Is it fair to say that the abandonment of 15 rounders has led to a steep increase in the number of inconclusive and unsatisfactory outcomes in big fights? Or is this just an unfounded opinion I've grown all on my own like a shoulder zit?
For one thing, 15 rounders really puts a premium on endurance. Granted that fighters would pace themselves if it was 15 instead of 12, but that 3 additional rounds can be crucial in differentiating those who have that little extra it takes to push harder and close a fight decisively.
It took Leonard fourteen rounds to break down Hearns. In a twelve-rounder, I think Tommy back then could've won a decision. Ray would've pushed a bit harder, but it wouldn't have been the same for the basic reason that he respected Tommy's punching power and that those extra rounds in a fifteen-rounder were critical in terms of damage accumulation. I rewatched Chavez vs Taylor yesterday and had it six rounds a piece after twelve. In a fifteen-rounder, I think JCC would've still chopped him down late. De La Hoya's career would've panned out differently if he fought fifteen rounds for every fight. Obviously, Pacman would've gotten a stoppage versus Margarito. Guys like Hopkins, Toney, would feel at home in fifteen-round fights.
You can have an even split of rounds won over twelve (even) much more readily than you can over fifteen (odd). Fifteen allows for three more rounds in which a knockout or stoppage can occur, which will always be clearer than a decision, which has greater potential for corruption & indecisiveness. Yes, it is fair to say unsatisfactory outcomes are a side-effect of twelve-rounders, as opposed to fifteen.
On the bright side, at least we don't have to deal with the joke that is five, five minute rounds. :atu:
Vitali-Briggs. Briggs hurt his arm in that fight, we know this as Briggs told Margaret Goodman and she told us. We'll never know how well he could have done with two good arms. Rematch.
What a predictable and simple response pick one of the worst fights in the history of mankind and insinuate that all championship fights should be cut down from their true championship distance of 15 rounds because of it.
I disagree with that. Oscar always had stamina problems. The only fights I can think of where he came on strong at the end were Quartey and Whitaker, and that was because he knew he was losing those fights. He was also was still fairly fresh at the end of those fights, having not done much throughout the course of them. There just weren't a lot of guys at 135-140 who could take DLH the distance early in his career. He was a beast at those weights. But he did fade against MAG, and iirc against John John Molina as well.
Ah, yeah, he was very good but also very overrated (in general) back then. Whitaker beat him easily imo. Anyway, I don't think additional rounds would necessarily add or subtract from the # of unsatisfactory conclusions we see in boxing.
I have to admit, the way your prior response read suggested that you believed it to be at least somewhat true. I'd have countered with his very same point.
That's cool. I was just clearing it up. I really only had a casual interest in non-heavyweight boxing in the mid-late 90s... I didn't have an opinion one way or another at the time.
Do any of the old timers or history buffs have any actual concrete opinions (based on numbers rather than theory) on whether there have been more inconclusive championship fights since 15 rounders stopped?
