Things wot I been thinking about boxing

Morning all.

I thought I would start a thread where people can ask questions they always wondered about but where too busy/ lazy to google. Might be an odd observation or a randomality (it's a word probably)

Anyway, my question that really bothers me is about referees.

Why do they still wear shirts and bow ties? I know it's supposed to be a gentle and game but I think we can all agree that the shenanigans make it far from that. Other aspects of fighting have changed (round numbers, gloves, boxer attire, scoring) but this remains traditional.

In football, refs no longer wear black all the time.

So why the old fashioned "uniform"?

Dodgy scorecards. How could anywone have Canelo getting a draw against May weather?

How can anyone have Rios beating Abril?

Seriously have no idea where they get it from or how it happens.

In recent times, I am absolutely adamant that behind the scenes politics takes place. For sure.

I'll use Canelo as an example. Would he feel stronger if he walked into the ring at 170lbs than he does cutting to 155lbs 24 hours before and then walking into the ring at 170lbs. 

I.e how much of an effect does "cutting" have for any boxer?

A completely unanswerable question I know, but one I thought not worthy of a thread. I just have a gut instinct, that you come in feeling more powerful if the cutting rehydrating process is managed properly than you would if you walked in the ring at your fighting weight without the need to cut.  


Adam, this thread could generate more questions than answers.

Why are most of the streets in Mexico dirty..

When they have so many road sweepers ???

Ok here's a question; can boxing be classed as a proper sport when it's outcome is often decided by the subjective scorecards of judges rather that a final, physical conclusion. Depending on the amount of goals scored, a football match is a win loss or draw, no subjectivity about it. But if there's no KO then boxing enters the realms of figure skating and synchronised swimming. Do you class either of those two as 'proper' sports?

Related to the above, are there any viable and better alternatives, human or technological, to the current 3 judge scoring system?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Why are  most of the streets in Mexico dirty..

When they have so many road sweepers ???

Because they're all too busy fighting Chavez Jr to sweep any roads (same reason you can never get a cab in Mexico).

jimdig wrote:I'll use Canelo as an example. Would he feel stronger if he walked into the ring at 170lbs than he does cutting to 155lbs 24 hours before and then walking into the ring at 170lbs. 

I.e how much of an effect does "cutting" have for any boxer?

A completely unanswerable question I know, but one I thought not worthy of a thread. I just have a gut instinct, that you come in feeling more powerful if the cutting rehydrating process is managed properly than you would if you walked in the ring at your fighting weight without the need to cut.  


Adam, this thread could generate more questions than answers.

Hmmmm I'm a little confused with this, Canelo fights at 155 but has to cut from 170 + and then comes in at 170 fight night. Are you asking would he be stronger fighting in the SMW division against another SMW where he doesn't have to cut or is he stronger fighting maybe a smaller man at LMW weighing 170 fight night? Personally I think a fighter is stronger & fitter fighting at his natural weight than cutting huge amounts. Froch, PBF & Manny hardly have to cut any weight to fight at their current weight classes, all have great stamina & are strong at the weight. Canelo vs PBF, who looked stronger throughout & who looked like they could've gassed had it been a 15 rounder or even floored or ko'd?

No you got it right. I was asking does cutting impact a boxer. You answered that you think it effects stamina. 

Your probably right. 

I wasn't really thinking of it logically, I was thinking of heavyweights as a reference point. Whereas floyd, manny or froch are much better references.

Interestingly Ricky Hatton had to cut huge amounts of weight preparing for fights, particularly towards the end of his career, yet was strong at the weight, LWW, and fought at a high tempo & always had 12 rounds in him. The 2 fights he had at WW he looked the smaller man fight night & his opponents seemed stronger and he himself said LWW was his best weight.

I still believe that fighting at a more natural weight is better but also understand many fighters are happy to boil down then rehydrate to get an advantage of a smaller fighter, although sometimes they come unstuck.

The safety aspect often gets brought up on her about the above situations, fight day weigh ins & fighters fighting at a weight more natural to them.

Agree Hatton was a far better LWW than WW. He's difficult to gauge as he would go cut down from really overweight to fighting weight between fights. Hard to know what his natural weight should be

I don't understand why judges no longer score rounds even, or why they're encouraged not to. Chances are that if you watch a couple of twelve-rounders there's bound to be at leat one round where, on the spot and having to decide who won it without taking another look, you really don't feel comfortable giving either man the advantage. If there's doubt on both sides then why should one man get the nod and not the other?

Relatively small gripe, as in most cases you tend to feel that one of them has done enough to at least nick a round, even if it's only by a small margin, but sometimes a 10-10 can be totally appropriate, I think.

I don't know how a round can be even..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I don't know how a round can be even..

Explain, Mr. 10-1-1!

If the work rate is pretty much the same and ineffective...Then the guy making the fight should get it..

Haha Chris!!! He got you there Trussy!

11-1 as of late...ha ha

But it was a cracking slap....kudos

88Chris05 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I don't know how a round can be even..

Explain, Mr. 10-1-1!

    

I knew you'd enjoy it..

My street cred is down the tubes...

I think whatever street cred you ever had was flushed away many moons ago beefster. But then hey, unlike me, at least you had some to lose.

I'm all for scoring rounds even, and/or more liberal use of the 10-8 10-7 etc to differentiate between the narrowly won round or clearly won round. The better fighter would win more often. But the concept that it's not how you win the round but the number of rounds you win is fundamental to scoring in boxing.

I pretty much always have two cards on the go in my head when watching a fight. One where I score rounds even and one where I make a call for one fighter because I know that's what the judges will do. Always think the first card is a more accurate reflection of the fight.

Not sure why it's a problem to score a round dead even. If memory serves, the first round (although may have been second) of the latest Froch v Groves fight was a nailed on 10-10. One fighter taking the lead, the other fighter displaying elusive qualities and not enough happening to give either fighter the round.

What are the drugs of choice.....EPO, HGH or more old fashioned things like d-bol and deca.

Why is there not an Olympic standard of drug-testing carried out before ALL world title fights???   

milkyboy wrote:
I'm all for scoring rounds even, and/or more liberal use of the 10-8 10-7 etc to differentiate between the narrowly won round or clearly won round. The better fighter would win more often. But the concept that it's not how you win the round but the number of rounds you win is fundamental to scoring in boxing.

My issue with this is that it could create more chances for robbery. Look at Hearns v Leonard II, round 12:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqzvXIsnj7s&hd=1

Go to 53 minutes and you get round 12 which one judged scored 10-8, altering the result. Hearns was rocking Leonard's head back early with the jab right hand, then Leonard hurt Hearns and looked like he could finish it, Hearns held his way through and the last third was scrappy and ineffective overall. Under the current rules, that is not a 10-8. My point here is that even if 10-8's were used more liberally, there would still be corrupt/incompetent judges who would use them wrong.

Regardless of the rules, Poopie judges will still be a problem. I don't dislike the current system, it's the human element that's the problem.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

Regardless of the rules, Poopie judges will still be a problem. I don't dislike the current system, it's the human element that's the problem.

About sums it up. You can have whatever system you want, if there is an element of human subjectivity involved the system will be flawed, as humans are too open to incompetence, corruption or just plain old stupidity. As a related question do promoters still pay the judges? If so that should be ended immediately, far too good an opportunity to influence their thinking.

John/rowley

I'm not suggestion changing the system, more the application. For every srl hearns 2, there's a macklin sturm. One guy wins his rounds clearly, one shades them. Contrary to the outrage that surrounded the fight it was close on a rounds won basis, as was ottke Reid.

You'd still get shockers with this system but the right guy would win more often

Glad that this thread is generating loads of discussion, albeit none of it around the referees attire!

That's because none of us have got a clue, Adam! My best guess is that it happened back in the day, and if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Ah, what the hell, let's see if I can join Superfly in the pseudo-intellectual club - I suspect they just adopted a laissez faire attitude (I feel dirty now). It was done for so long, the smart shirt and bow ties n'all, that referees and fans just wore it / expected it without really thinking about or questioning interfering with it. I suppose when you've got two half-naked men knocking ten bells out of each other, a load of people in the stands baying for blood and a couple of buxom, perma-tanned blondes parading in between rounds in hot pants, you need at least one person to have that professional, well-groomed look (well, as well-groomed as the likes of big ol' Terry O'Connor can possibly look, anyhow!).

I think what we need is for whoever is refereeing the next big fight to turn up in jeans and a t-shirt so that outrage is caused and Bob Mee (or Rowley) dusts off a couple of his most obscure books to get us the answer as to why refs just can't do that.

Why do bouncers wear dinner suits? There must be a correlation here. Surely, not the most appropriate attire for punching drunks?

I fear something sinister afoot. Is there a referee/bouncer secret society, and their attire is their code. Granted, not the most secret of secret societies, the dress code and job being a bit of a giveaway, but I'm onto to something here.  Or maybe just on something.

Milky it's sounding like you are into big butch Men...

Drop me a pm sometime..

Why don't the governing bodies get together and make champions face each other?

Surely if someone holds 3 belts they've still got to pay the sanctioning fees to hold onto the belt.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Milky it's sounding like you are into big butch Men...

Drop me a pm sometime..

I know you've been into a few big butch men in your time truss. Not my thing... I prefer the little cute ones.

Why do people wear ties full stop? In general they are pointless.

Some traditions die hard.

I remember Alex Higgins getting a doctors note to get out of wearing ties and bow ties when he played snooker.

My guess, and it is only a guess, is when the Marquis of Queensbury rules were introduced fights tended to be held in sporting clubs and private gentlemen’s clubs. Suspect dressing in such a formal manner was consistent with the dress codes in these clubs and for no other reason than tradition things have stuck. Am sure I have photos of old bareknuckle fights, which tended be held wherever the law could be avoided and don’t recall the referees being dandily attired in those.

I wondered how Freddie Flintoff was given a pro license, despite having no amateur background whatsoever? And what was the point of his fight?

On the subject of licenses. How are these renewed? Are there periodic medicals to ensure the fighter is still fit?

He did have to do test fights in front of the BBBC, the second because he 'failed' the first. Basically to show he was fit and competent.

Frankly, there are much worse cases out there of people being continued to allowed to box.

theanimal316 wrote:

On the subject of licenses.  How are these renewed?  Are there periodic medicals to ensure the fighter is still fit?  

Believe MRI and CAT scans are now mandatory. How frequently these are taken I cannot answer. Believe this was introduced in the wake of the Watson tragedy.

Why do we still need to f**k about introducing stewards, the head of various boxing bodies, the sponsors (it's emblazoned everywhere ffs) and such-like? As far as I'm aware, no one cares (it's like the credits at the end of the film...f***k that, I'm off home)

Can we just say "How do...this bloke and that bloke will fight in a minute. He's called (insert name) and he's called (insert name) Right let's 'ave it!"

DAVE667 wrote: Right let's 'ave it!"

I believe this was Michael Buffers fall back line if the "lets get ready to rumble" one didn't work out

Adam D wrote:

DAVE667 wrote: Right let's 'ave it!"

I believe this was Michael Buffers fall back line if the "lets get ready to rumble" one didn't work out

Michael Buffer's loss is clearly Ray Winstone's gain

I agree Dave, like the credits at the end of a movie, the messages of thanks, and such should be saved for the end of a fight, that way, protocol can still be followed, and we still don't have to care.

I've just been watching rocky III and noticed how much weight that balboa lost for the rematch with clubber lang. Should rocky have been fighting at cruiser weight all his career?

Would he have got in the hall of game in such a division devoid of talent?

It gets even worse Adam, I believe Rocky was only 155lbs on fight night against Drago. How anyone commissioned that is beyond me.