you been watching?)

Kalan wrote:Fights were scheduled for 25 rounds early in the Queensberry era... That's more than twice as long as today's fights. For instance Jim Corbett was knocked out in the 23rd round by Jim Jeffries.. They eventually cut Title Fights down to 20-rounds first and later to 15-rounds.

Willard knocked out Jack Johnson in the 26th round.

Ketchel knocked out Joe Thomas in the 32nd round to win the vacant middleweight title.

Gans beat Nelson in 1906 on a foul in the 42nd round.

Bat Nelson lost his title to Ad Wolgast when the ref wouldn't let him come out for the 40th round.

Kalan wrote:

APerno wrote:A fight to the finish was a better way to choose a champion then having three wannabees ... expressing an opinion.The increased length between preliminary and championship fights was not meant to improve excitement but instead to force an outcome.

The judges aren't expressing an "opinion." Their professional presence is there to tabulate the RESULT to a boxing match. Fans or writers seldom complain about the judging of Gymnastics, Diving, and Figure Skating events. The judges working a world-class competition have a strong background in their sport. If they score a high bar, floor exercise, or balance beam performance 9.975 -- that's most likely EXACTLY what it was -- because they're experts with sharp vision, a powerful attention span, and they're very good at basic math, fractions, and decimals -- which is what they're dealing in. There's no delay handing in the scores.

Boxing judges often lack any background in the sport, have the attention span of Lulu, and lack the intelligence to add their own score cards correctly. "There's been a further delay in re-checking the scorecards folks... but we should have the decision momentarily. There were a couple errors but the commissioner just okayed the cards. Here's Michael Buffer." ... "Ladies and gentlemen, After 12 rounds of action we have a Split Decision." ... Right. What else?

The concept of a "fights to the finish" is delusionary. Jim Corbett and Peter Jackson fought for 61 rounds -- the last 36 of which were so painfully slow that fans were literally falling asleep. Both boxers were severely injured by then and could barely move. Finally the fight was stopped and declared "unsatisfactory to the members of this club" and a NC. The purse was withheld from the boxers and both of them declared they were done with Boxing.

A fight to the finish is a barbarian concept anyway...like a fight to the death. The Dempsey-Tunney fights were extremely well received by the public though they were scheduled for only 10 rounds -- a very good thing for Dempsey because he was headed for certain KO losses that nobody wanted to see.

Don't think I was championing the use of 'fights to the finish' I was only suggesting that rounds were extended for championship fights so as to avoid NCs not that it was a good idea - Once judged decisions were acceptable to the fighters and fans the number of rounds quickly (as you point out in Dempsey-Tunney) reduced. But also I don't agree with your assessment that judge's scores are more than (an experienced based ) opinion.

APerno wrote:Fans or writers seldom complain about the judging of Gymnastics, Diving, and Figure Skating events.

Couldn't be more wrong.