Barker - 'Macklin's not in my league'

[potnoodle]

Why did he get the win then?

[slapbangwhallop]

Why did he get the win then?

hhhmmmm! I wonder

[potnoodle]

You wonder alot.

[BigEars]

Why did he get the win then?

Because Dave Parris is incompetent.
I think it should have been ruled a No Contest, Barker's punch comes very quickly after the command to stop boxing and probably too quickly for him to have processed what Paris said, so a DQ would have been harsh. But for anyone to say the result that was given is correct is ludicrous and either an extremely biased Barker fan or just trying to wind Slappy up. Parris was actually touching Samuels at the time he was knocked out.

I remember our resident pro fighter from this very thread getting DQ'ed for a similar incident against Michael Jones. Now thankfully due to that happening we got the fantastic 3rd fight between the pair but the only real difference between the incidents was the result given.

BTW anyone want to guess the ref that DQ'ed Moore against Jones..........you really won't be surprised.

[markp]

Why did he get the win then?

Because Dave Parris is incompetent.
I think it should have been ruled a No Contest, Barker's punch comes very quickly after the command to stop boxing and probably too quickly for him to have processed what Paris said, so a DQ would have been harsh. But for anyone to say the result that was given is correct is ludicrous and either an extremely biased Barker fan or just trying to wind Slappy up. Parris was actually touching Samuels at the time he was knocked out.

I remember our resident pro fighter from this very thread getting DQ'ed for a similar incident against Michael Jones. Now thankfully due to that happening we got the fantastic 3rd fight between the pair but the only real difference between the incidents was the result given.

BTW anyone want to guess the ref that DQ'ed Moore against Jones..........you really won't be surprised.

I do agree mostly. But I would not lay any blame on Barker for what happened. Slappy is basically saying that Barker heard the ref say stop, and decided to throw an illegal punch when Samuels stopped. Surely you are this is ridiculous? Slappy can't even give a solid answer on what he thinks the result should have been.

As I said, a no-contest would have been a fair result if Samuels couldn't continue but I can't argue with Barker winning because I don't think he did anything wrong. It was purely the incompetence of the referee.

[misticmonk]

Why did he get the win then?

Because Dave Parris is incompetent.
I think it should have been ruled a No Contest, Barker's punch comes very quickly after the command to stop boxing and probably too quickly for him to have processed what Paris said, so a DQ would have been harsh. But for anyone to say the result that was given is correct is ludicrous and either an extremely biased Barker fan or just trying to wind Slappy up. Parris was actually touching Samuels at the time he was knocked out.

I remember our resident pro fighter from this very thread getting DQ'ed for a similar incident against Michael Jones. Now thankfully due to that happening we got the fantastic 3rd fight between the pair but the only real difference between the incidents was the result given.

BTW anyone want to guess the ref that DQ'ed Moore against Jones..........you really won't be surprised.

This is a long shot as my boxing knowledge is very limited but was it Dave Parris

[BigEars]

Why did he get the win then?

Because Dave Parris is incompetent.
I think it should have been ruled a No Contest, Barker's punch comes very quickly after the command to stop boxing and probably too quickly for him to have processed what Paris said, so a DQ would have been harsh. But for anyone to say the result that was given is correct is ludicrous and either an extremely biased Barker fan or just trying to wind Slappy up. Parris was actually touching Samuels at the time he was knocked out.

I remember our resident pro fighter from this very thread getting DQ'ed for a similar incident against Michael Jones. Now thankfully due to that happening we got the fantastic 3rd fight between the pair but the only real difference between the incidents was the result given.

BTW anyone want to guess the ref that DQ'ed Moore against Jones..........you really won't be surprised.

I do agree mostly. But I would not lay any blame on Barker for what happened. Slappy is basically saying that Barker heard the ref say stop, and decided to throw an illegal punch when Samuels stopped. Surely you are this is ridiculous? Slappy can't even give a solid answer on what he thinks the result should have been.

As I said, a no-contest would have been a fair result if Samuels couldn't continue but I can't argue with Barker winning because I don't think he did anything wrong. It was purely the incompetence of the referee.

Oh come on, you can't give someone the win if they knocked a guy out with a shot after they were told to stop boxing, that'd be like allowing a knockout for a punch thrown after the bell in the 12th round. It's against the rules for a fighter to hit on the break, so allowing a knockout from that is simply wrong. Barker did indeed do wrong, he punched after the referee had told him not too and had started to physically initiate a break(he was touching Samuels), now it happened so quickly that the blame you can place on him is minimal but you can't reward him for it.

To say that the result is fine as it is, is much worse than saying Barker should have been DQ'ed imo, because according to the rules Barker could have been DQ'ed(such as Jamie Moore was), but according to the rules he should not have been awarded the win(landing an illegal blow to score the knockout), and you can't argue it was an illegal blow. Sure he wouldn't have meant for it to be illegal but it was.

This is a long shot as my boxing knowledge is very limited but was it Dave Parris

Not so limited at all, it was indeed dodgy Dave being inconsistent.

[DavidPayne]

barker got up and fired back with samuels in his face. in the heat of the moment you can't exactly make calculated decisions.

it's natural to be critical of barker on here, but isn't it a coincidence that the other brit to get hammered on here is rendall munroe. it's bordering on the obsessive - any close fight they're in and they got a lucky decision, and controversy and they're a disgrace. yawn.

what do these 2 have in common, whose wrath have they been struck by because they wanted to fight a certain couple of fighters?

"shush down" you "jester"!

A. I've never said a word about Munroe. Who "hammers Murnoe"? What did they say?

B. So if I am critical of a fighter its because he is British? Is that what you are saying because I am finding it hard to sift through your effluent.

Are you saying that Barker should have been award a KO victory in the Samuels fight, a simple yes or no will do!

Yes he should have. Parris was incompetent, it wasn't his fault. Parris should have stepped in sooner. Samuels should have either kept his hands up or stopped coming forward when Parris shouted "Stop boxing" himself. They could have offered Samuels 5 minutes recovery time or even called it a no-contest but personally I think barker deserved to be called the winner.

Well its all about opinions. Yours is wrong but I'll fight to my last breath to defend your right to hold
it.

[markp]

"shush down" you "jester"!

A. I've never said a word about Munroe. Who "hammers Murnoe"? What did they say?

B. So if I am critical of a fighter its because he is British? Is that what you are saying because I am finding it hard to sift through your effluent.

Are you saying that Barker should have been award a KO victory in the Samuels fight, a simple yes or no will do!

Yes he should have. Parris was incompetent, it wasn't his fault. Parris should have stepped in sooner. Samuels should have either kept his hands up or stopped coming forward when Parris shouted "Stop boxing" himself. They could have offered Samuels 5 minutes recovery time or even called it a no-contest but personally I think barker deserved to be called the winner.

Well its all about opinions. Yours is wrong but I'll fight to my last breath to defend your right to hold
it.

Well I will say that a competent referee would have either given Samuels 5 minutes or called it a NC. However this is Dave Parris we are talking about. DQing Barker would have been incredibly harsh on him.

[markp]

Because Dave Parris is incompetent.
I think it should have been ruled a No Contest, Barker's punch comes very quickly after the command to stop boxing and probably too quickly for him to have processed what Paris said, so a DQ would have been harsh. But for anyone to say the result that was given is correct is ludicrous and either an extremely biased Barker fan or just trying to wind Slappy up. Parris was actually touching Samuels at the time he was knocked out.

I remember our resident pro fighter from this very thread getting DQ'ed for a similar incident against Michael Jones. Now thankfully due to that happening we got the fantastic 3rd fight between the pair but the only real difference between the incidents was the result given.

BTW anyone want to guess the ref that DQ'ed Moore against Jones..........you really won't be surprised.

I do agree mostly. But I would not lay any blame on Barker for what happened. Slappy is basically saying that Barker heard the ref say stop, and decided to throw an illegal punch when Samuels stopped. Surely you are this is ridiculous? Slappy can't even give a solid answer on what he thinks the result should have been.

As I said, a no-contest would have been a fair result if Samuels couldn't continue but I can't argue with Barker winning because I don't think he did anything wrong. It was purely the incompetence of the referee.

Oh come on, you can't give someone the win if they knocked a guy out with a shot after they were told to stop boxing, that'd be like allowing a knockout for a punch thrown after the bell in the 12th round. It's against the rules for a fighter to hit on the break, so allowing a knockout from that is simply wrong. Barker did indeed do wrong, he punched after the referee had told him not too and had started to physically initiate a break(he was touching Samuels), now it happened so quickly that the blame you can place on him is minimal but you can't reward him for it.

To say that the result is fine as it is, is much worse than saying Barker should have been DQ'ed imo, because according to the rules Barker could have been DQ'ed(such as Jamie Moore was), but according to the rules he should not have been awarded the win(landing an illegal blow to score the knockout), and you can't argue it was an illegal blow. Sure he wouldn't have meant for it to be illegal but it was.

This is a long shot as my boxing knowledge is very limited but was it Dave Parris

Not so limited at all, it was indeed dodgy Dave being inconsistent.

The problem I have, essentially, is that Barker would be DQed for Parris' negligence and poorness as a referee.

[Dioufy]

Even me, who is very pro-Barker, can see that Macklin and Barker are very well matched. It's a bit of mind games, and nothing more from Barker. He must know that Macklin is very capable of stopping him badly, and visa-versa. It's an even fight, and I defy anyone to tell me otherwise.

[slapbangwhallop]

Yes he should have. Parris was incompetent, it wasn't his fault. Parris should have stepped in sooner. Samuels should have either kept his hands up or stopped coming forward when Parris shouted "Stop boxing" himself. They could have offered Samuels 5 minutes recovery time or even called it a no-contest but personally I think barker deserved to be called the winner.

Well its all about opinions. Yours is wrong but I'll fight to my last breath to defend your right to hold
it.

Well I will say that a competent referee would have either given Samuels 5 minutes or called it a NC. However this is Dave Parris we are talking about. DQing Barker would have been incredibly harsh on him.

Give a fighter that has been knocked out cold five minutes to recover and carry on! Aye good one. You get better and better.

Not only would a doctor never allow it, nor would a decent cornerman.