RLewis wrote: Corner will always be too close to fighters to make a rational view
So, by implication, you are saying that a) McGirt and Eames were not close enough to their fighters and b) irrational in their readings of their respective situations? Can you justify either of those statements? They both went against the wishes of their fighters and it cost them their jobs, which to me proves that a) your use of the word 'always' is inaccurate and b) some cornermen are better than others, just as some fighters are better than others — this stands to reason.
If Briggs had to tell his corner NOT to pull him out, the suggestion is they wanted to but did not have the moral conviction to do so. If Angelo Dundee had listened to the rest of Ali's corner, the result would have been Holmes standing over Muhammad. Are you saying that Dundee wasn't close to Ali? A good cornerman does what he believes is right for the fighter and hang the consequences. This is not F1. Fighters are not machines and corners are not mechanics. There is more at stake than winning in boxing. I like to believe a human being can do what's best for another human being, irrespective of the cost to themselves. Good cornermen show that quality.
Last edited by Glyn Leach on 22 Oct 2010, 10:59, edited 1 time in total.
When the corner is next to useless, which Briggs corner appeared to be, it's the ref's job to protect a fighter from his corner too - if they're not up to the job. IJL seemed oblivious to the damage Briggs was receiving - no one in their right mind would have complained if he'd waved it off after 8 rounds or so.
Had IJL stopped the fight at some point around the 10th round, I wouldn't have complained. That said, I can't blame him for not stopping the fight either. It was a judgement call and a tough one for IJL, and he has my sympathies here. This was quite an unusual fight, made so by Briggs's uncommon bravery and toughness. IJL was confronted by a fighter who while clearly losing the fight was showing the attitude and body language of someone who believed he could still win it. Briggs was strong and determined enough to keep marching onto Vitali. Despite the heavy, heavy punishment, Briggs did not go down, nor even look in grave danger of going down, he was not giving ground, and at the one point in the fight where Vitali had him on the ropes and looked as though he were about to overpower him, the bell rang and Briggs was saved. I'm certain that if the bell hadn't rang, after a few more seconds IJL would have waved the fight off. But that's not the way events unfolded and the moment passed. It would be interesting to sit down and watch the fight with IJL, see how he views it from the way most of us watched it.
RLewis wrote: Corner will always be too close to fighters to make a rational view
So, by implication, you are saying that a) McGirt and Eames were not close enough to their fighters and b) irrational in their readings of their respective situations? Can you justify either of those statements? They both went against the wishes of their fighters and it cost them their jobs, which to me proves that a) your use of the word 'always' is inaccurate and b) some cornermen are better than others, just as some fighters are better than others — this stands to reason.
If Briggs had to tell his corner NOT to pull him out, the suggestion is they wanted to but did not have the moral conviction to do so. If Angelo Dundee had listened to the rest of Ali's corner, the result would have been Holmes standing over Muhammad. A good cornerman does what he believes is right for the fighter and hang the consequences.
Not at all. They both had the power to stop the fight, they both failed Briggs. Bringing in other cases is just irrelevant. You may just as well bring up Beathaeven Scottland, who was failed by the referee and his corner despite the outrage of many at ringside.
The point is the referee has a duty of care to the boxer, whatever the corner does.
It didn't look a difficult call to stop it. How many punches did Briggs land in the last four rounds? Virtually nil. So he wan't fighting back. It could have been stopped after 6, it should have been stopped after 8.
Last edited by RLewis on 22 Oct 2010, 10:59, edited 2 times in total.
Glyn Leach wrote:I think the difficult thing for IJL was that Shannon always kept himself in a position to land a punch, even if he didn't throw it. He stayed in front of Vitali, didn't back off. He LOOKED as though he might be able to land a big shot, as though he believed in his ability to do it and was positioning himself to do it, but it just didn't happen. In the end, Shannon was a victim of his own bravery, toughness and self belief, all of which he is commended for. As Vitali said afterwards: 'He hurt himself in there.' If anyone could be argued to have let him down I think it was his corner, but he's since revealed that he told them not to pull him out. They might well have wanted to, we don't know.
People keep saying this about the corner but there job is to try and get their man to win the world heavyweight title, I agree it would have been nice to see them show compasion and pull him out but they have other agenda's whereas the refs first and foremost job is the health and safety of the boxers. IJL's reasoning for letting it go on was stupid, Briggs was never in the fight from round 1 to 12 and took a systamatic beating from round 1 to 12.
Just can't agree that IJL was to blame. A corner's responsibility, above all others, is the wellbeing of the fighter. They are supposed to be the ones who protect THEIR man from hurting himself, the referee is in an objective position while the corner is in a subjective position. Some corners have the professionalism and compassion to save their fighters from themselves, whether or not it would piss off said fighters. Buddy McGirt with Paulie Malignaggi vs Ricky Hatton for instance, that cost Buddy his job but he did what he believed to be best. I think it was Johnny Eames (correct me if I'm wrong, please) who got sacked by Graham Earl after Earl was pulled out of the Katsidis fight. It's a brave move for a corner to make, they are essentially going against the wishes of the man who pays them. But they are paid for their judgement of a fight, in all manner of ways, and I have nothing but respect for cornermen who will trust their judgement (which might not always be correct) even when the price of that may be their jobs. But not all cornermen are like that.
Surely Glyn, the corners job is to protect the fighter despite their protestations to the contrary.
Last edited by jamesmcdonnell on 22 Oct 2010, 10:56, edited 1 time in total.
jonny wrote:
People keep saying this about the corner but there job is to try and get their man to win the world heavyweight title, I agree it would have been nice to see them show compasion and pull him out but they have other agenda's whereas the refs first and foremost job is the health and safety of the boxers. IJL's reasoning for letting it go on was stupid, Briggs was never in the fight from round 1 to 12 and took a systamatic beating from round 1 to 12.
Just can't agree that IJL was to blame. A corner's responsibility, above all others, is the wellbeing of the fighter. They are supposed to be the ones who protect THEIR man from hurting himself, the referee is in an objective position while the corner is in a subjective position. Some corners have the professionalism and compassion to save their fighters from themselves, whether or not it would piss off said fighters. Buddy McGirt with Paulie Malignaggi vs Ricky Hatton for instance, that cost Buddy his job but he did what he believed to be best. I think it was Johnny Eames (correct me if I'm wrong, please) who got sacked by Graham Earl after Earl was pulled out of the Katsidis fight. It's a brave move for a corner to make, they are essentially going against the wishes of the man who pays them. But they are paid for their judgement of a fight, in all manner of ways, and I have nothing but respect for cornermen who will trust their judgement (which might not always be correct) even when the price of that may be their jobs. But not all cornermen are like that.
Surely Glyn, the corners job is to protect the fighter despite their protestations to the contrary. Look at Eddie Futch with Frazier, Frazier was mad as hell, but that decision may have saved Fraziers life, or at least allowed him to enjoy far better health than he would have done, given that Frazier's health ain't all that anyway, and he slurrs his words badly, that was probably a very kind decision.
Whoops I'm arguing with someone who agress with me.
Well, Briggs is a proud fighter and as much of a cliche is it sounds, this is a sport, his fight long ceased to be a contest along time before the final bell and proud men such as he deserve to be protected from themselves. For example, in one of the few amateur fights I had I was in a bout where I was getting a bloody pasting and the referee asked me if I wanted to go on. I was all in, didn't really want to take anymore but I don't know, something inside of me still made me say 'yes'.
RLewis wrote: Corner will always be too close to fighters to make a rational view
So, by implication, you are saying that a) McGirt and Eames were not close enough to their fighters and b) irrational in their readings of their respective situations? Can you justify either of those statements? They both went against the wishes of their fighters and it cost them their jobs, which to me proves that a) your use of the word 'always' is inaccurate and b) some cornermen are better than others, just as some fighters are better than others — this stands to reason.
If Briggs had to tell his corner NOT to pull him out, the suggestion is they wanted to but did not have the moral conviction to do so. If Angelo Dundee had listened to the rest of Ali's corner, the result would have been Holmes standing over Muhammad. A good cornerman does what he believes is right for the fighter and hang the consequences.
Not at all. They both had the power to stop the fight, they both failed Briggs. Bringing in other cases is just irrelevant. You may just as well bring up Beathaeven Scottland, who was failed by the referee and his corner despite the outrage of many at ringside.
The point is the referee has a duty of care to the boxer, whatever the corner does.
It didn't look a difficult call to stop it. How many punches did Briggs land in the last four rounds? Virtually nil. So he wan't fighting back. It could have been stopped after 6, it should have been stopped after 8.
Not irrelevant at all, you talked of a 'corner ALWAYS being too close', therefore you have generalised and a statement like that needs perspective, which means bringing in other examples. And as these were examples I stated BEFORE your response, which appeared in quotes in your response, ie you appeared to be responding to the post including them, I naturally I took it you were writing in regard to what I had written. I did not bring up the corners I mentioned in response to you, you responded to my mentioning those corners. Had I wanted to mention other corners, I would have, but I believe I have made the point I wanted to make by mentioning the corners I mentioned. Sorry if that's confused you.
But all that aside, if you want to make a generalisation about corners and what they 'always' do, you have to consider the actions of more than one corner, how can you not?
Glyn Leach wrote:
So, by implication, you are saying that a) McGirt and Eames were not close enough to their fighters and b) irrational in their readings of their respective situations? Can you justify either of those statements? They both went against the wishes of their fighters and it cost them their jobs, which to me proves that a) your use of the word 'always' is inaccurate and b) some cornermen are better than others, just as some fighters are better than others — this stands to reason.
If Briggs had to tell his corner NOT to pull him out, the suggestion is they wanted to but did not have the moral conviction to do so. If Angelo Dundee had listened to the rest of Ali's corner, the result would have been Holmes standing over Muhammad. A good cornerman does what he believes is right for the fighter and hang the consequences.
Not at all. They both had the power to stop the fight, they both failed Briggs. Bringing in other cases is just irrelevant. You may just as well bring up Beathaeven Scottland, who was failed by the referee and his corner despite the outrage of many at ringside.
The point is the referee has a duty of care to the boxer, whatever the corner does.
It didn't look a difficult call to stop it. How many punches did Briggs land in the last four rounds? Virtually nil. So he wan't fighting back. It could have been stopped after 6, it should have been stopped after 8.
Not irrelevant at all, you talked of a 'corner ALWAYS being too close', therefore you have generalised and a statement like that needs perspective, which means bringing in other examples. And as these were examples I stated BEFORE your response, which appeared in quotes in your response, ie you appeared to be responding to the post including them, I naturally I took it you were writing in regard to what I had written. I did not bring up the corners I mentioned in response to you, you responded to my mentioning those corners. Had I wanted to mention other corners, I would have, but I believe I have made the point I wanted to make by mentioning the corners I mentioned. Sorry if that's confused you.
But all that aside, if you want to make a generalisation about corners and what they 'always' do, you have to consider the actions of more than one corner, how can you not?
OK, always was a generalisation but you seem fixated with one word. Your point that it was not IJL's job to save Briggs from punishment is surely the main issue. If the corner duck their responsibility, the referee has the job to do something and a good ref would have the strength of his convictions. IJL did nothing and did not even give the ringside doctor a chance to have a say.
Final round wrote:Briggs' corner was as much to blame as the ref they had plenty of time to pull him out but sent him out again and again
Enzo's ref threw him to the mercy of Frenkel . Far worse for me.
So you say the corner should have pulled him out but didn't, then it is upto the ref to do so that is his main job, his main priority. And the the corner of Enzo had time to throw the towel at the ref and should have done.
And the ref in the enzo fight messed up for 5 or 6 seconds where as IJL messed up for 5 or 6 rounds.
Having said all this I still think the Enzo case was the worse.
jonny wrote:I think the Enzo KO was far worse as the man was out on his feet but still think Ian john had a bad night and should have stopped the fight, maybe the occasion got to him.
Ian John Lewis one of our best referees who had been in some very tough fights himself. Whilst the Briggs v Klit fight wasnt for "The" Heavyweight championship of the world it was a top level international contest and there is always a chance that someone was gonna get a beating. Unfortunatley for Briggs it was him. Boxing is not badminton. Boxing by its very nature is tough, hard, physical and violent.
Turning to Enzo, he is the kind of fighter, like Martin Conception, insofar as when he gets KO'd it is so spectacular, he makes the other guy look a much much bigger puncher than he actually is.
I dont think either of the refs were at fault, this is Boxing and people are gonna get hurt.
Final round wrote:Briggs' corner was as much to blame as the ref they had plenty of time to pull him out but sent him out again and again
Enzo's ref threw him to the mercy of Frenkel . Far worse for me.
So you say the corner should have pulled him out but didn't, then it is upto the ref to do so that is his main job, his main priority. And the the corner of Enzo had time to throw the towel at the ref and should have done.
And the ref in the enzo fight messed up for 5 or 6 seconds where as IJL messed up for 5 or 6 rounds.
Having said all this I still think the Enzo case was the worse.
The ref was giving Briggs every chance in the world and I agree should have stopped the fight defo by the tenth but Briggs' corner should know when he has nothing left and care anout his well being enough to pull the plug.
Merrone was 100% at fault and true Enzo's corner could have jumped in so splitting hairs really.
RLewis wrote:
Not at all. They both had the power to stop the fight, they both failed Briggs. Bringing in other cases is just irrelevant. You may just as well bring up Beathaeven Scottland, who was failed by the referee and his corner despite the outrage of many at ringside.
The point is the referee has a duty of care to the boxer, whatever the corner does.
It didn't look a difficult call to stop it. How many punches did Briggs land in the last four rounds? Virtually nil. So he wan't fighting back. It could have been stopped after 6, it should have been stopped after 8.
Not irrelevant at all, you talked of a 'corner ALWAYS being too close', therefore you have generalised and a statement like that needs perspective, which means bringing in other examples. And as these were examples I stated BEFORE your response, which appeared in quotes in your response, ie you appeared to be responding to the post including them, I naturally I took it you were writing in regard to what I had written. I did not bring up the corners I mentioned in response to you, you responded to my mentioning those corners. Had I wanted to mention other corners, I would have, but I believe I have made the point I wanted to make by mentioning the corners I mentioned. Sorry if that's confused you.
But all that aside, if you want to make a generalisation about corners and what they 'always' do, you have to consider the actions of more than one corner, how can you not?
OK, always was a generalisation but you seem fixated with one word. Your point that it was not IJL's job to save Briggs from punishment is surely the main issue. If the corner duck their responsibility, the referee has the job to do something and a good ref would have the strength of his convictions. IJL did nothing and did not even give the ringside doctor a chance to have a say.
It's not a question of fixation, it's a question of accuracy. Even removing the word 'always' from the equation, the meaning of your one sentence that I highlighted would have been a generalisation. My response to you was on a very specific issue, hence my only quoting the one line of your post relating to corners — which appeared to be a response to my post relating to corners, given that you had quoted it. I had mentioned cases where corners had pulled their fighters out against their wishes, you quoted those cases in your response, then went on to make a generalisation contradicting what I had written, which is the part of your post that I highlighted and asked you to justify. That's what happened.
I can't disagree with your views on the role of referees in general. However I've made my feelings known about IJL's role in the fight, I accept I am in the minority, but that doesn't change my views. I'm not a member of the IJL fanclub or anything, indeed I believe he stiffed Ian Napa on a couple of occasions. But I am cutting him some slack over his role in this fight, for reasons I have already stated.
. Far worse for me.
