12, 15 or 20 rounds?

15 rounds 8 ounce gloves...that is ALL....solves everything...

 

Then make the fights 7 rounds or 5.

I don't totally disagree with your point, but it's not always about who is the better fighter, it's about who wins the fight. Stamina is generally considered to be a fair component of that determination in a pro boxing match.

 

Agreed, it's a significant part of what makes Duran the GOAT.

 

I do think shorter fights tend to make for more fast-paced bouts. They're easier for the casual fan to watch, too.

 

I got no problem with draws tbh, just the feeling you get when you're just about to really find out who the better man is then the final bell goes. That seems to happen allot over 12. Imagine Arguello-Pryor or Leonard-Hearns ended after 12. How fucking heinous.

 

Yeah I think indecisive fights or really close decisions are more of a problem than just fights that happen to be scored a draw.

I wonder if the outcome of Pacquiao vs Marquez 1, 2 and 3 would have been any different over 15 rounds.

 

I dig. 13 is cool though because it's still a little longer and it's just logical to me that fights would have an odd number of rounds.

 

do the research yourself and find out, staT boY

 

15, but only for the good fights. If you see a fight like Ruiz Rahman coming up you schedule it for 4 or something.

 

Duran would still be GOAT in the 12 round era. Really, the only lightweights of the past 30 years I'd give a chance of beating him would be Whitaker and maybe, MAYBE Floyd. He would fuck up Chavez, Mosley, and DLH (who never really even had the stamina for 12).

 

I think mayweather jr was much better at lightweight than welter but against Duran the physical strength he acquired later in his career would pay off in any era

 

15 round fights would be longer than 12 round fights, in most cases.

 

I don't think changing fights to 15 rounds would solve any more close fights. Yes, some guys who finished strong in 12 rounds could get advantage from three extra rounds but then again, somebody who is behind after 15 could take over if the bout was 20 rounds. Also, if the fights were 15 rounds, then naturally fighters would pace themselves differently and we might see slower bouts (yes, the fights of the 80s had often better pace than bouts now but it must be remembered that guys back then were also smaller in all weight classes).

I don't think that even number of rounds is a problem either. We don't get too many draws even now, and in 15 round fight just one 10-10 round brings the same "problem" back

Tradition is a strong argument in favor of 15 rounders though

 

It isnt your perception that there were many fewer inconclusive/controversial/generally unsatisfactory endings prior to 86, 87? I'd be curious to hear from the older guys (+cdogg) on that.

 

I am not sure really, nor am I saying you were wrong.
The questions you would need to add to that though are:
1) Would the non-unsatisfactory fights of the 80s have become controversial if they had been 12 rounds (for example, Leonard might have started taking risks earlier against Hearns and won anyway)
2) Would the majority of the controversial fights of recent times have changed radically had they been longer? I believe Barrera-Morales I for example would have been a close, debatable fight despite how long it was.

Personally I think there have been close fights and debatable decision always. Adding three more rounds could solve some of them, but IMHO that leads to the question why wouldn't we add eight more rounds to get even more satisfactory endings.

Again, I am not saying anyone is wrong here nor do I have an agenda in either way. I just find it curious so many people agree it must be 15 rounds, no more or less

 

Part of it's definitely just tradition, but at the same time one fight length is gonna balance the things we want better. we want conclusive endings, but we dont want interminable fights or the winner to just be settled via exhaustion. 15 was good

I think Leonard-Hearns would have ended unsatisfactorily in 12

 

Honestly, man, I don't think I oculd answer that question objectively... Because the fights are finished, there to be examined as completed, I feel it is impossible, at least for me, to separate what I intrinsically "know" about the fight from what "could have been" about the fight... I mean, how do you watch Weaver KO15 John Tate objectively when you know Weaver got him out of there, behind on the cards in the 15th? If it ended after 12 as it was, Tate wins an easy decision... But that is assuming everything stays as is... Say it was scheduled for 12, Weaver probably goes balls to the wall in the 12th knowing he needs a miracle... maybe he gets it, maybe he doesn't

I prefer the 15 round distance, feels more like it separates the best from the rest... but that is a feeling, nothing more... I don't think I can objectively defend the position (nor do I think anyone can objectively denounce it either)

 

Oh I know I know, I was mainly just nausing mikE, as predictably - he is a Duran hateR.

 

I don't mean it as a 'what could have been' question really, just how many 'inconclusive' ending you'd say each distance actually tends to produce. Starting at the beginning with Hagler-Leonard, extremely unsatisfactory. Chavez-Taylor, every big Oscar fight more or less. I think all those fights would have been settled over 15. Granted there's definitely a cognitive bias going on here because every time there's an unsatisfactory outcome over 12 my disatisfaction's stoked by ruing that it wasn't over 15. But even still Im sticking with it.... :: 12 rounds sucks.

 

I bet mikE votes republican.

 

I don't know...

he once vigorously came to the defence of workers' unions after Trouble Mel had made some typical, anecdote-stuffed, Randian attack on them... That is highly atypical behavior for a Republican... For a brief moment, I found myself saying "I agree with mikE" ... an incredible event

 

I'm right there with you... I want it to be 15... I love the 15 rounder... BUT, what I am saying is that I doubt I could objectively prove my position to be irrefutable under heavy scrutiny, no matter how much I feel it to be right

 

Then I love mikE. mikE is my bruda-bruda.

 

I don't hate Duran, I just think he is an overrated cunt. Similar to you I suppose, but you're unrated, not overrated.

 

Well...if you think Hearns winning is unsatisfactory, then I guess so. ::

And the notion that Leonard "starting earlier" doesn't work for me. Leonard threw everything but the kitchen sink, as they say, at Hearns in the 6th & 7th rounds of their fight fight and Hearns not only rode it out, but he took charge of the fight again during rounds 8 - 12, and by the end of the 12th, he was totally back in charge. I don't think Leonard would ever beat Hearns in a 12 rounder.

I definitely prefer 15 rounds. It's always been the distance of a championship fight for me. We've lost the notion of fighters being dangerous in the 'championship rounds" since now scorecards are being read at that time. I guess we can "Devil's advocate" it to death, but 12 round fights have always seemed somewhat lacking, relatively, since the 15 rounders went the way of the Dodo.

 

It is not about that at all, I am just looking for reason why people prefer 15 rounders but not even longer fights

 

12 rounds is more than enough for me. And I don't mind that it's not an odd number, they should be more draw in boxing, not less.

 

:dunno:

 

Yeah but you can imagine Leonard starting his rally, rocking Hearns and Hearns holding on for a close decision. We'd end with a loose end & we wouldnt have the same sense that we'd found the better man

 

12 rounders are too often like an interrupted fuck.