BoxRec

i dont get it. there are 4 boxers left in each divison now and they are guaranteed a medal. so does that mean 2 get the broze medal? why dont the losers fight of for that.?

They used to fight for bronzemedal. The reason is probably that if you lose badly in your semifinal you wont be able to fight in a bronzemedal fight

I think that used to be the system up untill 1956 i don't no why they changed it.

this was only introduced after the 1948 games in London so first occured in Helsinki in 1952.

to be honest i dont know what the original thinking behind it was, but it seems to be the done thing now in all major tourneys

I think its fair enough. If you lose the semi and the chance at gold, the last thing you want to do is to get up for a bronze medal fight.

I think it has been done just to stop the fighters having to have an extra fight in such a short period of tim.

KOJOE90 wrote:I think it has been done just to stop the fighters having to have an extra fight in such a short period of tim.

surely if the bronze medal fight was on the same day as the final then all four fighters would have the same amount of fights in the same time

neil r wrote:

KOJOE90 wrote:I think it has been done just to stop the fighters having to have an extra fight in such a short period of tim.

surely if the bronze medal fight was on the same day as the final then all four fighters would have the same amount of fights in the same time

good point

if a boxer is stopped, he can't box again for 3 weeks (I think it's three, it might have changed to 4). So if one guy loses his semi-final on a stoppage they couldn't box off for another month, by which stage everyone would have gone home, and just because you lose your semi comprehensively doesn't mean you're any worse than a guy who loses a decision to another bloke, so because of this they can't schedule a 3rd / 4th place box-off, and award two bronzes...

Christ, two losing semi-finalists deserve a bronze medal for the sheer disappointment at not having made the final.

REAL_DEAL wrote:

neil r wrote:

KOJOE90 wrote:I think it has been done just to stop the fighters having to have an extra fight in such a short period of tim.

surely if the bronze medal fight was on the same day as the final then all four fighters would have the same amount of fights in the same time

good point

True, but I am just passing on what I heard about this subject. Maybe the thinking is that it's fair enough to make the fighter go the extra yard for Gold/Silver but not Bronze?

I may be wrong but don't some of the other 'combat' sports have 4 Medals as well? eg Judo.

Maybe it's also a Olympic 'timetable' issue as well? Just a thought.

no judo you have to fight for the bronze.

REAL_DEAL wrote:no judo you have to fight for the bronze.

Ok but I'm sure Boxing ain't the only one, I may be wrong though as I don't really follow other sports.

its maybe the case that since potentially boxing is one of the more dangerous sports, the organisers may be thinking long the lines of the less a person fights then the better?

Coconut wrote:if a boxer is stopped, he can't box again for 3 weeks (I think it's three, it might have changed to 4). So if one guy loses his semi-final on a stoppage they couldn't box off for another month, by which stage everyone would have gone home, and just because you lose your semi comprehensively doesn't mean you're any worse than a guy who loses a decision to another bloke, so because of this they can't schedule a 3rd / 4th place box-off, and award two bronzes...

In that case you could just award the bronze medal to the second semi finalist for not being stopped and if both get stopped then maybe a system where they add up both losing semi finalists point tally for the entire tournament and the highest gets the bronze.

To be honest I don't have a problem with there being 2 Bronze medal winners in each weight class.

Cannibal wrote:

Coconut wrote:if a boxer is stopped, he can't box again for 3 weeks (I think it's three, it might have changed to 4). So if one guy loses his semi-final on a stoppage they couldn't box off for another month, by which stage everyone would have gone home, and just because you lose your semi comprehensively doesn't mean you're any worse than a guy who loses a decision to another bloke, so because of this they can't schedule a 3rd / 4th place box-off, and award two bronzes...

In that case you could just award the bronze medal to the second semi finalist for not being stopped and if both get stopped then maybe a system where they add up both losing semi finalists point tally for the entire tournament and the highest gets the bronze.

Not sure I agree.

OK, let’s say Roberto Duran is in a semi final with Sugar Ray and loses on points.

In the other semi final, Marvin Hagler beats Tommy Hearns by KO in three.

The two losing semi-finalists awho would then have to box off are Duran and Hearns. Now, Hearns has been stopped, so he can’t box for a month. However, does this make Duran the winner? Nope. Nor does losing to the winner of the final: Duran lost to the winner there as well, so would this mean he would deserve a bronze over Hearns? We all know the result of that one…

I might be being a bit liberal with dates, but you get the impression.


Basically, there isn’t really a system to work it out fairly because styles make fights and because because boxing quite rightly doesn’t let you box for a while after taking a beating. This shenanigans might have started out of compassion or whatever, but there is a fundamental safety regulation which prevents a box-off nowadays.

Plus, like most people seem to think, it’s tough on a guy who got beat two days before to have to get up for a bronze medal box-off. No probs with two bronzes on emotional and a practical level.

Coconut wrote: OK, let’s say Roberto Duran is in a semi final with Sugar Ray and loses on points.

In the other semi final, Marvin Hagler beats Tommy Hearns by KO in three.

jesus what an olympics that would be!!!