Five Minute Foul Rule

[Dempsey-Louis]

What I found most intriguing about this article is that it's dated one month before Sharkey-Schmeling I. Too bad the word hadn't spread east quicker. (This agreement was pre-protective gear, (by about two months) which was still considered unsportsmanlike and illegal.)

[OctoberRed]

What I found most intriguing about this article is that it's dated one month before Sharkey-Schmeling I. Too bad the word hadn't spread east quicker. (This agreement was pre-protective gear, (by about two months) which was still considered unsportsmanlike and illegal.)

Where did you find this gem of a news clipping?

Almost nobody uses the full 5 minutes these days. It's almost frowned upon and booed by fans. Although most of the time fighters exaggerate these days on the level of hurt from a foul, hoping to get a point taken from the opponent.

[Dempsey-Louis]

Where did you find this gem of a news clipping?

Almost nobody uses the full 5 minutes these days. It's almost frowned upon and booed by fans. Although most of the time fighters exaggerate these days on the level of hurt from a foul, hoping to get a point taken from the opponent.

The article is from the NY Times. I have a later one where the NYSAC lays out the protocol for the new non-foul rule (as it was called at the time). It was the Sharkey-Schmeling / Carnera-Codfrey fiascoes that changed the mind of the NYSAC regarding fighters wearing protective belts.

The new rule and the wearing of protective gear caused quit the controversy. First many felt that protective gear would encourage unsportsmanlike behavior.

But the rule itself creates a paradox that many at the time thought wrong.

The new rule called for the fouled fighter to rise from the canvas, the referee was instructed to begin the count whether the KD blow was clean or not. If the fighter regained his feet before ten, then the referee was instructed to deduct the round from the fighter who threw the low blow. But if the fouled fighter did not rise before the ten count, then the fighter who threw the low blow won the fight.

At the time the cry among the fans regarding this new rule was a sarcastic: "Foul lightly and lose the round, foul hard and win the fight."

[OctoberRed]

The article is from the NY Times. I have a later one where the NYSAC lays out the protocol for the new non-foul rule (as it was called at the time). It was the Sharkey-Schmeling / Carnera-Codfrey fiascoes that changed the mind of the NYSAC regarding fighters wearing protective belts.

The new rule and the wearing of protective gear caused quit the controversy. First many felt that protective gear would encourage unsportsmanlike behavior.

But the rule itself creates a paradox that many at the time thought wrong.

The new rule called for the fouled fighter to rise from the canvas, the referee was instructed to begin the count whether the KD blow was clean or not. If the fighter regained his feet before ten, then the referee was instructed to deduct the round from the fighter who threw the low blow. But if the fouled fighter did not rise before the ten count, then the fighter who threw the low blow won the fight.

At the time the cry among the fans regarding this new rule was a sarcastic: "Foul lightly and lose the round, foul hard and win the fight."

I'm curious on when they started the 3 knockdown rule and why.

[Dempsey-Louis]

I'm curious on when they started the 3 knockdown rule and why.

The best I could find was an October 20th, 1954 article (NY Times) announcing that the NYSAC was reviewing their three knockdown rule; two days earlier the Gerald Dreyer-Ramon Tiscareno fight had cause a stir the when Tiscareno touched the canvas three times ending the fight in the first round. Most of the fans believed one of the KDs was slip. The article also points to an earlier fight (July of the year) between Nino Valdes and Tommy 'Hurricane' Jackson where Jackson was done in by three KDs in round two, this time the newspaper guys argued Valdes had wrestled Jackson twice to the canvas. The NYSAC referred to both fights as having �unsatisfactory endings.?/i>

Three months later (December 11th, 1954) the NYSAC announced that it would be retaining the three knockdown rule with modifications, the referee would now be given the discretion as to what was a knockdown and what was not; the Commission announced that the knockdown �must be the result of a damaging blow?/i> and that slips, pushes, and falls would be ignored.

But that was a 1954 review of the rule, it must have existed before then.

I did find an earlier article (May 1950) where a fight between Joe Miceli and Walter Haines ended early (1st round), and the crowd once again booed. The newspapers (fans) complained that Miceli had pushed Haines to the floor twice.

It seems the referees felt overly bound by the rule and where calling everything a KD. It needed the 1954 review.

Finally I also encountered ( a few months ago when I wasn�t actually looking) an article from 1948 or 1949 that makes mention of the three-knockdown rule as being created by the NYSAC �a year earlier?but I am embarrassed to say I lost that article and can�t confirm its date.

So anyway my best guess (for what that�s worth) is that the rule existed as early as 1950, and likely came into being sometime in the late ?0s, (1946-1948) and that the NYSAC considered it their rule, (and that it has always been unpopular).

P.S. Right from the get-go the rule was never to be applied to championship bouts, only ten rounds or less. The October 1954 article was explicit on this. So I guess the phrase �they have waived the three-knockdown rule?/i> is technically a misnomer; you can�t waive a rule that has never been imposed.

[Anthony342]

Interesting stuff. Yeah, I see why one would have the rule, as 3 knockdowns in one round often means the fighter on the receiving end is usually in pretty bad shape, but weren't there some old time fights with a lot of knockdowns, even after the whole neutral corner rule was added?

And imagine if the first Pacquiao-Marquez fight had that rule. It would've been over in the first round and would've been denied a hell of a fight (and probably any rematches), that ended up going the 12 round distance. And that was one Pacquiao actually should have won, as one of the judges forgot to add an extra point for one of the 4 knockdowns in that round, making it a draw instead of a win for Manny.

[Anthony342]

Since a fighter is warned after the foul and during the 5 minute rest, they should call it a 5 minute warning. Reminds me of those WWE guys called 3 Minute Warning.