WEIGH-IN ISSUE GAINING TRACTION?

Wolfgangsta wrote:

What facts have been stated? A comparison of a sport with no punching or striking to boxing?

Is this what passes as facts here?

Nope, your idiotic and unsupported assertions that same day weigh-ins cause "further brain injury" and "you'd have to be a moron to not understand how dangerous [same day weigh-ins] are."

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

Wolfgangsta wrote:

This issue is a non starter, and I single handedly annihilated your moronic and when I say moronic I mean absolutely mind numbingly stupid to the point you wonder if this forum isn't a bunch of punch drunk former club fighters moronic comparison between college wrestling and boxing in one fell swoop. Hardly a retreat.

And you dumb dumb made the comparison to UFC. A league in which fighters fight tops for 25 minutes and don't endure the constant pounding to the head a boxer does over the course of a 36 minute fight. Now a fighter getting pounded by a guy 25 pounds heavier would do a lot more damage than a guy within five or even ten lbs right? I mean I think even you can comprehend that logic, no?

MMA isn't human cockfighting and doesn't force concussed fighters to keep fighting, nor does it penalize a fighter for saying "no mas" when the guy's body knows fight is over.


Like I said maui, I'd entertain the idea that boxing is just too dangerous that small beneficial things like a full day to hydrate the brain instead of a few hours don't help in the long run at all. A pack a day vs a pack and a half theory I guess. But there is just never going to be a rational way to argue that a fully hydrated brain is going to suffer more damage than one that isn't.

Quote :

According to the Journal of Combative sports there were 67 boxing deaths in the 1980's before day before weigh-ins were introduced. In the 1990's with day beforew weigh-ins were in place there were aactually MORE deaths at 78. In the first seven years of the 2000's (latest data) there were already 68 deaths.

Same number of fights being compared? How many of these were foreign deaths where weigh ins may have been different? That data is too raw to prove anything other than boxing is a horrible sport.

How many fights total are they drawing from? What if there were a couple thousand more fights, would an increase in 10 deaths be significant then? That is horrific data. Not too many college grads around this thread.

L

Wolfgangsta wrote:

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

Wolfgangsta wrote:

This issue is a non starter, and I single handedly annihilated your moronic and when I say moronic I mean absolutely mind numbingly stupid to the point you wonder if this forum isn't a bunch of punch drunk former club fighters moronic comparison between college wrestling and boxing in one fell swoop. Hardly a retreat.

And you dumb dumb made the comparison to UFC. A league in which fighters fight tops for 25 minutes and don't endure the constant pounding to the head a boxer does over the course of a 36 minute fight. Now a fighter getting pounded by a guy 25 pounds heavier would do a lot more damage than a guy within five or even ten lbs right? I mean I think even you can comprehend that logic, no?

MMA isn't human cockfighting and doesn't force concussed fighters to keep fighting, nor does it penalize a fighter for saying "no mas" when the guy's body knows fight is over.


Like I said maui, I'd entertain the idea that boxing is just too dangerous that small beneficial things like a full day to hydrate the brain instead of a few hours don't help in the long run at all. A pack a day vs a pack and a half theory I guess. But there is just never going to be a rational way to argue that a fully hydrated brain is going to suffer more damage than one that isn't.

So you asked for facts and got them and still you stand by your factless unsupported claims. I ruin your UFC comparison after you denegrate my wrestling claim, instead of conceding the point you denegrate the entire sport of boxing. Nice talking with you.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

Wolfgangsta wrote:

This issue is a non starter, and I single handedly annihilated your moronic and when I say moronic I mean absolutely mind numbingly stupid to the point you wonder if this forum isn't a bunch of punch drunk former club fighters moronic comparison between college wrestling and boxing in one fell swoop. Hardly a retreat.

And you dumb dumb made the comparison to UFC. A league in which fighters fight tops for 25 minutes and don't endure the constant pounding to the head a boxer does over the course of a 36 minute fight. Now a fighter getting pounded by a guy 25 pounds heavier would do a lot more damage than a guy within five or even ten lbs right? I mean I think even you can comprehend that logic, no?

MMA isn't human cockfighting and doesn't force concussed fighters to keep fighting, nor does it penalize a fighter for saying "no mas" when the guy's body knows fight is over.


Like I said maui, I'd entertain the idea that boxing is just too dangerous that small beneficial things like a full day to hydrate the brain instead of a few hours don't help in the long run at all. A pack a day vs a pack and a half theory I guess. But there is just never going to be a rational way to argue that a fully hydrated brain is going to suffer more damage than one that isn't.

The obvious flaw in your argument of course is the need to dehydrate the brain at all. You are presenting a false choice. Same day weigh-ins make fighters fight in their natural division and don't allow for travesties like Arturo Gatti almost killing Joey Gamache because Gtti was a specatcularly successful weight-cutter. If you can't perform at 147? Too bad. Move up a division. When did weight-cutting and rehydrating become boxing skills anyway?

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Quote :

According to the Journal of Combative sports there were 67 boxing deaths in the 1980's before day before weigh-ins were introduced. In the 1990's with day beforew weigh-ins were in place there were aactually MORE deaths at 78. In the first seven years of the 2000's (latest data) there were already 68 deaths.

Same number of fights being compared? How many of these were foreign deaths where weigh ins may have been different? That data is too raw to prove anything other than boxing is a horrible sport.

Too lazy to do the work huh? All fights that could be found were counted. BTW there were certainly FEWER fights in the most recent decades than in the 1970's and 1980's.

What the data ABSOLUTELY proves is that same day weigh-ins have created ZERO additional safety.

Quote :

When did weight-cutting and rehydrating become boxing skills anyway?

Good question. But if you instituted a ban on weight cutting, wouldn't that serve more of your purpose? If we took a sport full of weight cutters and just shortened the time they'd have to try and hydrate back up, you're asking for disaster. Even if your data was trustworthy, which it isn't, because there is no controls at all, that doesn't factor in the fact that more would try to cut and rehydrate within a day than in the old days anyway.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

How many fights total are they drawing from? What if there were a couple thousand more fights, would an increase in 10 deaths be significant then? That is horrific data. Not too many college grads around this thread.

There have been FEWER fights in the last two decades, not more. Sheesh.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Quote :

According to the Journal of Combative sports there were 67 boxing deaths in the 1980's before day before weigh-ins were introduced. In the 1990's with day beforew weigh-ins were in place there were aactually MORE deaths at 78. In the first seven years of the 2000's (latest data) there were already 68 deaths.

Same number of fights being compared? How many of these were foreign deaths where weigh ins may have been different? That data is too raw to prove anything other than boxing is a horrible sport.

Too lazy to do the work huh? All fights that could be found were counted. BTW there were certainly FEWER fights in the most recent decades than in the 1970's and 1980's.

What the data ABSOLUTELY proves is that same day weigh-ins have created ZERO additional safety.

Eh slow down on your absolutely talk. What weight were the gloves, how many rounds on average were these guys boxing, how were the fights being ref'd etc. Too many questions to absolutely prove anything.

Better idea - remove standing 8 counts entirely and lower the KO count to 5. If the fighter is visibly rocked and cannot answer immediately, end the fight. Enough with this human dogfighting brutality.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Quote :

When did weight-cutting and rehydrating become boxing skills anyway?

Good question. But if you instituted a ban on weight cutting, wouldn't that serve more of your purpose? If we took a sport full of weight cutters and just shortened the time they'd have to try and hydrate back up, you're asking for disaster. Even if your data was trustworthy, which it isn't, because there is no controls at all, that doesn't factor in the fact that more would try to cut and rehydrate within a day than in the old days anyway.

This is bullspit. You continue arguing dehydrating like it is the natural thing to do or something. IT ISN'T and wasn't for a hundred years.

Let's go back to your initial claims. I have provided a MOUNTAIN of data across hundreds of years. You say it isn't trustworthy (though you obviously haven't examind it.

Where is your data? Cuz you ain't shown squat thus far.

If you want weight cutting eliminated, why not just push for a ban? Do I really have to prove to you that dehydration is dangerous? What facts are you looking for exactly?

Wolfgangsta wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Quote :

According to the Journal of Combative sports there were 67 boxing deaths in the 1980's before day before weigh-ins were introduced. In the 1990's with day beforew weigh-ins were in place there were aactually MORE deaths at 78. In the first seven years of the 2000's (latest data) there were already 68 deaths.

Same number of fights being compared? How many of these were foreign deaths where weigh ins may have been different? That data is too raw to prove anything other than boxing is a horrible sport.

Too lazy to do the work huh? All fights that could be found were counted. BTW there were certainly FEWER fights in the most recent decades than in the 1970's and 1980's.

What the data ABSOLUTELY proves is that same day weigh-ins have created ZERO additional safety.

Eh slow down on your absolutely talk. What weight were the gloves, how many rounds on average were these guys boxing, how were the fights being ref'd etc. Too many questions to absolutely prove anything.

Better idea - remove standing 8 counts entirely and lower the KO count to 5. If the fighter is visibly rocked and cannot answer immediately, end the fight. Enough with this human dogfighting brutality.

I could care less what an ignoramous like you thinks of boxing. What matters here is you haven't, and apparently can't, provide a shred of evidence to support your claims. By the way, standing eights went the way of the dodo over a decade ago.

What evidence do you need? Google dehydration.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

If you want weight cutting eliminated, why not just push for a ban? Do I really have to prove to you that dehydration is dangerous? What facts are you looking for exactly?

Let me try this using smaller words.

No fighter must dehydrate in order to box. A fighter simply must fight in the proper division. Same day weigh-ins, the closer to fight time the better would enforce this.

I am looking for you to demonstrate day before weigh-ins produce a safety enhancement. We have had them now for 15+ years. If there is such data, show it to me. Fewer deaths, fewer catstrophic injuries are the correct measures.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

What evidence do you need? Google dehydration.

Actual results applied to boxing. Otherwise you are simply blathering about.

I could have sworn I've seen standing 8 counts numerously since then. Maybe they just do it in K1 now or something.



On the same issue ; When did the three knockdown rule go away? That seems like a step backward.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

I could have sworn I've seen standing 8 counts numerously since then. Maybe they just do it in K1 now or something.



On the same issue ; When did the three knockdown rule go away? That seems like a step backward.

Nope, you're just wrong on standing eights. Three knockdowns vary by state. That too is a terrible rule. The ref should have discretion. Not all knockdowns are equal.

Got any actual data on the safety enhancement generated by day before weigh-ins yet?

Human dog and cock fighting. No knowledge that there were more boxers to have fights and fighters fought more in yesteryears thus maintaining top shape like a certain most hated p4p top dog does now. Then retorts to denegrate the sport after receiving a free education. Ignorance at its finest folks. Wolf take a step back and listen when grown folks speak. You are articulate sure but it ends there.

Why do you refuse to answer the question -


WOULDN'T.

BANNING.

CUTTING.

ENTIRELY.

WORK.

BETTER.

THAN.

SHORTENING.

REHYDRATION.

TIME?

If you think making the weigh ins happen the same day will force fighters to fight at natural weights you're nuts. You don't like weight cutting, ban weight cutting, don't make it more dangerous.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Why do you refuse to answer the question -


WOULDN'T.

BANNING.

CUTTING.

ENTIRELY.

WORK.

BETTER.

THAN.

SHORTENING.

REHYDRATION.

TIME?

If you think making the weigh ins happen the same day will force fighters to fight at natural weights you're nuts. You don't like weight cutting, ban weight cutting, don't make it more dangerous.

Like I said, you're clueless. You continue with this utterly baseless assumption that dehydrating is inevitable. You're just wroing. Up until about 1920 in title fights fighters weighed in AT RINGSIDE then climbed into the ring and fought. Fighters could not come in dehydrated and win. So for the most part they simply didn't do it. From around 1920 to 1990 or so same day weigh-ins done when fighters got their pre-fight physicals were the norm. Same thing. You couldn't dehydrate and win so fighters fought in their natural division.

Got any data yet?

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Why do you refuse to answer the question -


WOULDN'T.

BANNING.

CUTTING.

ENTIRELY.

WORK.

BETTER.

THAN.

SHORTENING.

REHYDRATION.

TIME?

If you think making the weigh ins happen the same day will force fighters to fight at natural weights you're nuts. You don't like weight cutting, ban weight cutting, don't make it more dangerous.

It did up until 1987. For one hundred years it did.

So, you think fighters are going to stop cutting weight all of a sudden? Unless you weighed in immediately before the fights like in the old days, that just isn't possible, especially now that the weight cutting Pandora's box has been opened. You're just trying to turn back time. I appreciate your passion. But it's time to move forward. You can keep asking for data to prove that day before weigh ins are safer but there is no data either way that can be found in my google adventures that say anything either way.

Your data speaks to deaths, but doesn't have any controls for number of fights, weight of gloves, rules, weigh in practices world wide, etc, so it's not reliable, even a little bit. It just shows that boxing is dangerous no matter what kind of weigh ins you have.

I'd be in favor of immediately before the fight weigh ins, but not ones that leave 6 or 12 hours for a weight cutter to try and bulk back up.

Be specific with your rule change, how many hours would you like to see between weigh in and fight?