There has been a discussion on another thread as to weather 3 WBC should adopt the 3 knockdown rule.
I've argued it shouldn't, but holyheadjch thinks otherwise.
Do you think 3 strikes and out is right?
The argument against so far is that Groves got knocked down with one shot and the fight was stopped, even though he beat the count.
Remember you can touch down after a light shot that has you off balance and it's scored as a knockdown.
The boxers health should come first, but we've had fights under the other governing bodies that haven't had knockdowns, but have been really brutal.
I don't think there is a complete right or wrong way that'll satisfy everyone.
The counter argument so far is that if a fighter goes down three times in one round he is being outclassed and the fight should be stopped.
So should the WBC adopt the 3 knockdown rule?
I've argued it shouldn't, but holyheadjch thinks otherwise.
Do you think 3 strikes and out is right?
The argument against so far is that Groves got knocked down with one shot and the fight was stopped, even though he beat the count.
Remember you can touch down after a light shot that has you off balance and it's scored as a knockdown.
The boxers health should come first, but we've had fights under the other governing bodies that haven't had knockdowns, but have been really brutal.
I don't think there is a complete right or wrong way that'll satisfy everyone.
The counter argument so far is that if a fighter goes down three times in one round he is being outclassed and the fight should be stopped.
So should the WBC adopt the 3 knockdown rule?
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire