Page 1 of 1
if you could change a rule...............
Posted: 16 May 2011, 09:05
by Darcy Delaney
if you could change or bring in a new rule in british boxing what would it be,
i would like to see a rule along the lines, if a champion has been nominated to defend his title then both fighters are not aloud to fight anyone else until this fight has happened, i think it could stop fighters avoiding each other and stop promoters manouvering fighters around/away from titles, what would you change
Re: if you could change a rule...............
Posted: 16 May 2011, 09:20
by el_grande_mauro_mina
Unbeaten prospects after 9 fights have to fight opponents with a 60% + winning record.
Fighters with a 90% winning record are not allowed to fight anyone with less than a 50% + winning record.
The journeymen will say 'aw, what about us?' he great thing chaps is that you can be matched with each other
thus you will start getting more wins in evenly matched bouts.
Re: if you could change a rule...............
Posted: 16 May 2011, 09:21
by DougieC30
After 6 fights, you MUST box someoneone with more wins than defeats.
Re: if you could change a rule...............
Posted: 16 May 2011, 09:22
by DougieC30
Fat Git wrote:Unbeaten prospects after 9 fights have to fight opponents with a 60% + winning record.
Fighters with a 90% winning record are not allowed to fight anyone with less than a 50% + winning record.
The journeymen will say 'aw, what about us?' he great thing chaps is that you can be matched with each other
thus you will start getting more wins in evenly matched bouts.
U must have clicked submit 1 second before me haha
Re: if you could change a rule...............
Posted: 16 May 2011, 09:23
by DougieC30
DougieC30 wrote:Fat Git wrote:Unbeaten prospects after 9 fights have to fight opponents with a 60% + winning record.
Fighters with a 90% winning record are not allowed to fight anyone with less than a 50% + winning record.
The journeymen will say 'aw, what about us?' he great thing chaps is that you can be matched with each other
thus you will start getting more wins in evenly matched bouts.
U must have c licked submit 1 second before me haha
Re: if you could change a rule...............
Posted: 16 May 2011, 09:24
by el_grande_mauro_mina
DougieC30 wrote:Fat Git wrote:Unbeaten prospects after 9 fights have to fight opponents with a 60% + winning record.
Fighters with a 90% winning record are not allowed to fight anyone with less than a 50% + winning record.
The journeymen will say 'aw, what about us?' he great thing chaps is that you can be matched with each other
thus you will start getting more wins in evenly matched bouts.
U must have clicked submit 1 second before me haha
Great minds think alike Dougie! I agree with you though!
Re: if you could change a rule...............
Posted: 16 May 2011, 09:28
by DougieC30
Think about it but, it would only be good for the sport. Youv got guys at unbeaten after 13 fights who haven't been tested. Masters title fights would be good fights becausr you could have a guy like 7-0 v a guy that's 10-0 rather than a untested lad v a journeyman
Re: if you could change a rule...............
Posted: 16 May 2011, 09:31
by the truth
Set wages for boxers without Aba titles or Olympic medals so boxers didn't get ripped off when turning over
Re: if you could change a rule...............
Posted: 16 May 2011, 09:38
by bennie
The Lonsdale Belt rule - just one Belt per weight per fighter - is stingy on behalf of the Board, regardless of the advent of new weights.
Re: if you could change a rule...............
Posted: 16 May 2011, 09:39
by black panther
Fat Git wrote:Unbeaten prospects after 9 fights have to fight opponents with a 60% + winning record.
Fighters with a 90% winning record are not allowed to fight anyone with less than a 50% + winning record.
The journeymen will say 'aw, what about us?' he great thing chaps is that you can be matched with each other
thus you will start getting more wins in evenly matched bouts.
Great idea in theory mate but records can be deceiving. I know it's rare but you do get some very decent fighters with "0.5" or less type records for example good old Zack Page whose record is 21-35-2 yet most people had him beating Tom Dallas(14-0-0). Under your ruling this fight wouldn't have happened. Also these type of journeymen with losing records save many a bill after there is a pull out. Most fighters with winning records won't want to take fights at short notice as they want to protect their record.
Re: if you could change a rule...............
Posted: 16 May 2011, 09:46
by el_grande_mauro_mina
black panther wrote:Fat Git wrote:Unbeaten prospects after 9 fights have to fight opponents with a 60% + winning record.
Fighters with a 90% winning record are not allowed to fight anyone with less than a 50% + winning record.
The journeymen will say 'aw, what about us?' he great thing chaps is that you can be matched with each other
thus you will start getting more wins in evenly matched bouts.
Great idea in theory mate but records can be deceiving. I know it's rare but you do get some very decent fighters with "0.5" or less type records for example good old Zack Page whose record is 21-35-2 yet most people had him beating Tom Dallas(14-0-0). Under your ruling this fight wouldn't have happened. Also these type of journeymen with losing records save many a bill after there is a pull out. Most fighters with winning records won't want to take fights at short notice as they want to protect their record.
Under my rule - Tom Dallas would have been nowhere near a 14-0 record though I do take your point as regards a glitch - I think we are all sick of fighters fighting guys with negative percentage records where we know who is going to win - I suppose 'special cases' can be considered and someone like Zack Page could be considered under a review from the board. As for the 'saving a bill' excuse - that is why boxing is dying and something needs to be done about it.
Re: if you could change a rule...............
Posted: 16 May 2011, 09:48
by deadpan
The option of an uncontested full refund if a fighter pulls out of a bill.
Re: if you could change a rule...............
Posted: 16 May 2011, 10:16
by mrbassie
Topical one this: No more referees being the sole judge.
Re: if you could change a rule...............
Posted: 16 May 2011, 10:23
by alexpaterson
As MrBassie said I would like ref's to no longer score contests alone, at small hall shows I think a judge outside the ring scoring would work to let the referee solely concentrate on the action and forget about scoring it!