nickd wrote:Worst house performance has to be Hatton not getting stopped against Thaxton. That cut was attrocious.
erm but he won the fight so it cant have been that bad, thought you should only be stopped on cuts if its impairing your ability to defend yourself / vision?
one suggest if you box on and easily win a decision then the cut is not worthy of a stoppage as obviously you can see well enough to defend yourself and indeed win fairly comfortably? As i remember the corner did a sterling job that night.
Slapsie Maxie wrote:The ref is paid by the promoter. The ref needs work, The ref makes sure that the promoter thinks he does a "good" job
A "good' job in this instance is to favour the house and the house fighters but not so blatantly as to be obvious and piss off the punters.
One of the worst house performances I have seen recently was during the first Farnell/Groenweld(sp?) fight. About 50% of Farnell's activity was aimed at G's crown jewels and barely a word was spoken. When G threw one back the ref ,Mickey Vann I think, was over him like white on rice.
Wonder what the decision would have been if it had been the ref's call not the judges? mmmm?
when you have such a limited number of employment opportunities as a boxing ref, it is not surprising that people have to put in the "appropriate" performance
Slapsie
Yes, not only that, but there are very few emplooyers, and even fewrer with much work to offer. It would not take long before word got round that a particular referee was 'non-compliant.'
nickd wrote:Worst house performance has to be Hatton not getting stopped against Thaxton. That cut was attrocious.
erm but he won the fight so it cant have been that bad, thought you should only be stopped on cuts if its impairing your ability to defend yourself / vision?
one suggest if you box on and easily win a decision then the cut is not worthy of a stoppage as obviously you can see well enough to defend yourself and indeed win fairly comfortably? As i remember the corner did a sterling job that night.
dont agree with you at all on this one mate.
but Thaxton was winning the fight against Rowlands big time
definately depends more on who your promoter is.... imagine if it was an eastern european with the same cut, the commentary team would have given their normal "fighters safety is paramount" shit when the fight was stopped... but cause it was Hatton the big money ticket seller it was allowed to go on.....
its was blatant bias and left a bad taste, especially in hindsight when you saw what happened to Thaxton is his fight with Rowlands
jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Yes, not only that, but there are very few emplooyers, and even fewrer with much work to offer. It would not take long before word got round that a particular referee was 'non-compliant.'
It's a very very sad state of affairs.
the board should appoint officials and the promoter have nothing to do with it... then it wouldnt matter if they thought he didnt play the game.
