Looking back, it isn't. Reducing championship fights from 15 to 12 was a knee-jerk reaction! If the WBA really had some sense back in that time, they would not have ranked that poor South Korean very high in their list of contenders and sanctioned that title fight. There was nothing in his resume that would suggest his worth as a world class fighter deserving of a fight against Ray Mancini who at that time was toppling more proven rated lightweights like they were nothing!
It was a wrong reaction and a wrong decision. Championship bouts were fought for 15 rounds or over for almost a hundred years before and there were but very few ring fatalities ( Griffith-Paret and Sugar Ramos-Davey Moore are the most infamous ). Reducing the championship fight duration may have indeed reduce ring fatalities but not career-ending ring injuries. It's also noticeable that there are more ring fatalities now than before even in non-title fights 10 rounds or below.
It was a wrong decision. But the WBC and the IBF had to keep up with the Joneses and also reduce their title fights to 12 rounds. They did not want to be seen as inhuman organizations given the passion of the time. But they must have also figured that lesser rounds means more fights for fighters and more sanctioning fees for them. I think it's driven not really by human consideration but by commercial competition and commercial greed.
I do not think this was a good idea, and doubt the actual benefits to the safety and health of the fighters.
There is a reason the late rounds were called championship rounds, and it was because this separated the good fighters from the champions.
There are lots of guys who can go 10 rounds, but can not go 15.
This change was supposedly based on one death, but there have been many deaths in under 10 rounds so I do not consider that a valid excuse for reducing the number of rounds.
Something had to be done after Ray Mancini iced that Korean guy for the whole world to see. They say that the final 3 rounds were the rounds where guys were absolutely wrecked in terms of stamina, so you were way more likely to get wild, let your guard down and get hit with flush shots. Also more likely to physically give up and get hit with many flush combos on the ropes. Such punishment after 12 rounds of hard fighting increased the likely hood of death
That was the thinking behind it anyway, not sure more effective the change was.
I was all in favour for the reduction of rounds.
On some occasions, a boxer could be totally running on an empty tank. His stamina gone, his decision making impaired, and his reactions dulled... This is what the medical anti boxing brigade love to see... It supports their cause as a barbaric sport.
Nowadays, with all the latest knowledge of diets, nutrition, body fat etc.... A boxer has ample time to show case his talents over 12 rounds.
My answer will be yes. Only because a fighter has to be protected. Sometimes too much punishment can be fatal!
No. It kinda reduced emphasis on fighters' stamina and endurance.
try google it also
The move was made as a safety measure.
