WHAT IS BOXING'S MOST BIGGEST/EFFECTIVE INNOVATION

We know that titles have been kept and changed hands by the change from 15 to 12 rounds.....Would have loved to see Hagler and Leonard's fight go from 13-15!! .......Obviously we've seen gloves change from murderous 60z to heavier and safer.....We've Boxing seen the end of round-ending knockdowns as was the norm in John L's day. Referees shouting break and points taken off for fouls...

However for me the biggest game changer has to be the NEUTRAL corner rule.......Such a huge advantage to be able to wait to lay in as opposed to jumping on a half raised foe....

Some believe Dempsey wins his title back..........Maybe Holmes loses to Snipes/Shavers..............

Neutral corner was a huge innovation..

However do you agree it's the biggest??

Most Biggest? Not sure you got your monies worth at Keele Poly Truss.

It certainly changed boxing big time Trussman, i love to see peoples faces who don't know much about the sport, when you tell them boxers stood over their downed opponent waiting on them to get up before hammering them again, with the ref only being involved to give the count at this stage. A few classy boxers used this practise before it became a rule although can't think who they are at the moment.

Dempsey paid for it in the end, with the 'long count' against Tunney. Against Willard it was brutal though.

Neutral corner was a huge innovation..
************************************************************
Fair point but here's a question...Does anyone believe it would have helped Willard or merely prolonged the agony?

Ayup Truss, good article. I quite like your shout on the neutral corner rule, definitely one of the biggest and most significant changes / innovations in the sport.

Other ones I'd put forward would be Jimmy Walker fully legalizing boxing in New York and ending the 'No Decision' era, the transition on safety grounds from three-roped to four-roped rings to prevent a repeat of Griffith-Paret, and the first appointment of ringside judges in a world title fight for Dempsey versus Willard in 1919.

The Galveston Giant wrote:It certainly changed boxing big time Trussman, i love to see peoples faces who don't know much about the sport, when you tell them boxers stood over their downed opponent waiting on them to get up before hammering them again, with the ref only being involved to give the count at this stage. A few classy boxers used this practise before it became a rule although can't think who they are at the moment.

I think pancho villa was one.

Are you going to answer my question oxring or what?

DAVE........The fact you're asking that question makes a response unnecessary...........

Sorry Oxring got you mixed up with somebosy else on another thread.

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:

The Galveston Giant wrote:It certainly changed boxing big time Trussman, i love to see peoples faces who don't know much about the sport, when you tell them boxers stood over their downed opponent waiting on them to get up before hammering them again, with the ref only being involved to give the count at this stage. A few classy boxers used this practise before it became a rule although can't think who they are at the moment.

I think pancho villa was one.

Cheers Sugar Boy

Obvious one but making the leap from bareknuckle to gloves was a massive one. Came at a time when boxing was barely legal and part of the problem was the frequent question of how brutal it was. Hard to see the legality of the sport would have ever been resolved without it making the transition to the gloved era.

Perhaps it could be viewed as rhetorical?

You never know TRUSS. After the initial onslaught, with a breather, maybe Willard gets himself to gether and triumphs over initial adversity (think Benn vs G-Man!!!!)

I detect sarcasm however one has to give Willard more of a chance to get into the fight if he doesn't get his ear drum caved in while half off the floor..

YOUR SARC-O-METER MUST BE ON FULL THROTTLE MATE COS IT'S SUBTLE/BARELY DETECTIBLE TO MOST HUMANS.

However, I do feel it's a valid point (hence the reason I made it) that, without Dempsey being able to swarm all over Willard when he was essentially still down on the canvas, there's an argument that he MAY have been able to regroup and if not make it competitive, at least make it slightly less one-sided. Still don't think it changes the overall result though.

Effective innovations? The standing eight count? The Three KD Rule? (although that may have robbed us of your favourite 10-1-1 result)

No but had Shavers and Snipes been able to lay into a still half conscious Holmes maybe heavy history is changed...............

Dempsey v Willard is not the best example which is why I chose Tunney.....

As for 10-1-1.............Yep stand by that score for Manny - Marquez 1....

Completely outboxed.........

As for 10-1-1.............Yep stand by that score for Manny - Marquez 1....
________________________________________________________--

You clearly have no idea how to score a boxing match Truss.

Cheers

Rodders

88Chris05 wrote:Ayup Truss, good article. I quite like your shout on the neutral corner rule, definitely one of the biggest and most significant changes / innovations in the sport.

Other ones I'd put forward would be Jimmy Walker fully legalizing boxing in New York and ending the 'No Decision' era, the transition on safety grounds from three-roped to four-roped rings to prevent a repeat of Griffith-Paret, and the first appointment of ringside judges in a world title fight for Dempsey versus Willard in 1919.

What is safer about 4 roped rings?

For one it will stop fighters falling out the ring but if it's to do with the Griffith-Paret fight then there must be more to it. Didn't the ropes prevent Paret from falling or did he get stuck in the corner?

What is safer about 4 roped rings?

Harder to fall out of the ring...which makes Cintron's dive against Williams so very very impressive. I hear Greg Louganis was his coach!

I see, I'm surprised it has much relevence to Griffith/Paret though. Or did they ban homophobia at the same time?

Score was 10-1-1 Rodney.............Give me a round after the first and second that could possibly have been split???

I am allowed my opinion..........Being American I've seen alot of fights....NBC, ABC, ESPN know what I mean..

I seem to have had an article taken off....Anybody tell me why?????

If there was anything contentious I'm sure the power hungry poster ejecting people who run this site and think they are the Donald trumps of the Uk could tell little old me why.......

Article was factual in every way.......

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:We know that titles have been kept and changed hands by the change from 15 to 12 rounds.....Would have loved to see Hagler and Leonard's fight go from 13-15!! .......Obviously we've seen gloves change from murderous 60z to heavier and safer.....We've Boxing seen the end of round-ending knockdowns as was the norm in John L's day. Referees shouting break and points taken off for fouls...

However for me the biggest game changer has to be the NEUTRAL corner rule.......Such a huge advantage to be able to wait to lay in as opposed to jumping on a half raised foe....

Some believe Dempsey wins his title back..........Maybe Holmes loses to Snipes/Shavers..............

Neutral corner was a huge innovation..

However do you agree it's the biggest??

I have to say that the neutral corner and changing the number of rounds are the biggest innovators. Neutral corners for obvious reasons. But imagine if SRL vs Hearns was for 12 rounds? Hearns would now be an ATG top 10 with SRL simply a talented individual. As you mentioned if the Hagler fight was 15 rounds, I could see Hargler stopping SRL. Damn pity.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:I see, I'm surprised it has much relevence to Griffith/Paret though. Or did they ban homophobia at the same time?

Because of the way in which Paret got caught up in the ropes while Griffith was battering him to death, JBW. They had been considering making four-roped rings the norm for a while, but that bout increased the calls for it.

How is the Griffith biography coming?????

Think Paret's condition had more to do with the referee tha the ropes chris

True say, Trussman, however being caught in the ropes to start with didn't help matters.

The biography is coming along OK, thanks for asking fella. Taking a bit of a break at the moment due to some serious writer's block, as I said I don't particularly care if it never gets published but for my own peace of mind I don't just want to be writing for the sake of writing.

I'm just abit confused as to why having four ropes would've changed him getting battered. He was rocked and in the corner getting pummeled relentlessly, I can't see another rope chainging anything. I would watch again to see if I missed something but...I'd rather not.

Don't blame you, JBW.

It was a wonderful exhibition of how to put a hurt guy away....Griffiths fists were like a blizzard...an unfortunate aftermath for sure!!

We don't watch alot of fights like Benn-Mclellan, Kim-Mancini when the bravery of the dead guys should be observed and applauded........

Watch it by all means........and applaud Paret's warrior courage....and Griffiths at his best..