The Instigator
STAGIESTCOSINE
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
eyeballsac
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Most Old World Boxers (pre 1930) would be at a disadvantage in a modern boxing ring

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
STAGIESTCOSINE
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2013 Category: Sports
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 515 times Debate No: 41899
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

STAGIESTCOSINE

Pro

My argument is that most 'Old World Boxers' ( say pre 1935) would be at a disadvantage against a modern counterpart of equal standing if they fought in 2012.

Format = Informal (new to this)
First round = Acceptance and your argument to the contrary.
Second round = Rebuttals
Third round = More Rebuttals
eyeballsac

Con

I accept your challenge, because I do not see how "Old Boxers" would be at a disadvantage.


I will state rules that have changed from the 1930's to now.

1. 15 rounds of boxing was changed to 12 in championship boxing.


This happened becaue 15 rounds became a health hazard, so an "Old Boxer" fighting now would have a lesser chance of becoming seriously injured.



2. The weight of boxing gloves was raised 2 ounces.



This happened because after a long match, the gloves began to break. This would ultimately result in a bare-knuckle fight, which is more dangerous than with gloves. So now, the gloves are more resistible to breaking, making it slightly safer.



I conclude my beginning arugment. I am eager to see your arguments as well.
Debate Round No. 1
STAGIESTCOSINE

Pro

Hi Eyeballsac.

I was hoping to debate with a nostalgic boxing fan with a penchant for certain fighters from days gone by, however, whether that is you or not, thanks for accepting.


In saying, "most 'Old World Boxers' (say pre 1935) would be at a disadvantage against a modern counterpart of equal standing if they fought in 2012” I was suggesting, the modern fighter would have an advantage over the historical fighter. Your response however would seem, to me at least, that you thought I meant disadvantaged per se…

You text is in bold.

(1.) 15 rounds of boxing was changed to12 in championship boxing. This happened becaue 15 rounds became a health
hazard, so an "Old Boxer" fighting now would have a lesser chance ofbecoming seriously injured.

You are right in saying an olden day boxer, over a shorterdistance, would be at less risk of serious injury. However against a modern fighter, over 12rounds, he would be equally advantaged/disadvantaged as his opponent. So that
doesn’t really prove much.



(2.) The weight of boxing gloves was raised 2 ounces. This happened because after a long
match, the gloves began to break. This would ultimately result in a bare-knuckle fight, which is more dangerous than with gloves. So now, the gloves are more resistible to breaking, making it slightly safer.

Both fighters wearing the same sized gloves would give neither fighter an advantage/disadvanage.



My initial arguments are:


1) Boxing has evolved. Training techniques have improved, favouring the modern fighter. The skillset of the modern fighter puts him at an advantage over the crude sluggers of yesteryear.

2) The officiating/rules of the modern game favours the modern fighter therefore the 1930’s fighter would likely be disqualified.

eyeballsac

Con

To be honest, I did not realize that these two arguments you have placed were in play. If I had known we were discussing these things too, I would not have accepted, because I agree with you. :D I misinterpreted your argument.


Thanks for your time anyways lol.
Debate Round No. 2
STAGIESTCOSINE

Pro

Concede..... or I'll box your ears off!! : )
eyeballsac

Con

i concede lol
Debate Round No. 3
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
STAGIESTCOSINEeyeballsacTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession!