Standing 8 Count rule?

Morning folks

In light of some controversial stoppages recently (Crolla, McCloskey etc.), how would you feel about the return of the standing 8 count rule?

I have not seen this rule used for quite a long time - do you think it would beneficial to the sport now? What was the reason why the rule was discontinued?

Cheers
Daz

Any takers??

Its a dangerous ruling I believe. It prolongs a severe beating or could give a boxer time to recover which will undo all the work of the other guy.

Bad rule all round.

Interesting - is that why the rule was scrapped? Didn't look at it that way - I thought it could be used to counter early stoppages.

Sorry daz, events with Windy have kind of taken my focus this morning. I personally am not much of a fan of it. For me there is a genuine problem with refs being excessively squeamish nowadays. i was hugely disappointed in the decision to stop the Crolla fight because many fights we regard as classics have had moments where fighters have had to pull it back from the brink.

For me though it is educating refs that is more the issue. I am not much of a fan of standing 8s in the pros. Whether we like to admit it or not we all like to see knockouts or knockdowns, they are the most visceral way to end a fight and can provide massive drama, if refs are to start issuing standing 8s as soon as somone is rocking a lot of the drama and excitement that keeps us coming back to the sport is denied us.

ive seen standing 8 counts given even though there not allowed (williams vs airich). i echo the points above, allow fighters to take more damage. besides if you go out on your back then theres no arguments, if your stopped on your feet there will always be doubts.

No need to apologise Jeff. It is a sad day on the boards for sure.

If standing 8 counts are not the answer, like you say, education of refs is the right way to go. But you cannot teach something which is subjective. I dont remember the sheer volume of early stoppages to be an issue a decade or so ago, I wonder why this is becoming more and more frequent recently.

With regard to referee's have you noticed that no new ones seem to be coming through - we have been stuck with the current crop for years.

i think pressure with reguards to safety probably means we wont ever witness true epics in terms of people coming back from the brink again. it seems theses days be out classed counts as be in trouble. fury has had quite a few early stoppages go his way.

eddyfightfan wrote:i think pressure with reguards to safety probably means we wont ever witness true epics in terms of people coming back from the brink again. it seems theses days be out classed counts as be in trouble. fury has had quite a few early stoppages go his way.

That is very true with regard to your comment about being out classed - even if not a lot of damage is being shipped.

eddyfightfan wrote:ive seen standing 8 counts given even though there not allowed (williams vs airich). i echo the points above, allow fighters to take more damage. besides if you go out on your back then theres no arguments, if your stopped on your feet there will always be doubts.

Is that the one when the timekeeper rang the bell half way through the round??!

thats the one, such a unusual fight

In amateur boxing the standing 8 count is still used and I'm of the opinion that works well in the amateur game, where knockdowns don't equate to points lost, and referees are rightly more concerned with saving hurt boxers any unneccessary pain and punishment, but it's much harder to judge it's value in the pro game. On the plus side the standing 8 count does give the ref an extra option- if a boxer is taking a pounding but not going down he can start the count and get a chance to assess if the fighter is actually hurt- if he is he can then wave the fight off, but if he recovers it can be argued that his opponent maybe being robbed of a stoppage win, and the if the issuing of the eigth count simply prolongs a beating then it's in no ones interest. I think there's possibly an arguement that says in bouts where it's prospect v journey man,then the standing eight count could be allowed, but in title fights and closely matched fights with more riding on the result then don't have it. the logic being that in the first scenario, it's unlikey to effect the overall outcome, but may prevent the journey from an undesreved stoppage loss, and ensuing suspension (and therefore potential loss of income). But in the second where there's career altering outcomes on the line then it is potentially more likely to muddy the water and could prove contraversal, and so shouldn't be used.

Nice insight there Hero. I see your point with regards to the difference in the level of competition. I agree it wouldnt work at the highest level.

I'm a big fan of it.........

1. Because sometimes a fight can be over before it's started because a guy is stuck on the ropes and can't go down and take a count...

This is supposed to be an entertainment business..

2. Also means that there is more chance of the better fighter winning which is at least what I want to see and less chance of a mediocre world champion that got lucky!!


Only drawback is that it's subjective...and referees are mainly crap....

Put it this way it was basically a standing eight that Holy got against Cooper if we are honest...

Bert cooper heavy champ anybody???????????

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Only drawback is that it's subjective...and referees are mainly crap....

Exactly - the standard of refs is shocking these days. If all refs were of a high level then maybe the rule would stop contraversial early stoppages. Like Hero said - it can give the ref time to evaluate if the fight should be stopped too.

I think it would be great to bring it back, not only does it give the boxer a chance to recover, it also stops them taking a pounding before the ref jumps in.

Like everyone else has said, it stops the ref from having to stop a fight based on a reaction ala Mckloskey.

BoxingFan88 wrote:I think it would be great to bring it back, not only does it give the boxer a chance to recover, it also stops them taking a pounding before the ref jumps in.

Like everyone else has said, it stops the ref from having to stop a fight based on a reaction ala Mckloskey.

Mixed bag for me, I can see positives and negatives for the reintroduction of it. It would need to be used alongside very high quality officials for it to work.

Id only like to see it introduced if the alternative is early stoppages which I think are becoming a problem in the UK.

Imagine how great Gatti v Ward round 9 woulda been with a standing 8 count!

Oh yeah, not great at all. It dilutes a certain purity in the ring in my eyes. It would hinder both the great finishers AND the great survivors.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:Imagine how great Gatti v Ward round 9 woulda been with a standing 8 count!

Oh yeah, not great at all. It dilutes a certain purity in the ring in my eyes. It would hinder both the great finishers AND the great survivors.

At the same time, Gatti v Ward would never have got out of the third round if it was held in the UK with IJL as ref.

Ali probably took many on the ropes from Foreman for a UK ref's liking.

i think a decision needs to come where they make up there minds whether the rules are okay as they are or whether they need updating to make it safer (which will in turn me an end to ward/gatti type classics, but will be safer) as at the moment, as previously stated we are swamped with early stoppages, which can be controversial and frustrating.