BoxRec

I have always of the mind that the reduction of championship fights from 15 to 12 rounds had nothing to do with safety, but was instead a marketing ploy by Jose Sulaiman (WBC) to make his product (fights) more conducive to television’s needs.

A 12 round fight fits perfectly into commercial television’s one hour format: (The old network fights.)

12 X 3 = 36 minutes & 12 x 1 = 12 minutes totaling 48 minutes of fight time; with most commercials coming between rounds that leaves 12 minutes. - Six minutes for introductions and six minutes for wrapping up (five minutes at each end, if you throw in another commercial break.)

A fifteen round fight was a time problem for commercial TV:

15 X 3 = 45 minutes & 1 X 15 = 15 minutes totaling 60 minutes of fight time – leaving no time for introductions and wrapping-up unless you move to a 1 ½ block. But then TV is left with filling 15 minutes of introduction and has 15 more minutes ‘getting out.’ It is too much time to fill. (Throw in an early KO and TV is scrambling to fill air; a quick KO hurt TV less in the one hour format.)

Selling commercial time was also a problem. The 1 1/2 hour format necessitated that the fight be popular enough to sell all the commercial time available, and the truth is, most fights weren’t. In the sixties and seventies Wide World of Sports had its own solution, they use to fill the extra time by cutting away to the Curling Championships in Canada.

When it was all done, network TV abandoned the fight game anyway and we were left with 12 round championship fights. No doubt fighters, (regardless if it is to their advantage or not,) will always choose fewer rounds, and with the bogus, “it’s safer’ argument still being deployed I doubt will ever see another 15 round fight.

If Jose Sulaiman had been born a generation earlier Billy Conn would have been heavyweight champ, and Marciano wouldn’t have. I still hate 12 round fights; I want the three rounds back.

(Wide World of Sports - I sure do miss watching that commie bastard fall off the ski-jump; I think I’ll go to YouTube.)

Who was the last to compete in a 15 round world title fight? was it Jorge Paez? or was he the first to do the new 12 round championship rounds? probably neither?

Rexob wrote:Who was the last to compete in a 15 round world title fight? was it Jorge Paez? or was he the first to do the new 12 round championship rounds? probably neither?

got it in my head that rocky lockridge was one half of the last 15 rounder but may be wrong

Was Holyfield/Qawi 1 the last great 15 rounder?

littlepug wrote:

Rexob wrote:Who was the last to compete in a 15 round world title fight? was it Jorge Paez? or was he the first to do the new 12 round championship rounds? probably neither?

got it in my head that rocky lockridge was one half of the last 15 rounder but may be wrong

I'm quite sure it was Paez vs Calvin Grove 15 round MD

Rexob wrote:

littlepug wrote:

Rexob wrote:Who was the last to compete in a 15 round world title fight? was it Jorge Paez? or was he the first to do the new 12 round championship rounds? probably neither?

got it in my head that rocky lockridge was one half of the last 15 rounder but may be wrong

I'm quite sure it was Paez vs Calvin Grove 15 round MD

ah yes, now youve mentioned grove that rings a bell

It was Mancini/Kim. The network's were fine with the time. Boxing did huge ratings then.

The "Governing Bodies" did not care about the safety of the sport. However, they were getting criticism about the safety of boxing and this was a concrete thing they could do that looked like they were trying to address the problem.

The 15-round fights were not a problem as far as the TV networks were concerned. They were covering sports all afternoon. A 15-round fight took up more time and actually attracted more viewers than most of the other things they were covering. They could always jump into most other sports at any time during the afternoon.

It was always my impression Kim was the pretext and TV the real reason. Numerous sports have been amended to fit the demands of broadcast television.

Tuan_Jim wrote:It was always my impression Kim was the pretext and TV the real reason. Numerous sports have been amended to fit the demands of broadcast television.

A 12 round fight would still be scheduled for over an hour. It's not like they tune in with the first bell. If anything, 15 is more convenient for the 90 minute time slot.

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.

I always heard it was the network issue. Safety was an issue, but always heard it was about the networks. Shame, because maybe Howard would've gotten that title in 1984, and maybe Ray would've lost to Marvin.

Nile4000 wrote:I always heard it was the network issue. Safety was an issue, but always heard it was about the networks. Shame, because maybe Howard would've gotten that title in 1984, and maybe Ray would've lost to Marvin.

Is that Howard Davis Jr. vs Rosario you are referring to? - 12 Rounds and Marciano wouldn't have been champion and Billy Conn would have. - The fight that always bothered me was Rosario v Camacho. (Just around the time they changed the rule.) I believe Hector would never have lasted another three rounds.

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.

Drayton vs Hilton was the only 15 rder I ever attended. Was in july 1987.

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.

yeah,why don't these people just go to the record books and decide who had won
the first 12 rounds of the old championship fights when men were real men.
that is what revisionist do,because they know more then you do and will ever know.
also they're still alive to do it of course,that gives them an advantage over all those
deceased famous boxers(such as Jack Dempsey,Rocky Marciano that they may not have ever taken a fancy to for one reason or another.

APerno wrote:

Nile4000 wrote:I always heard it was the network issue. Safety was an issue, but always heard it was about the networks. Shame, because maybe Howard would've gotten that title in 1984, and maybe Ray would've lost to Marvin.

Is that Howard Davis Jr. vs Rosario you are referring to? - 12 Rounds and Marciano wouldn't have been champion and Billy Conn would have. - The fight that always bothered me was Rosario v Camacho. (Just around the time they changed the rule.) I believe Hector would never have lasted another three rounds.

Yeah, that's the fight. Howard took the fight on short notice, and lost that close one. I feel you on Rosario-Camacho, I think the same way you do.

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.

Those were NABF and USBA fights respectively.

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.

If you go to an overtime round is the judge(s) forbidden to score the round even? Because if so, that creates an ethical dilemma for a judge who believes he just witnessed an (overtime) even round.

Why do you feel draws are bad? I feel the only ones who actually gain from forcing a decision are the bookmakers (and the sport betting casinos) - and I guess it satisfies fan needs. But there have been some fights that I walked away from feeling a draw was the best decision. (The most fair to the fighters.)

I will offer one more counter argument: a champion who battles to a 12 round draw is now being asked to forgo all that effort and put his title at risk based on a one round performance. It seems unfair for a champion to risk so much on one round; no one would ask a champion to put his title at risk in a 'one-rounder,' but this rule would force such a scenario.

Granted both baseball and football use some sort of 'sudden death' as a tie breaker; both being asked to give up so much (the championship) for one inning or one quarter of play, but the loss of the championship with them is softened by the reality that both can legitimately say: 'just wait to next year.' Fighters who lose titles sometimes never get another shot (or at least not when they should get it.)

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.

The problem with so-called overtime rounds is that they result in boxers fighting more than the number of scheduled rounds in their bouts.
That is why the California State Athletic Commission objected to extra rounds when there was an attempt to have them.

- Chuck Johnston

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.

littlepug wrote:

Rexob wrote:Who was the last to compete in a 15 round world title fight? was it Jorge Paez? or was he the first to do the new 12 round championship rounds? probably neither?

got it in my head that rocky lockridge was one half of the last 15 rounder but may be wrong

That was probaly againt Barry Michael

Grant wrote:

littlepug wrote:

Rexob wrote:Who was the last to compete in a 15 round world title fight? was it Jorge Paez? or was he the first to do the new 12 round championship rounds? probably neither?

got it in my head that rocky lockridge was one half of the last 15 rounder but may be wrong

That was probaly againt Barry Michael