A fighters union would be nice for that
[quote]IronMaiden144 wrote:
Would the NFL be what it is today if the NFL and AFL never merged? Merge the WBC, WBA, WBO, and IBF and get rid of promotors and have one ranking with ONE Champion for each weightclass and fights that are determined by the rankings not hand-picked opponents meant to pump up win.
One can dream…[/quote]
This would definitely help. If they had a clear schedule with backups for those that are heart, and requirements for fight I think viewership would skyrocket. Right now you can’t cheer for anybody because you never know when and who they will fight next. about 6 or more years ago I read fighters heart. The guy followed Andre Ward made him seem like this ultimate beast of a fighter, I started following him more but he hardly had a fight since then. Being deflated I lost interest in him and boxing all together.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]BigEasy24 wrote:
MMA has stolen a lot of the talent from boxing along with a lot of sports and sadly the HORRIBLE judging isn’t helping bring in AMERICAN talent.[/quote]
Football, on the other hand, has FUCKED boxing.[/quote]
I think most sports have fucked boxing. Boxing never tried to accommodate the times. Football made up ways to look like it’s faster, more powerful game. Basketball removed hand checking, and Baseball has the DH. Boxing seemed to have went the opposite direction. An incumbent champion can run for 8 rounds scoring a few points here and there, fight 2 solid high scoring rounds then win by decision.[/quote]
I can understand that, but then that’s why I like it - boxing and baseball are pretty much the only two games that, save for little changes, have remained the same since 1920.
It’s hard to change the rules to push guys to fight more when the sport is about hurting another human, and the very essence of it is “hit and not get hit.” Then you become like football - a shell of your former self. [/quote]
Purist will always stick around, but if you lose popularity you get less talent and what boxing is now. Baseball may look like it hasn’t changed much but it’s had almost a double in the number of home runs and some exciting home run races. Steroids helped tremendously, now it just has to rebound from all the people that got caught.
It may help boxing to replicate MMA and shorten the fight to 6 rounds, but a greater requirement attacking. That way they can take less damage then if they fought hard for 12 full rounds. Unless they can find a way to soften the impact of the gloves even more. I think 6 round fights would also help keep the interest of the pop crowd.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]BigEasy24 wrote:
MMA has stolen a lot of the talent from boxing along with a lot of sports and sadly the HORRIBLE judging isn’t helping bring in AMERICAN talent.[/quote]
Football, on the other hand, has FUCKED boxing.[/quote]
I think most sports have fucked boxing. Boxing never tried to accommodate the times. Football made up ways to look like it’s faster, more powerful game. Basketball removed hand checking, and Baseball has the DH. Boxing seemed to have went the opposite direction. An incumbent champion can run for 8 rounds scoring a few points here and there, fight 2 solid high scoring rounds then win by decision.[/quote]
I can understand that, but then that’s why I like it - boxing and baseball are pretty much the only two games that, save for little changes, have remained the same since 1920.
It’s hard to change the rules to push guys to fight more when the sport is about hurting another human, and the very essence of it is “hit and not get hit.” Then you become like football - a shell of your former self. [/quote]
Purist will always stick around, but if you lose popularity you get less talent and what boxing is now. Baseball may look like it hasn’t changed much but it’s had almost a double in the number of home runs and some exciting home run races. Steroids helped tremendously, now it just has to rebound from all the people that got caught.
It may help boxing to replicate MMA and shorten the fight to 6 rounds, but a greater requirement attacking. That way they can take less damage then if they fought hard for 12 full rounds. Unless they can find a way to soften the impact of the gloves even more. I think 6 round fights would also help keep the interest of the pop crowd.[/quote]
No.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]BigEasy24 wrote:
Olympic scoring is no fix, but what about half point scoring or even judging the fight in totality appose to rounds? [/quote]
It’s not the scoring system that’s the problem - it’s the judges. There needs to be much more intense schooling for judges (any of whom have never boxed) on what boxing actually is and how to score it. And they need to be held accountable for what they’re doing. CJ Ross stepping down was good - but more shitty judges need to follow her lead. And refs, too, like that clown Laurence Cole in Texas, who only gets to ref because his fucking father is on the gaming commission. He’s a standing example of what a ref should not be, yet he’s still reffing fights and fucking them up.
[/quote]
Have you read Mike Tyson’s memoirs?
One of the things he talked about with his early fights (I’d have to go back and check the context, I think it was junior olympics qualifier matches) when he lost by decision, not when he was a pro: He would get guys up against the ropes and knock them out of the ring with body shots. He mentioned how judges would score these the same way they would score jabs. And he’d get disrespect from opponents coaches and judges because of some idea of boxing being a civilized gentlemen’s sport or something. In the book he doesn’t spell out the connection, but I know that following these early incidents he became even more aggressive about pursuing knockouts and he took some big risks.
I was too young when Tyson really came up and I don’t know what kind of hype he really generated for casual sports fans at the time. I just know he took big risks because he didn’t play the points game fighters are playing nowadays and he was willing to fight anyone, you can’t say that for boxers that are known in the mainstream sports world. Everyone knows who Mayweather is because he’s undefeated, but why is he undefeated? Judging aside, I don’t think boxers right now take big enough risks.
I’m not a boxer, so I say this as a somewhat casual fan
id rather see 15 round as oppose to 6
fixing the point criteria would be better than all
[quote]IronMaiden144 wrote:
Would the NFL be what it is today if the NFL and AFL never merged? Merge the WBC, WBA, WBO, and IBF and get rid of promotors and have one ranking with ONE Champion for each weightclass and fights that are determined by the rankings not hand-picked opponents meant to pump up win.
One can dream…[/quote]
This more than anything would reinvigorate boxing. If you look at the case of MMA, it was a relative fringe sport until the UFC started buying up and folding into itself the majority of the other MMA organizations. In this way, the really established themselves as the premier body in the sport. Having only one person recognized as the legitimate champion in a weight class makes it easier for more casual fans to follow the sport. Also, it makes it much easier to put together quality fights the fans want to see. You either fight who Dana White tells you to fight or you don’t eat, simple as that. Similarly, the plethora of weight classes these days is an abomination. I’m sorry but you don’t need a new weight class every four or five pounds. Go back to the original 8 weight classes. There is simply too much fragmentation in the sport.
However, boxing will never go away. It has been around for thousands of years. Every couple of generations or so, it goes through one of these existential crises where its demise is widely predicted by various pundits before it experiences a new renaissance. It happened after the U.S. Civil War until John L. Sullivan brought it to new heights. Then again, after Dempsey retired, boxing went through an extended downturn until Joe Louis came on the scene. Bad judging has always plagued the sport ever since the Queensbury Rules replaced the London Prize Rules. However, no sport in the Western world satiates the inherent human bloodlust like boxing does. People always have been and always will be drawn to combat and, since all sports are basically stand-ins for combat, nothing approximates this as well as boxing does.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]BigEasy24 wrote:
MMA has stolen a lot of the talent from boxing along with a lot of sports and sadly the HORRIBLE judging isn’t helping bring in AMERICAN talent.[/quote]
I don’t think MMA has stolen any talent, actually. The kind of guys who do MMA are not the same kind of kids that box - not in their background (both martial arts and living-wise), where they live, or their mentality. MMA attracts a lot of suburban people who wrestled in HS or do BJJ or started taking muay Thai after it was popular. Boxing attracts the urban guys who didn’t go to high school and could barely afford the $30 a month for the boxing gym.
Football, on the other hand, has FUCKED boxing.[/quote]
I think most sports have fucked boxing. Boxing never tried to accommodate the times. Football made up ways to look like it’s faster, more powerful game. Basketball removed hand checking, and Baseball has the DH. Boxing seemed to have went the opposite direction. An incumbent champion can run for 8 rounds scoring a few points here and there, fight 2 solid high scoring rounds then win by decision.[/quote]
I can understand that, but then that’s why I like it - boxing and baseball are pretty much the only two games that, save for little changes, have remained the same since 1920.
It’s hard to change the rules to push guys to fight more when the sport is about hurting another human, and the very essence of it is “hit and not get hit.” Then you become like football - a shell of your former self. [/quote]
This x1000000. The only thing that gives me the chills down my spine the same way that walking into an arena and seeing a boxing ring standing there is walking into a baseball stadium (and I’m talking about a real baseball stadium, not one of those fucking domes). You can literally feel the weight of the history of these sports on your shoulders when you go to watch them live. If you close your eyes, you can easily imagine guys like Cobb, Ruth, DiMaggio or Mantle stepping up to the plate, just as you can picture Dempsey, Greb or Louis climbing through the ropes.
In fact, one of the things that appeals to me so much about boxing is that the top guys today basically train in the exact same way that these legends did. They run, skip, spar, shadow box and do bag work and calisthenics. Yes, a handful of top guys do other things as well, but, even then, the meat and potatoes of their training is still comprised of these activities. I keep saying “top guys” because these guys have the resources to train with any implements they desire but they still get in their roadwork and do their rounds in the ring and with the bags just like the newbie ghetto kid who has just walked through the front door of the boxing gym for the first time. This is because training like this works.
Boxing is slightly different as their is no fear of monopoly lawsuits like in MMA since there is different company’s appose to different Organizations using other orgs.
The amount of different organisations is a major killer. Boxing should adopt a UFC approach - works so much better.
One champ. Has to fight the best challenger. UFC always has good match ups. The champ is always fighting someone who deserves a shot.
if they did this it would do wonders for the sport.
I love the ufc and MMA as a whole but they more and more are given people who are draws more than fighters ranked as number 1 challengers
John Molina vs broner excite anyone? Molina can bang (doesn?t need to pointed out but im going to anyway!), and I honestly think, if hes 100% TRULEY believes he can win and is up for it, then he?ll stop broner. Damn I hope he does. Seems like a fight fans dream. You saw how he fought fire with fire with matthyese, ok he lost but still. Gotta respect that.
Martin murray vs ggg this week? Live on channel 5 for uk fans which is GREAT news. I think its golovkins biggest test by far. But it will bring the best out of him.
For me, and at the risk of disrespecting guys who I admire ? Daniel geale and rubeo knew they were in their to lose. Matthew macklin admitted he didn?t think he could win so theres no debate there.
Martin Murray I think is going into looking for the upset.
Im thinking golovkin wide ud or late tko.
?
Golovkin on Channel 5 and Frampton on ITV.
Sensational
[quote]donnydarkoirl wrote:
Golovkin on Channel 5 and Frampton on ITV.
Sensational[/quote]
This is what the sport is desperate for, and I’m so happy to see it happening.
Is no one even mentioning the fact that Pac man signed the fight contract for Mayweather?
[quote]BigEasy24 wrote:
Is no one even mentioning the fact that Pac man signed the fight contract for Mayweather?
[/quote]
At this point nothing will be significant until they’re in the ring facing one another.
I think in Floyd’s eyes he sees it as an easy win and will come in unprepared and Manny catches him and drops him cold to set up a trilogy to be
[quote]donnydarkoirl wrote:
[quote]BigEasy24 wrote:
Is no one even mentioning the fact that Pac man signed the fight contract for Mayweather?
[/quote]
At this point nothing will be significant until they’re in the ring facing one another.[/quote]
Yep. I’m tired of hearing all that bullshit. When the fight is signed and they’re on the press tour, then I’ll let myself believe it. Until then, this is all garbage.
I really am just looking forward to Floyd retiring at this point.
[quote]donnydarkoirl wrote:
Golovkin on Channel 5 and Frampton on ITV.
Sensational[/quote]
Agreed. I fucking LOVE GGG and this dude is a superstar in the making…