Boxing Rounds: Boxing in the ring is still alive and well. But as the “sweet science” nears a worrying turning point, there are valid worries about its future. The sport has mostly remained the same throughout the years, but it has continually changed and evolved in response to shifting social mores. Is it time to reorganise things once more?
At the Olympic Club in New Orleans, Louisiana, on April 6, 1893, spectators witnessed Andy Bowen and Jack Burke engage in the longest boxing contest, which lasted 110 rounds—certainly an extreme instance. However, until 1982, contests for world championships frequently lasted 15 rounds.
Following the unfortunate incident involving Kim Duk-koo after his battle with Ray Mancini the same year, the WBC decided to limit contests to 12 rounds. Boxing is still seen as a dangerous sport, though.
Critics contend that fewer rounds in boxing might revive the sport from a downturn as well as solve safety issues. and maybe pull it out of the rut. Shorter fights, however, are not universally viewed as a positive development for boxing.
You might also be interested in reading this: The Top 6 Upper Body Boxing Exercises
Making The Case For Fewer Boxing Rounds
There are several reasons why cutting the length of the rounds in boxing might benefit the sport. Most of them are hypothetical and don’t give any thought to the sport’s financial aspects. It is challenging to argue against shortening professional fights, though, if we set aside for a minute the boxing’s commercial components.
Here are some of the most convincing justifications for cutting the number of rounds in boxing matches.
- More action for onlookers: Fewer rounds often result in more activity and intensity, as seen in Olympic boxing contests. Competitors would have to work harder and attack their opponents if there was less time on the clock.
- Greater Frequency Of Stoppages: With less time to cruise and assess their opponents, fighters would be more likely to box aggressively. Theoretically, this would result in more fights being decided by stoppage, particularly because it would be simpler to determine if they are losing.
- Greater Fighter Safety: Boxing may reduce issues associated with protracted bouts and careers, such as repeated headshots, cumulative damage, and exhaustion, by playing fewer rounds.
- Providing For Modern Brains: Modern attention spans are thought to have declined as a result of social media and shorter quickfire messages. Many viewers might find it more interesting with fewer rounds and very enthusiastic youthful admirers.
These arguments make sense on paper. However, considering the lengthy traditions of the “sweet science,” integrating them would take a lot of time. Would a “Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em Robots” strategy replace analytical, defence-first attitudes? How many fight fans would that alienate if that happened? Parents of children just starting out in boxing might be concerned about an increase in injuries and stoppages.
The fact that professional boxing is a business is the best rebuttal to any of the aforementioned arguments. Would such reforms have an impact on the financial health of many of the influential people in the sector? In essence, a boxer who competes in six rounds may earn just half of what they would have for 12 rounds. Where is the motive in such a case?
Why Fewer Rounds In Boxing Won’t Happen?
Even seemingly insignificant alterations to a sport’s rules are not taken lightly. They divide those present in the arena and those watching from home, reducing attendance and money. That being said, switching a boxing battle from 12 to 10 rounds would probably be accepted without any controversy. After all, 10 rounds are the norm for high-level bouts.
How about going from 12 rounds to 8, or even 6? In the present combat environment, where the emphasis is primarily on landing and withstanding powerful blows, that doesn’t seem realistic. Since money dominates this sport, it should come as no surprise that money will be the biggest obstacle to reform.
Reduced rounds in boxing contests may also be opposed by fighters. Particularly if any possible changes would affect them first.
- Increased Risk Of Stoppages – Errors might occur when intensity is increased. One slip-up in a tough sport like boxing may leave you down on your back. Shorter rounds could encourage an unhealthy fighting style that encourages damaging stoppages.
- Loss of Earnings – Boxers who compete at the top of the pyramid have some of the most successful sporting careers. This is made feasible by the current corporate structure, which depends on pay-per-view sales and ad income. Reduced rounds = less money from sponsors and businesses running pay-per-view advertisements.
- More Training Camps – Pro fighters may participate in more fights if battles are shorter. Fighting training camps are gruelling and isolating, with top camps requiring 8 to 10 weeks of preparation. Reduced rounds could mean spending more time away from home and daily activities.
- Reduced Interest – Deviating from the standard could turn off viewers. This can result in fewer fight fans purchasing or showing up to fights. The boxing industry as a whole would suffer greatly from a drop in interest, which might jeopardise the sport’s viability.
Regardless of your views, the truth is that professional boxing is a sizable industry. Canelo Alvarez, perhaps the sport’s biggest brand, made $90 million from fighting and sponsorships. In fact, the majority of top fighters can only earn a small portion of that amount each year. But if things go their way, it’s a feasible objective.
Corporate greed has undoubtedly had an impact on the sport. Business always comes first, according to top promoters, broadcasters, and many of today’s combatants. Boxing follows. It is absurd to expect the wealthy puppet masters to willingly decrease their sources of income. It’s comparable to trying to convince the New York Stock Exchange to open three hours earlier each day.
Will boxing be saved by fewer rounds?
The quick response is no. Professional boxing’s reduced round count won’t win back any lost viewers. It won’t even be alluring enough to serve as a recruitment tool for people trying to find love within the glove. While it could be helpful, the balance that the sport’s overall structure demands can only be attained by a thorough refurbishment of the ancient house. A simple coat of paint is insufficient.
Boxing needs more decisive contests and fewer world championships in the future. The four main governing organisations may be centrally managed, although there would be risks to financial sources. Until greed is addressed, we’ll see more Jake Paul celebrity bouts and fewer really great fights. Before influential people who have excellent intentions for the “sweet science” can get down at a table and negotiate, not much will happen.
Of course, boxing is not the only sport where the topic of fewer rounds is up for discussion. Some have made persuasive arguments for both cutting rounds and maintaining the current format while considering whether Muay Thai should adopt fewer rounds.
