Long count or not?

[wouter]

Look at it like this:

- There are 100 boxers who all 'appear' to be in the same situation in a fight
- The fights aren't stopped
- 99 boxers get injured
- 1 comes back and wins the fight

In the case of the 1 fighter, was the referee correct?

Of course not. Because if he found himself in the same position over and over again and made the same decision, he would get it wrong 99% of the time.

If it were impossible to differentiate between fighters that really are in danger and those that only appear to be - and that the ref in the Bute fight (it's not important whether you've seen it or not) was only taking a 50/50 guess, you may have a point. But regardless of the quality of human obervation, fighters that were in the exact same situation as Bute - and not only appeared to be so - should not have their fights stopped.

[Maelstrom]

If it were impossible to differentiate between fighters that really are in danger and those that only appear to be - and that the ref in the Bute fight (it's not important whether you've seen it or not) was only taking a 50/50 guess, you may have a point. But regardless of the quality of human obervation, fighters that were in the exact same situation as Bute - and not only appeared to be so - should not have their fights stopped.

And that has been my point all along. There will be situations where the referee cannot differentiate.

That is why you cannot make a blanket statement that in a situation where a fighter recovers, the referee would have been wrong to stop the fight.

[wouter]

If it were impossible to differentiate between fighters that really are in danger and those that only appear to be - and that the ref in the Bute fight (it's not important whether you've seen it or not) was only taking a 50/50 guess, you may have a point. But regardless of the quality of human obervation, fighters that were in the exact same situation as Bute - and not only appeared to be so - should not have their fights stopped.

And that has been my point all along. There will be situations where the referee cannot differentiate.

So your argument is based on the premise 'it's impossible to differentiate between (some) fighters that are in danger and those that are not.' You're going to have to motivate that as well.

[Maelstrom]

If it were impossible to differentiate between fighters that really are in danger and those that only appear to be - and that the ref in the Bute fight (it's not important whether you've seen it or not) was only taking a 50/50 guess, you may have a point. But regardless of the quality of human obervation, fighters that were in the exact same situation as Bute - and not only appeared to be so - should not have their fights stopped.

And that has been my point all along. There will be situations where the referee cannot differentiate.

So your argument is based on the premise 'it's impossible to differentiate between (some) fighters that are in danger and those that are not.' You're going to have to motivate that as well.

Of course it is impossible to differentiate at times. If it was always possible to tell, fighters would never get injured. Who would let a fight go on if a fighter was in danger?

So overall, my point is that you just cannot make a blanket statement saying that because a fighter recovers, he should not have been stopped. That can never be the case at all times.