BoxRec

The 3 knockdowns of a fighter in one round that ends a fight....good rule or bad?

I say bad, at least for championship and major fights. The referee should make the decision on the fighter's condition and whether the fight should go on or be stopped.

Bonavena got screwed with this rule against Ali. (NOT that Oscar was going to win the fight, but he sure doesn't deserve a knockout loss on his record. It didn't help that the ref had no control of Ali. I was not impressed with the 2nd and 3rd knockdowns)

Any thoughts?

btw, is this rule still in effect in New York?

I have no problem with it, it's not like any modern refs would let a fight go on after a fighter was down 3 times in a round anyway in 99% of cases.

Oscar 'screwed'? Pluueeezzze. That left hook put him on absolute queer street, he was getting stopped one way or the other.

dempseyfire wrote:I have no problem with it, it's not like any modern refs would let a fight go on after a fighter was down 3 times in a round anyway in 99% of cases.

Oscar 'screwed'? Pluueeezzze. That left hook put him on absolute queer street, he was getting stopped one way or the other.

The first knockdown was unquestionably legit. In fact, that was probably the best punch I've ever seen Ali throw.

My problem is what happened after that. The ref lost control. Ali, being the great sportsman (not) that he was, didn't stay in the corner and those subsequent knockdowns were as much as Bonavena being off-balance as Ali punches with Ali right there on top of him before he (Bonavena) could get set.

Not hard at all to believe that Oscar lasts the round if things didn't get crazy.

Anybody see how quickly those three knockdowns happened?

Must have been the world record shortness of time elapse for three knockdowns! (unless Dempsey was faster against Willard)

Enter it into the Guiness Book of Records.

Look no further than Pacquiao-Marquez I for proof that this is a bad rule.

I don't think you provided the best of examples why this rule shouldn't be used, yancey. Bonavena was clearly out after that left hand and it wouldn't matter much whether Ali would go for him from the corner or not. There was still a whole minute to go and Ringo didn't look like having feet under control.

Still, it's an unnecesarry rule. If a guy goes down three times inside a single round, he's doomed. In most cases, refs will stop the fight or his corner will throw the towell. And even if it doesn't happen, there are very slim chances of him getting back into the fight. So the outcome is 99% the same with or without that rule.
However, I may see it even as a problem if a fighter is going to the last round wide ahead on points and is put on his back for the 3rd time just a few seconds before the final bell.

Sorry, but there is one reason & one reason only this rule is no longer in widespread effect --- the networks! They don't want a big fight, "spoiled" by a legitimate rule as this one, ending fights too soon & crippling revenue!

It's a perfectly legitimate regulation, with a far, far more positive incident history than a negative one, & should be re-instated. I say all of this as a Marquez fan, too.

I dont think its a bad rule.
Hell the fans pay their hundred bucks or whatever it is to see a fight not a destruction.
If ya cant keep your ass off the floor three times in a round, maybe its time for the ref to shut it down.
Work on slippin a few of them shots,come back another day.

It has its pro's and con's.
I am for it for non-title fights. especially
10 & 8 rounders.
But for title fights; which are usually are
big fights, I'm against it.

tanibanana wrote:It has its pro's and con's.
I am for it for non-title fights. especially
10 & 8 rounders.
But for title fights; which are usually are
big fights, I'm against it.

Which makes no sense, is an indefensible standpoint, & perfectly encapsulates the thinking of the networks! Are you one of the big-wigs at HBO? You'd be promoted with an attitude like that.

They're scared a fight will end quicker than it should, & put revenue streams in subsequent jeopardy. Their influence is the reason the rule has fallen largely into disuse...never mind fighter safety! We all know what takes precedence.

I am against the rule, it's unnecessary IMO, the ref or the fighter's corner should be able to judge whether or not it's gone too far.

dempseyfire wrote:I have no problem with it, it's not like any modern refs would let a fight go on after a fighter was down 3 times in a round anyway in 99% of cases.

On the 29th April 2003 in a French Cruiserweight Championship bout between Merick Roberge and Frederic Serrat, Roberge was legitimately down three times in the first round but was not badly hurt on any of those occasions. The referee allowed the fight to continue and Roberge won on a split decision. 94-93 95-94 93-98. The fight was competitive throughout.

A fight stopped under the three knockdown rule which I think should have continued was Benn Barkley. Barkley had been down three times but didn't seem to have been really hurt and it was right at the end of the round.

^^^Right, because once a rule is proven imperfect, it needs to go...