Standing 8 counts - Would they improve Boxing??

You pay to see big money for a fight...a guy gets caught cold...the other guy jumps on him and the fight is over!!! How many times do you see this?? Quite often....

However by introducing a standing 8 into Boxing when someone is hurt you can.....

1. Give the best fighter every chance of winning instead of being caught cold or with a lucky shot..

2. Make sure the crowd get more value for the money they pay...

3. Ensure there are less premature stoppages....

Obviously they'll be some disadvantages one being it's up to the referees discretion when to use it....Slightly unfair on a boxer who has someone on the run etc..

But hey we all know the worse thing in Boxing is for a guy not to be given every chance to get into the fight....

I think they are a good idea...

Could lead to corrupt refereeing though as its the refs call on when to issue the standing count. Plus you have the dilemma of a premature standing counts. Not a bad idea Truss but I just dont think it would work effectivly

I tend to view the standing 8 count as an essential part of amateur boxing. It enables a referee to take the necessary time to see whether a fighter is capable of continuing, the clock is stopped and nobody loses out unnecessarily. Generally, a standing 8 count is a precursor to a stoppage in an amateur fight in any case.

For the professional game, on the other hand, I see the standing 8 count as inappropriate. Too bad if somebody is caught cold - warm up better. Tough if it was a lucky punch - luck is a part of all sports. Resilience and the ability to do what's necessary to survive when you're badly shaken are key attributes of the best pro boxers. A standing eight count only impedes our view of who possesses those attributes.

How many times would a referee administer such a count before deciding that enough was enough? Why should the boxer who has landed be penalised as his victim is given time to recover and the round possibly ends while time is ticking down? Just think, if a referee had given Jermaine Taylor a standing 8 count, rather than waving the fight off, Froch would likely have been denied the opportunity to finish off his opponent and would consequently have lost their fight.

The NABF which is kind of like your British title used to have them...

Recall Broad having Marvis Frazier in trouble..Frazier getting a standing count and going on to win a decision...

Sometimes they can give the best fighter a better chance and we all want the best man to win..

Cheers steffy..

No, the best man doesn't always win, and thank God for that. Lewis got ironed out by McCall and Rahman because he couldn't get his senses together in the allotted time. Quite right, too; it's the same for both men. The referee's job is sufficiently difficult as it is. The arbitrary application of a standing 8-count could only lead to more controversy.

It's kinda like seeing the difference between Rugby League and International Rugby. The flow of the game and safety is a lot different... not as popular though. I think theres good and bad points to it. Didn't the ref in that ridiculous fight between Danny Williams and that German fella use the standing 8 count for no reason?

I think the safety of the boxers should always be the main concern of the ref. Using a standing 8 may not benefit anyone though.

Not for me, think they introduce an element of discretion that is unnecessary. With refs already having to decide when to stop a fight and judging being largely subjective the scope for controversy is already pretty big. Standing 8 counts would only add to this as when they are administered would depend largely on how squeamish the ref is which will vary.

The amateur game is different to the pros, and as the participants are adults the risk increases with this. For me if a fighter gets someone going he should have chance to take him out. Also could potentially deny us some thrilling finishes we have seen such as the aforementioned Froch Taylor and Leonard Hearns.

Cheers Captain...certainly a good riposte......

Weaver-Dokes always springs to mind.... thinking of the riot in caesars...

How Curtis could've done with a standing 8......Rematch went 15 rounds..

Not think that....

Tyson-Ruddock 1
Weaver-Dokes
Mugabi vs Duane Thomas all could've been better had there been an 8 count..for refs to use????

Good article Trussman, but I'd personally say no to the idea of standing eight counts becoming the norm, for the reasons already outlined by others. I'm not a big fan of this 'giving a certain fighter a little bit more of a chance than the other', regardless of whether they've been the better man on the night up until that point or not.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Cheers steffy..

Its STEFFAN. But your welcome. Or as we say in Wales...Croeso

It's not about giving this fighter a better chance than the other...The 8 count would apply to both...in essence it's fair!

Just for me means poorer fighters getting lucky less often and the crowd not being short changed...

Hey I figured I would be outweighed on this and it's no problem..

Some good rebuttal to the points in my thread...

Not for me in the slightest Truss

Would be completely down to which ref was in the ring that night, as with most refs i.e. football etc it's a rule that'd be massively open to interpretation and would cause big conflicts.

It's not like cricket where you've got a "no not out as it pitched outside leg" etc, it's opening the sport up for massive grey areas and i'm not sure how you can announce it'd be a good thing for said grey areas to clog up the sport further?

Can't blame getting caught cold as a boxing fight (scheduled) starts at 3:00 of round 1 and ends at 0:00 of round 12 (in a 12 rounder before some smart bum picks up on it) - it doesn't start at say 1:50 in round 3 etc.

Pretty fish poor suggestion if i may be so bold to say so. Umpteen belts, stars being kept apart and now we need another grey area? Think not.

Would this not lead to more accidents?

If there is a standing 8 rule wouldn't it put ref's under more pressure to let the guy clear a bit of the fog only to take one more (or several more) hard punches?

In the case of Weaver-Dokes, the ref just made a bad decision to start with, which snowballed. The standing eight count shouldn't have made any difference. Mugabi essentially quit against Thomas, so I'm not sure that the eight count would have helped here either. As for Tyson-Ruddock, I don't quite see how the 8 count would have changed either the result or the entertainment/flow of the fight for the better.

No, for me, it just interrupts the flow of the action and removes one of the key elements that distinguish the great men from the also-rans.

No because referees let guys carry on after knockdowns...This is for guys who are basically stuck on the ropes with no where to go...

fish poor suggestion.......You can say what you like...

Be rude and bitter...freedom of speech is a wonderful thing.

i think lucky shots are part of it, also standing 8's might save some good fighters from being causght cold, but it would just prolong as many fights that were going to end up in ko's anyway. What if someoen is completley outmatched but get a standing eight, then ko;d en second slater,taking more punishment than needed

Mugabi got humbed and turned away..ref had no choice but to call it off..however 8 seconds may have been enough for Mugabi to compose himself and give the caesars croowd more action..

Not sure I agree with you on Curtis....and the 8 count

But I see where you are coming from..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:No because referees let guys carry on after knockdowns...This is for guys who are basically stuck on the ropes with no where to go...

fish poor suggestion.......You can say what you like...

Be rude and bitter...freedom of speech is a wonderful thing.

I can say what i like to be honest, you seem to think introducing another potential grey area into the sport where we need clarity more so than ever is a good thing.

How many have agreed with you so far and how much 'clamour' has there been for the nonsensical rule? I'll answer - no-one and none.

And a fighter should be saved due to being stuck on the ropes? Oh dear. Who's fault is it they're stuck on the ropes and why should they get an easy way out? You're basically saying the guy who puts him there doesn't get a chance to finish him off after earning the right to do so by finding a way through his defence.

That's really what the fans want to see - don't they?????

And i'm not rude or bitter, i just think it's a joke of an idea for the aforementioned reasons.

I said you can say what you like......

Don't know what's wrong with you these days...

Relax and chill..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:No because referees let guys carry on after knockdowns...This is for guys who are basically stuck on the ropes with no where to go...

fish poor suggestion.......You can say what you like...

Be rude and bitter...freedom of speech is a wonderful thing.

The ones stuck on the ropes though are getting beaten fair and square. It is one of the main aims for fighters to be able to trap someone on the ropes, if this is taken away it will give more chance for the other fighter.

If a guy is stunned he can go down...he doesn't have that option on the ropes......

there in lies the difference..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:If a guy is stunned he can go down...he doesn't have that option on the ropes......

there in lies the difference..

Why is he on the ropes in the first place? Again, you'd be depriving the other guy the earned right to finish him off.

That's not fan friendly

I'd like the idea - but for a couple of problems.

Firstly - as Steffan said, it opens up the issue of the referee. I like the referee to have as minimal an influence as possible. If possible - I prefer him to be seen (as little as possible) and heard (not at all). If there's a standing 8 - you wouldn't be able to fight in Germany any more. Reid would have had a standing 8 every time Ottke threw a punch!

Secondly - if you can't get your senses together and hold, or move away from trouble, or punch your way out of trouble - you don't deserve to be given the chance to - you've lost, pure and simple.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:It's not about giving this fighter a better chance than the other...The 8 count would apply to both...in essence it's fair!

Just for me means poorer fighters getting lucky less often and the crowd not being short changed...

Hey I figured I would be outweighed on this and it's no problem..

Some good rebuttal to the points in my thread...

In esence it's fair...but then that's what training is for. Spend your time preparing and come to the ring READY.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:If a guy is stunned he can go down...he doesn't have that option on the ropes......

there in lies the difference..

Chances are if a guy is stunned he'll be KO'd rather than making a decision to go down, if he is finished properly (as his senses would be scrambled), this would possibly make it better to get caught on the ropes than in the centre of the ring.

I just don't think there is an issue with how it is currently handled.

I'm suprised at how many boxers don't decide to take a knee when shaken and therefore creating their own break from the action, obviously not as soon as they are tagged like a little girl but if they are in danger of being stopped. Agreed it's hard if trapped against the ropes but there's nothing stopping themselves getting to the floor. It's not easy to make those decisions in the heat of the moment and may hurt the pride a little but it's the right thing to do if your in danger of being stopped.

Or try to hold on...

standing 8 counts just mean that a losing fighter will take more punishment before he is eventually stopped.

Like Broad vs Frazier....ok

The refs is the best reason not to have standing 8 counts, it would all come down to one mans interpretation.
For instance would Mayweather have been given a standing 8 v Hatton when he stumbled across the ring of balance? He didn;t need one but the ref might misinterpret the circumstance, or Naseem Hamed wouldhave to have taken a standing 8 everytime he was hit as he always wobbled because he was so off balance when tagged but he was never in real trouble looking like he was about to be stopped.
I suspect what standing 8 counts would really do would lower the KO rates, which nobody wants surely, there is nothing better way for a fight to finish than by stoppage, then there the argument is properly settled!

No they wouldn't. In the professional game they could cause deaths as well.

Daft idea Truss.

Can't see them causing deaths Ian, but they do give the ref an extra option over letting someone get ko'd or stopping it, it gives him an option to make a better judgment. It works well in the amatuers, not popular for spectators of the pro game, but could reduce the no. of premature stoppages. may reault in fewer ko's and despite sugarray b's opinion that stoppages are the best way to end fights, they play into the abolishonists hands that the aim of the game is to cause damage.