I'm sure you know what I'm hinting at.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Any confirmation about Turkilency's plan of reducing the size of the ring?
Collapse
-
I think they should stick to the standard 20x20. No more 22’. Maybe go 18x18 at the smallest.
I remember watching MBilli fight Desmond Nicholson in Canada , and every time Nicholson took a step back and he wasn’t “running”, he was basically already on the ropes in what I believe was a 16x16 ring. I know we don’t want “runners” but that’s definitely too small, and I wouldn’t want personally.
Last edited by edpboxing; 06-21-2025, 03:27 PM.
Comment
-
Go 18’ x 18’, Your Excellency.
And maybe even experiment with 16’ x 16’ like they used to have back in the 1920’s through 1940’s. Let’s see how viable that is.
No Tom and Jerrys would survive that.El_Mero
TintaBoricua like this.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
I'm all for it. If they're good "boxers" then they can be mobile and not get hit in any size ring.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by edpboxing View PostI think they should stick to the standard 20x20. No more 22’. Maybe go 18x18 at the smallest.
I remember watching MBilli fight Desmond Nicholson in Canada , and every time Nicholson took a step back and he wasn’t “running”, he was basically already on the ropes in what I believe was a 16x16 ring. I know we don’t want “runners” but that’s definitely too small, and I wouldn’t want personally.
but boxing is all about money
I’m expecting they’ll make 22x22 and 20x20 exceptions when it benefits a massive cash cow a-side
Comment
-
Comment