Should Rounds Be Reduced in Boxing?
training
Professional boxing is still active. However, while this noble art is at a critical juncture, there are reasons to worry about its future. Over the years, this sport has continued to change and adapt to the changing conventions of society, although it has maintained much of its original essence. Is it time to make a new change?
The longest boxing fight in history took place on April 6, 1893, when spectators at the Olympic Club in New Orleans, Louisiana, watched Andy Bowen and Jack Burke face off for 110 rounds. This is certainly an extreme example. However, until 1982, world championship fights generally lasted 15 rounds. Following the sad events that occurred to Kim Duk-koo after his fight against Ray Mancini that same year, the WBC decided to limit fights to 12 rounds. However, boxing is still considered a dangerous sport.
Critics believe that reducing the number of rounds could improve boxing and alleviate safety fears. However, not everyone thinks that way.
Arguments in Favor of Reducing the Number of Rounds in Boxing
There are several reasons why boxing could improve by reducing the number of rounds. Almost all of them are speculative and do not consider the financial aspects of the sport. However, if we put aside the commercial implications of boxing for a moment, it is difficult to oppose the idea of shortening professional fights.
Below are some of the most compelling arguments in favor of reducing the number of rounds in boxing fights.
- More action for spectators: Olympic boxing fights are a good example of how shorter rounds generally translate into more action and intensity. Competitors would have to try harder and face their opponents with less time on the clock.
- Greater frequency of stops: With less time to evaluate their opponents and establish their rhythm, boxers would be more inclined to fight from the beginning. In theory, this should lead to a greater number of fights ending in stoppages, as it would be easier to assess whether they are losing.
- Greater safety for boxers: Factors associated with prolonged fights and races, such as blows to the head, accumulated damage and dehydration, can be limited with a reduced number of rounds.
- Adapting to modern times: The rise of social media and shorter, quicker fights is thought to have shortened people's attention spans. A reduced number of rounds would be more attractive to many viewers, especially young emerging fans.
These arguments are logical in theory. However, given boxing's rich legacy, its integration would take some time. Would a "Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots" type strategy replace analytical and defense-focused mindsets? How many boxing fans would be alienated if that happened? Parents of children starting boxing may also worry about an increase in stoppages and injuries.
The fact that professional boxing is a commercial activity is the best argument against one of the problems mentioned. Would major players in the sector see their profits decline as a result of such changes? In fact, a boxer who fights six rounds would only receive 50% of what he would receive in a 12 round fight. So where is the motivation?
Why Won't the Number of Rounds in Boxing Be Reduced?
The organizational structure of a sport, no matter how small, is taken seriously. It divides those in the arena and those watching at home, affecting attendance and revenue. That said, there probably wouldn't be any backlash if the number of rounds in a boxing fight went from 12 to 10. After all, most elite fights last ten rounds.
But going from 12 to 8, or even 6 rounds? In the current context, where it is more important to hit and receive powerful hits, this does not seem practical. It is no surprise that **money rules this sport** and that financial interests are the main obstacle to change.
Boxers might also have something to say about reducing the number of rounds in fights. Especially since they are the first to be affected by any potential changes.
- Increased risk of stops: Increased intensity can lead to errors. In a sport as brutal as boxing, it only takes one mistake to end up on the canvas. Shorter rounds can encourage an unhealthy fighting style, more prone to damaging stoppages.
- Lost income: Boxers who compete at the top have one of the most lucrative careers in the world of sports. This is possible thanks to the existing economic model, which depends on event purchases and advertising revenue. A reduction in the number of rounds is equivalent to a decrease in income from sponsors and companies that advertise in pay-per-view spaces.
- More training camps: Shorter fights could mean more fights for professional boxers. Fight training camps are arduous and lonely, with elite camps requiring approximately 8 to 10 weeks of preparation. The reduction in the number of rounds could lead to spending more time away from family and normal life.
- Decreased interest: Deviating from the norm can affect the interest of viewers. As a result, the number of fans buying or attending fights could decrease. A loss of interest would be devastating for the global boxing economy, potentially threatening the status of the sport.
Whatever your opinion, the reality is that professional boxing is a lucrative industry. Canelo Álvarez , undoubtedly the sport's biggest star, earned $90 million from endorsement deals and fights. Of course, most professional boxers can only earn a small fraction of that amount each year. But if things go well for them, it is an achievable goal.
The sport has certainly been affected by corporate greed. According to promoters, broadcasters and many boxers today, business comes first. Boxing comes second. It is unrealistic to expect rich puppeteers to voluntarily reduce their sources of income. It's like asking the New York Stock Exchange to open three hours earlier every day.
Will Reducing the Number of Rounds Save Boxing?
No, is the short answer. In the realm of professional boxing, reducing the number of rounds will not win back lost fans. She also won't be attractive enough to attract those trying to find love inside the ring. Although this can be beneficial, the entire structure of the sport needs a balance, which can only be achieved by completely remodeling the old house. It's not enough to give it a coat of paint.
The future of boxing should be more decisive fights and fewer world titles. The four main governing organizations would be significantly centralized, but financial flows would be compromised. We will see more celebrity fights with Jake Paul and fewer true super fights if greed is not addressed. Little will change until people with authority and sincere intentions for the "sweet science" gather around the table and resolve conflicts.
Of course, there are other sports where rounds are less discussed than in boxing. In the debate over whether **Muay Thai** should adopt fewer rounds, strong arguments have been made in favor of adopting such a measure and maintaining the current structure.
?
