12, 15 or 20 rounds?

A topic nearly as new and innovative as Do we need a superheavyweight division or was Taylor-Chavez ruled correctly but what the heck, I'll start this anyway.

Many people, also on this site, would like to get 15 round title fights back. Why would they, IYO, be better than twelve-rounders and/or even longer fights, such as 20 rounders Joe Louis still fought?

Fights were reduced from 15 to 12 rounds mainly because of TV companies which threatened to drop boxing from their channels if the fights couldn't fit to their one-hour broadcasts. All sanctioning bodies followed the command, getting an excuse to do so from Macini-Kim tragedy. Ironically, two or three years later the same TV companies dumped boxing anyways.

I am not sure why fights were shortened from 20 to 15 rounds actually. I'd guess it had something to do with making the bouts more fast-paced but I am not sure.

So, which number of rounds is the correct one? Is it 15 and if so, why is that, is it the 50 year old tradition or does it in your opinion produce better fights than longer/shorter bouts?

 

I'd like to see a return to 15 round fights. I'm not sure why, I just would. Probably something to do with Ali-Frazier III.

MTF

 

I feel 12 round is enough. More than 1 hour for just one boxing match seems a bit too much for me. Maybe if I had been raised with them, I'd think differently

 

12 round fights just lead to too many inconclusive outcomes - the extra 3 rounds almost always seemed to come up with your answer.

 

Even 13 would be pretty cool.

 

15, baby

 

I've lost count of how many fights I've watched where one guy is finishing like a train and is beaten because he 'runs out of rounds' and I've thought how much better it would be if we had 15 round title fights. I don't think it would even register if it weren't for the fact that I know that not that long ago he would have had three more rounds.

MTF

 

same^

 

Could it be even more than 15 rounds in your opinion then? How about 20 rounds?

 

Nah, 15 would be fine. I honestly think that because it was 15 not so long ago and because we can see on TV so many of the greatest fights of all time (which are 15 rounds) it just resonates with boxing fans.

MTF

 

I like the idea of an odd number better anyway

 

15 would be great. It would tell us more about alot of boxers in today's game.

 

Good point, partly less draws because of the odd number of rounds, but partly just due to the fact that fighters are far more likely to tire after 12 rounds, one fighter is more likely to get a second wind, or show more fighting spirit etc.

I think you even get less close, controversial decisions with 15 rounds.

 

As if judging improves in rounds 13-15.

Close fights and draws lead to good promo for rematches. It's not like they are a bad thing and draws certainly are not that (or too) common in 12 round fights.

Anywhere from 12 to 15 rounds works fine. The advantage to leaving things as they are is that the extra rounds cannot be blamed for ring deaths.
To me, that's a big enough advantage to leave things alone.

 

THIS...

Those 3 Extra Rounds SEPARATES the Men from the Boys...

w/3 FEWER Rounds, Hearns WINS his 1st Bout w/Leonard...w/3 MORE Rounds, REED Thinks Hagler STOPS Leonard...w/3 MORE Rounds, there's No Chavez-Taylor Controversy WHATSOEVER...Dela was the King (QUEEN???) of Inconclusive 12 Rounders...3 MORE Rounds would've ALTERED the Outcomes of a Shitload of his Bouts...

For the Sake of CLARITY, we NEED those 3 Extra Rounds Back...




REED:hammert:

 

That's the only advantage to 12 rounds fights really, it seems they're safer.

 

The "3 extra rounds leads to more conclusive outcomes" argument is a slippery slope. I do think 13 rounds would be better than 12, but I would like to see judging & the sanctioning bodies cleaned up first.

 

my own research conducted a few years back led me to conclude that 12 round fights have not in fact proved any safer than 15 round fights, at least as measured by ring deaths

 

If REED's Not Mistaken, there was a Published Study Done on this, which Concluded there are MORE Deaths in the 12 Round Era, than the 15 Round Days...




REED:dunno:

 

I think I recall that same story

Also, the most deaths occurred in 10 round fights overall (which obviously makes sense since there are a lot more 10 round fights than there are 12 or 15 round fights)

I looked into it when jaws had that Debate forum on here back in the day and I debated someone on 12 vs. 15 and the guy in favor of 12 was touting boxer deaths (and the prevention of same) as his main reason... I don't remember the exact data I had compiled, but basically going back to 1940, I looked at every 15 round fight and tallied up deaths related to the fights (so, Benny Paret for instance, even though he died a few days later, clearly would not have died had he not been in a fight, so he goes in the "15 rounder" column) and then I did the same, tallying up every 12 rounder I could find (there was bound to be some unknown Okie County Intercontinental Welterweight Title fight I missed, I am sure; I tried to stick with WBA/IBF/WBC/WBO/NABF/NABA/USBA, etc) and I tallied up the deaths in or resulting form those fights... From there, I had basic data

But there was more to consider... I had to look at how long the fights in question lasted... so if it is a 15 round fight and the fighter who died was stopped in the 8th, should it really count in the 15th round column?

Without that last consideration, the 12 rounders still had a slightly higher percentage of fatalities ... with it, they had a clearly higher percentage... Neither of these even took into consideration the number of deaths in 10 round fights, which for obvious reasons dwarfed the other two...

My conclusion was that while, yes, it is generally a better idea to reduce how much time you spend getting punched in the head, the fact of the matter is that you are making a living getting punched in the head and it doesn't seem to matter whether you have fought 10 15 rounders in your life or you've never so much as fought a full ten rounder... There was no clear threshold at which the risk of death becomes more apparent... basically, the risk is constant and based on so many different factors that the number of rounds (at least within the scope of 10-15) yields no real meaning or value...

Obviously, if we were talking about 40 rounders or something, I would expect to see a more striking difference, but even that is just based on assumption on my part

 

Interesting, thinking about it, a lot of deaths or serious injuries occur when a boxer is stopped before the 12th round anyway, so maybe the 15 rounds = more dangerous is just a complete myth.

 

i think more ring deaths occur due to the cutting of weight than number of rounds in a fight.

 

definitely something to that

 

It's a contest of boxing, not a stamina contest. 12 is plenty, if you can't impose your will on a guy in 36 minutes then you're not the better fighter.

 

banning the making-weight shenanigans would be huge too .. fighters should have to weigh in before they step in the ring, anything more than ~5% over their weigh-in weight and they shouldn't be allowed to fight. zero tolerance policy. canelo and trout were literally light heavyweights fighting at light middleweight, that is fucking absurd.

 

weird

 

I'm in favor of this as well... it is ridiculous now... guys are routinely two to three weight classes above their "weight"

 

I agree with that, it is downright absurd. Kind of makes a mockery of having weight classes in the first place, part of the fight is won on the scales.

 

Deaths aside, 15 rounds means more punches to the head... that means it's definitely worse for a fighters brain.

 

It's one instance where the facts don't matter, the perception, however, does. It's why the change was made in the first place. Reactionary melodramatic overreaction.

We are on a long spell of very few ring deaths occurring. Make the change to 15, have one high profile fighter die, and game on to ban boxing.

This isn't about facts, although it is common sense that more danger is present in 15 rounds than there is in 12. So while I would question empirical data that showed anything other than 15 round fights being more dangerous than 12, it's a moot point at this point in time, at least. And probably forever.