WILD WILL'S TITLE DEFENCE
Re: WILD WILL'S TITLE DEFENCE
IMO, it ain't over until it's over. In following bout correct decision was made, albeit O'Hello was nowhere near winning http://boxrec.com/show_display.php?show_id=89973
Mind you....always a possibility in final 2
Mind you....always a possibility in final 2
-
jezzamundo
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 3127
- Joined: 16 Jun 2004, 13:11
Re: WILD WILL'S TITLE DEFENCE
C'mon.......James "Lights Out" Toney.........nothing?jezzamundo wrote:It would have been more fitting if this had happened during a James Toney fight.
-
colin russell
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 765
- Joined: 06 Mar 2008, 05:54
Re: WILD WILL'S TITLE DEFENCE
Where did you dig that up from Da Voice even Geoff Kanofsky won that night. : ![[icon_notworthy.gif] :bow:](./images/smilies/icon_notworthy.gif)
Re: WILD WILL'S TITLE DEFENCE
When you reach my age, you'll find long term memory is somewhat better than currentcolin russell wrote:Where did you dig that up from Da Voice even Geoff Kanofsky won that night. :
Re: WILD WILL'S TITLE DEFENCE
It is down as a "technical decision", which is the same as what would have happened if a fight had been stopped on accidental injury.fox wrote:He was copping plenty but we all no how unpredictable the sport is and there were still 4 rounds to land one punch and thats all it takes. Highly unlikely but we will never know.Brute wrote:Did you see the fight? Ruiz was getting the worst of it and in a rematch would only get more punishment.amwsnw wrote: Its not often I agree with Anton but I do here. brute you contradict yourself. It was no fault of EITHER fighter. So if Ruiz has prepared to go 12 then why should the fight be taken off him when it was not a fight incident that caused the stoppage. IBO needs to look at this ruling and if it is across the board with all organisations it needs to be addressed.
Neither fighter should SUFFER.
Re: WILD WILL'S TITLE DEFENCE
Fair go, that was in Queensland and they ran out of daylight in an outdoor show. Wilson and O'Hello were both favoured sons in a very parochial state. Any decision one way or the other would have started a drunken brawl.Da Voice wrote:IMO, it ain't over until it's over. In following bout correct decision was made, albeit O'Hello was nowhere near winning http://boxrec.com/show_display.php?show_id=89973
Mind you....always a possibility in final 2
Re: WILD WILL'S TITLE DEFENCE
The ruling is simple - "The referee is the sole arbiter of the bout" - in circumstances such as these and under the unified rules of boxing, he makes the call. Ruiz was happy with it going to the scorecards, he has no complaintsamwsnw wrote:Its not often I agree with Anton but I do here. brute you contradict yourself. It was no fault of EITHER fighter. So if Ruiz has prepared to go 12 then why should the fight be taken off him when it was not a fight incident that caused the stoppage. IBO needs to look at this ruling and if it is across the board with all organisations it needs to be addressed.Brute wrote:Rubbish. It was no fault of either fighter that the Victorian electricity suppliers failed in their duty to the people of that area. Why should Tomlinson suffer having to go through it again after such a dominant display? A fight stopped by an accidental industry can go to the cards if four rounds have elapsed, why should this be any different?AntonS wrote:No Decision to be exact
Neither fighter should SUFFER.
Re: WILD WILL'S TITLE DEFENCE
Will's next defence will probably be against a more highly rated fighter.
Ruiz was never in the hunt and a rematch would be pointless.
Ruiz was never in the hunt and a rematch would be pointless.
Re: WILD WILL'S TITLE DEFENCE
Monty wrote:The ruling is simple - "The referee is the sole arbiter of the bout" - in circumstances such as these and under the unified rules of boxing, he makes the call. Ruiz was happy with it going to the scorecards, he has no complaintsamwsnw wrote:Its not often I agree with Anton but I do here. brute you contradict yourself. It was no fault of EITHER fighter. So if Ruiz has prepared to go 12 then why should the fight be taken off him when it was not a fight incident that caused the stoppage. IBO needs to look at this ruling and if it is across the board with all organisations it needs to be addressed.Brute wrote: Rubbish. It was no fault of either fighter that the Victorian electricity suppliers failed in their duty to the people of that area. Why should Tomlinson suffer having to go through it again after such a dominant display? A fight stopped by an accidental industry can go to the cards if four rounds have elapsed, why should this be any different?
Neither fighter should SUFFER.
Re: WILD WILL'S TITLE DEFENCE
The rule may be simple but I dont agree with it. The fight, in fairness should have been a no contest.
Was the bout an IBF eliminator ??
Was the bout an IBF eliminator ??
Re: WILD WILL'S TITLE DEFENCE
Likewise, no matter if Mexican appeared to be belted to shithouse at the time. There's always a possibility of telling punch in susequent rounds.amwsnw wrote:The rule may be simple but I dont agree with it. The fight, in fairness should have been a no contest.
Was the bout an IBF eliminator ??
Re: WILD WILL'S TITLE DEFENCE
No, an IBO defence. Take it up with the referee if you think you could do better.amwsnw wrote:The rule may be simple but I dont agree with it. The fight, in fairness should have been a no contest.
Was the bout an IBF eliminator ??
Re: WILD WILL'S TITLE DEFENCE
I could do better than some world known refs, who tend to venture in corners during break period & plead to call it quits, reason being to save their arse so they're not blamed stopping the fight too soon.....South African based, well known ref fits the bill.
Re: WILD WILL'S TITLE DEFENCE
Yep...loose terms...very loose terms in fact.Sweet P wrote:It appears soamwsnw wrote:The rule may be simple but I dont agree with it. The fight, in fairness should have been a no contest.
Was the bout an IBF eliminator ??
http://www.fightnews.com/Boxing/tomlins ... ore-115926
Re: WILD WILL'S TITLE DEFENCE
I saw nothing in that report about it being any kind of eliminator. Ruiz is a long way down the totem pole.
Re: WILD WILL'S TITLE DEFENCE
Your missing the point. The rules should not allow this decision to be made. Smoger is only governed by the rules. I havent had a crack at the ref so dont look too far into what has been posted.Brute wrote:No, an IBO defence. Take it up with the referee if you think you could do better.amwsnw wrote:The rule may be simple but I dont agree with it. The fight, in fairness should have been a no contest.
Was the bout an IBF eliminator ??
Re: WILD WILL'S TITLE DEFENCE
And many people think that until they actually give it a go.....Da Voice wrote:I could do better than some world known refs, who tend to venture in corners during break period & plead to call it quits, reason being to save their arse so they're not blamed stopping the fight too soon.....South African based, well known ref fits the bill.
Re: WILD WILL'S TITLE DEFENCE
So now you want to re write the rules of professional boxing? Think you could sort out the differences of opinion between Israel and Palestine while you are at it?amwsnw wrote:Your missing the point. The rules should not allow this decision to be made. Smoger is only governed by the rules. I havent had a crack at the ref so dont look too far into what has been posted.Brute wrote:No, an IBO defence. Take it up with the referee if you think you could do better.amwsnw wrote:The rule may be simple but I dont agree with it. The fight, in fairness should have been a no contest.
Was the bout an IBF eliminator ??
-
Like a Boss
- Light Heavyweight
- Posts: 5863
- Joined: 01 May 2012, 03:21
Re: WILD WILL'S TITLE DEFENCE
The rules are the only thing that can be applied to resolve things and Smoger applied them. As for the future. That's another matter entirelyamwsnw wrote:Your missing the point. The rules should not allow this decision to be made. Smoger is only governed by the rules. I havent had a crack at the ref so dont look too far into what has been posted.Brute wrote:No, an IBO defence. Take it up with the referee if you think you could do better.amwsnw wrote:The rule may be simple but I dont agree with it. The fight, in fairness should have been a no contest.
Was the bout an IBF eliminator ??