I don’t know much about boxing, but what I do know is that individual boxers are basically independent contractors. They choose to accept or decline fights themselves, and nobody really answers to a league-wide commissioner like the NBA or NFL. While there are boxing associations that sanction fights like the WBA or the powerful Nevada Boxing Commission, those jurisdictions are not as powerful, they can’t ban a boxer for a rule they created unless its in their state or in their league, and a boxer can simply go to the WBC or IBF or something like that. Is that correct?
That said, boxing seems to have defaulted to a very rigid and standard sport. The recent Mayweather/Pacquiao fight went for 12 rounds and a decision. Is there a reason other than “the boxers didn’t want it” that they didn’t simply fight until one person was knocked out? To me, its more exciting if we have a definitive winner by knock out, where the fight only ends when one person cannot make the 10 count. But hardly any big fights are like that. My sample size is small, but I can’t remember the last time the ref had to do a 10 count. Usually he checks one guy out and if he’s bleeding too much or the ref thinks he can’t fight anymore, he stops the fight. I want to see an unlimited round bout ending in a knock out! Are those extinct in the higher echelons where boxers determine their own fates? Are there any big bouts where this rule is still in place?
Also, since boxers typically determine their own fates, other than drugs, are there standard rules they have to adhere to or can Floyd, for example, say he wants 20 rounds, but 1 min rounds each? Can he say he wants 5 judges instead of 3? Or just one big uninterrupted 30 min 1 round fight?
As far as knockouts go, they are still common, but in big fights they are less common because a) the fighters are elite, and b) they tend to be cautious because they have big paydays at stake in the future. But up and coming stars usually get more 10-count knockouts because they are facing lower level opposition that they totally outmatch and they are usually fighting more aggressively to make a name for themselves.
Boxing politics is complicated so I don’t know all the details, but it sounds like what you say about the IBF, WBC, WBA, etc. is correct. Boxing is really run by a few big promoters, not really the federations. The networks also have a lot of power because sometimes boxers sign exclusive agreements with one network. Mike Tyson had an exclusive deal with Showtime for a long time.
As for fight length, I believe that’s decided by the federations, although the boxers’ parties do have some influence over that. When I was a kid, standard fights were 15 rounds, when I was a young adult they went to 12, and nowadays a lot of big fights go 10. If you have a title, the federations actually do have some pull because they won’t sanction a fight for your title unless you adhere to their rules. So if IBF has a 12-round standard for title defenses, then they’ll only recognize a title fight that is 12 rounds. I believe the federations can also control how fights end, whether the ref has to count to 8 before resuming a fight, whether a fighter can be saved by the bell, etc. I have no idea what they do when it’s a unified champion defending two or more belts.
Although boxing has no single central organizing body the championships are determined by several different organizations and each locality has their own rules for boxing matches. Major sanctioning organizations such as the World Boxing Council (WBC), World Boxing Association (WBA), World Boxing Federation (WBF), and others have their own rules for title fights. They are generally corrupt organizations and will readily allow rule variances as they see fit. Local boxing commissions also have their own rules, and are usually corrupt as well and will allow rule variances also. But generally the number of rounds in a fight, and the scoring system are widely accepted and don’t vary. The choice of judges and referees, particular rules concerning cuts and fouls, weight requirements, and other details are negotiable in a contract as long as the sanctioning bodies have no objection.
What surprises me is that most sports throughout history started out being that way, but boxing is the only sport I can think of that’s stayed that way for over 100 years. Most sports usually end up organizing themselves.
It’s been a big problem for boxing because there are no linear champions. The guy with the belt isn’t always the guy who beat the guy with the belt. George Foreman near the end of his career liked to call himself “The Linear Heavyweight Champion”, but he vacated the WBA belt because he didn’t want to fight Tony Tucker for god knows what reason(Tucker was 10 years younger but in far worse shape than Foreman by then.) Foreman wanted Tyson instead even though Tyson hadn’t earned the right to contend yet. It would be like the New England Patriots refusing to face the Seahawks because they felt a game against San Francisco would get them more money.
Title claimants used to be quite prevalent, especially in deadly pursuits like sword fighting. A qpyramidal system of elimination would probably result in a dead or permanently injured claimant.
I’m guessing that most boxing careers would be quick and short-lived if most fights were decided by outright knockout. The concussions and serious brain injuries would add up very quickly.
What I’m wondering is why people like Mayweather or Pacquiao even continue boxing once they’ve made tens of millions of dollars. If I were in their shoes, I’d retire ASAP once I was financially set for life, knowing that all it took was one punch for me to be dead, in a coma, or severely brain-damaged. But then again, well, I’m not in their shoes.
I can’t remember a non-title fight ever going more than 10 rounds.
The main disagreement among the different boxing organizations isn’t “what rules do we use” but “who does the champion have to fight next?”; there has been at least one instance of a boxing champion literally throwing a belt into the trash because it wanted him to fight somebody instead of the boxer he (and at least one other organization) wanted to fight next.
It’s pretty common now when champions meet in non-title fights. And when 15 rounds was generally the standard there were occasional 12 round title fights because of local regulation, and occasional 12 round non-title fights. And of course, the vast majority of fights have fewer than 10 rounds as young pro fighters develop. There may be more 4 round fights than anything else.
I think if fights just went until there was a knockout it would be far less exciting than you think. If a fighter doesn’t know the length of the fight then they may both set a very slow, methodical, and boring pace, like during the old days of 45 round fights.
Also you can’t buy TV airtime for a fight that’s of an indeterminable length.
Yes, exactly why limited rounds were implemented. The old matches had round after round of nothing much happening until one fighter tired out or the audience got bored and went home.
Keep in mind that, back in those days, a round ended early if a fighter was knocked down. There are known cases of a fighter intentionally falling, or even taking a knee, after being hit just to end the round early and get the one-minute break.