Should the ref have stopped Fury in the 9th?

[Controversial]

I know Warren will obviously back his fighter but the double standards make me laugh sometimes. We all know if that was Usyk being battered from pillar to post and still ended up winning FW would be screaming that the ref should’ve stopped it.

[Heldenjaeger]

Probably would have had to stop it if he didn't completely mess it up. Should have counted Fury the first time he fell into the ropes and then called it off as he was not ready to fight. Waiting for the fifth or sixth time and then counting with a break in-between was comical.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Probably would have had to stop it if he didn't completely mess it up. Should have counted Fury the first time he fell into the ropes and then called it off as he was not ready to fight. Waiting for the fifth or sixth time and then counting with a break in-between was comical.

Sorry, but you are talking cobblers - there were not 5 or 6 occasions when the referee could have called a count.

There were no standing 8 counts, so the ref could only call a count if it was deemed the ropes held Fury up, and having viewed it multiple times, there was only 1 other occasion, which was the time before when Fury fell into the turnbuckle.

I personally think the ref got it wrong, but I also appreciate that I have the luxury of a replay, which he didn't - and that everthing was happening very quickly in there.

It is far too easy to leap to conslusions about impropriety, and undue favour, but in my opinion, the ref got overtaken by events, and then felt he had to intervene as Tyson was in serious trouble, and would have fallen to the ground but for the ropes holding him up the second time.

[Frostieballs]

It’s perfectly consistent to say that the ref was correct to give a count, but also saved Fury from being KO’d.

He hesitated a couple of times and at one point Usyk stood of (and was actually very considered) when he could have piled in.

I don’t think the ref was corrupt. Maybe some bias deep down that he isn’t conscious of, or the pressure of the moment got to him - but not bent.

[Heldenjaeger]

There were no standing 8 counts, so the ref could only call a count if it was deemed the ropes held Fury up, and having viewed it multiple times, there was only 1 other occasion, which was the time before when Fury fell into the turnbuckle.

Fury stumbled backwards into the ropes and stayed up because of it multiple times before being counted for almost falling over.

[jamesmcdonnell]

There were no standing 8 counts, so the ref could only call a count if it was deemed the ropes held Fury up, and having viewed it multiple times, there was only 1 other occasion, which was the time before when Fury fell into the turnbuckle.

Fury stumbled backwards into the ropes and stayed up because of it multiple times before being counted for almost falling over.

In order for a count to be called, a fighter must clearly be falling toward the canvas and held up by the ropes, which then prevent a knockdown, you cannot call a count simple because a fighter is hurt and stumbling backwards.

The referee has to see unequivocal evidence they would have gone down otherwise.

[Heldenjaeger]

In order for a count to be called, a fighter must clearly be falling toward the canvas and held up by the ropes, which then prevent a knockdown, you cannot call a count simple because a fighter is hurt and stumbling backwards.

The referee has to see unequivocal evidence they would have gone down otherwise.

Fury was kept up by the ropes multiple times. That's just my opinion, you can see it differently.

[jamesmcdonnell]

In order for a count to be called, a fighter must clearly be falling toward the canvas and held up by the ropes, which then prevent a knockdown, you cannot call a count simple because a fighter is hurt and stumbling backwards.

The referee has to see unequivocal evidence they would have gone down otherwise.

Fury was kept up by the ropes multiple times. That's just my opinion, you can see it differently.

He was on the ropes multiple times, but it wasn't evident he would have hit the deck without them. I'm sure you can see how that rule has to be used with caution, otherwise you would be calling a count every time someone was hurt on the ropes.

[Ricky]

In order for a count to be called, a fighter must clearly be falling toward the canvas and held up by the ropes, which then prevent a knockdown, you cannot call a count simple because a fighter is hurt and stumbling backwards.

The referee has to see unequivocal evidence they would have gone down otherwise.

Fury was kept up by the ropes multiple times. That's just my opinion, you can see it differently.

He was on the ropes multiple times, but it wasn't evident he would have hit the deck without them. I'm sure you can see how that rule has to be used with caution, otherwise you would be calling a count every time someone was hurt on the ropes.

Pretty much this in a nutshell, if you watch boxing every weekend then more or less every weekend you are going to see a guy crumbling on the ropes getting pummelled and the ref jumping in to stop it. Imagine instead of stopping it they gave counts instead. Fury got a 'standing 8' by the back door.

[Heldenjaeger]

He was on the ropes multiple times, but it wasn't evident he would have hit the deck without them. I'm sure you can see how that rule has to be used with caution, otherwise you would be calling a count every time someone was hurt on the ropes.

It's pointless, we're just repeating ourselves. I think Fury would have ended up in the audience with the ropes keeping him in the ring and holding him up multiple times as he was stumbling across the ring and you don't. Both of us know the rules so we might as well stop here.

By the way I'm not calling for the ref to give Fury a count. I only mentioned that because he did end up counting for something that happened before when he didn't count. He was hesitant and didn't know what to do.

[jamesmcdonnell]

He was on the ropes multiple times, but it wasn't evident he would have hit the deck without them. I'm sure you can see how that rule has to be used with caution, otherwise you would be calling a count every time someone was hurt on the ropes.

It's pointless, we're just repeating ourselves. I think Fury would have ended up in the audience with the ropes keeping him in the ring and holding him up multiple times as he was stumbling across the ring and you don't. Both of us know the rules so we might as well stop here.

By the way I'm not calling for the ref to give Fury a count. I only mentioned that because he did end up counting for something that happened before when he didn't count. He was hesitant and didn't know what to do.

Fine by me.

[Ricky]

He was on the ropes multiple times, but it wasn't evident he would have hit the deck without them. I'm sure you can see how that rule has to be used with caution, otherwise you would be calling a count every time someone was hurt on the ropes.

It's pointless, we're just repeating ourselves. I think Fury would have ended up in the audience with the ropes keeping him in the ring and holding him up multiple times as he was stumbling across the ring and you don't. Both of us know the rules so we might as well stop here.

By the way I'm not calling for the ref to give Fury a count. I only mentioned that because he did end up counting for something that happened before when he didn't count. He was hesitant and didn't know what to do.

The rule should be binned in my opinion, I really don't see the point in it. What does it do exactly? It prevents a TKO where a fighter MAY have been floored and survived with the count? I mean, that's such a hypothetical scenario that it's not even worth consideration; if someone truly found themsleves hurt and held up by the ropes to then get hit with more punches and stopped by the ref... fvcking tough luck, it's a fight.

[IRONFIST]

I think a lot of refs would've stopped it had it been someone else or not such a big fight. You can argue a lot was at stake and Fury deserved the benefit of the doubt, he ended up going the distance so he did recover. What do you think?

Of course not, especially as Fury has great recuperative powers like Holmes.

[Controversial]

I think a lot of refs would've stopped it had it been someone else or not such a big fight. You can argue a lot was at stake and Fury deserved the benefit of the doubt, he ended up going the distance so he did recover. What do you think?

Of course not, especially as Fury has great recuperative powers like Holmes.

The thing with all these type of debates is we have hindsight and can see how it panned out so it's easy to say afterwards it was the right call. But imagine if there were a just a few more seconds after the ref counted Fury, the fight resumed and Usyk hit him with one huge punch and Fury collapsed and ended up seriously hurt or worse. Everyone would be slating the ref then. You can even argue is Fury's punch resistance going, he's been dropped a few times in the last few years and his big comeback from being dropped by Wilder was 6 years ago.

[margaret thatcher]

wow people are on the fence about whether fury wouldve goone down without the ropes? he was practically strewn out and sliding down them, it would be an amazing feat of gravity for him to have stayed up without their support

the point for the count ended up making the difference on the cards, not sure it was really some big screw over on usyk to call it

[gilgamesh]

wow people are on the fence about whether fury wouldve goone down without the ropes? he was practically strewn out and sliding down them, it would be an amazing feat of gravity for him to have stayed up without their support

the point for the count ended up making the difference on the cards, not sure it was really some big screw over on usyk to call it

If the referee had waved it off right then and there I don't think anybody would've batted an eye, However I think people being so upset at the fact that it was called a knockdown just shows that a lot of Boxing fans don't know the rules as well as they should.

By the definition of the rule, the ref can call a knockdown if he feels the ropes held the guy up, and he would've otherwise went down.

In Round 9. There was no doubt that this was the case.

To be honest, I've never seen a referee call a "The ropes held him up" knockdown, any more appropriately than that. He arguably could've done it on a few of those other occasions when Fury fell into the ropes, but that last one he was going down for sure.

[golden_labrador]

wow people are on the fence about whether fury wouldve goone down without the ropes? he was practically strewn out and sliding down them, it would be an amazing feat of gravity for him to have stayed up without their support

the point for the count ended up making the difference on the cards, not sure it was really some big screw over on usyk to call it

If the referee had waved it off right then and there I don't think anybody would've batted an eye, However I think people being so upset at the fact that it was called a knockdown just shows that a lot of Boxing fans don't know the rules as well as they should.

By the definition of the rule, the ref can call a knockdown if he feels the ropes held the guy up, and he would've otherwise went down.

In Round 9. There was no doubt that this was the case.

To be honest, I've never seen a referee call a "The ropes held him up" knockdown, any more appropriately than that. He arguably could've done it on a few of those other occasions when Fury fell into the ropes, but that last one he was going down for sure.

twice in that rnd 9 shellacking the ropes kept Fury from hitting the canvas, for sure

[jamesmcdonnell]

He was on the ropes multiple times, but it wasn't evident he would have hit the deck without them. I'm sure you can see how that rule has to be used with caution, otherwise you would be calling a count every time someone was hurt on the ropes.

It's pointless, we're just repeating ourselves. I think Fury would have ended up in the audience with the ropes keeping him in the ring and holding him up multiple times as he was stumbling across the ring and you don't. Both of us know the rules so we might as well stop here.

By the way I'm not calling for the ref to give Fury a count. I only mentioned that because he did end up counting for something that happened before when he didn't count. He was hesitant and didn't know what to do.

The rule should be binned in my opinion, I really don't see the point in it. What does it do exactly? It prevents a TKO where a fighter MAY have been floored and survived with the count? I mean, that's such a hypothetical scenario that it's not even worth consideration; if someone truly found themsleves hurt and held up by the ropes to then get hit with more punches and stopped by the ref... fvcking tough luck, it's a fight.

It prevents what used to happen in the 50's and 60's where a guy would be staggered, wind up in the ropes, and because the ref couldn't call a knockdown, they would end up getting pounded like a yam in an african village, I'm pretty sure one guy got killed like this in a title fight, because the ropes stopped him falling over, and he took a whole salvo of unanswered punches.

[jamesmcdonnell]

wow people are on the fence about whether fury wouldve goone down without the ropes? he was practically strewn out and sliding down them, it would be an amazing feat of gravity for him to have stayed up without their support

the point for the count ended up making the difference on the cards, not sure it was really some big screw over on usyk to call it

If the referee had waved it off right then and there I don't think anybody would've batted an eye, However I think people being so upset at the fact that it was called a knockdown just shows that a lot of Boxing fans don't know the rules as well as they should.

By the definition of the rule, the ref can call a knockdown if he feels the ropes held the guy up, and he would've otherwise went down.

In Round 9. There was no doubt that this was the case.

To be honest, I've never seen a referee call a "The ropes held him up" knockdown, any more appropriately than that. He arguably could've done it on a few of those other occasions when Fury fell into the ropes, but that last one he was going down for sure.

twice in that rnd 9 shellacking the ropes kept Fury from hitting the canvas, for sure

A few seconds before, Fury landed in one of the corners, after careering across the ring, had the ref called it then, then Usyk would have had a few more seconds to work maybe, though not many.

[jamesmcdonnell]

I think a lot of refs would've stopped it had it been someone else or not such a big fight. You can argue a lot was at stake and Fury deserved the benefit of the doubt, he ended up going the distance so he did recover. What do you think?

Of course not, especially as Fury has great recuperative powers like Holmes.

The thing with all these type of debates is we have hindsight and can see how it panned out so it's easy to say afterwards it was the right call. But imagine if there were a just a few more seconds after the ref counted Fury, the fight resumed and Usyk hit him with one huge punch and Fury collapsed and ended up seriously hurt or worse. Everyone would be slating the ref then. You can even argue is Fury's punch resistance going, he's been dropped a few times in the last few years and his big comeback from being dropped by Wilder was 6 years ago.

Fury has never had great punch resistance, he's been dropped by much smaller men than himself, - he's always had great powers of recovery, however, that doesn't prevent him from getting a subdural haematoma and ending up in a wheelchair for the rest of his life, or worse.

[Cask]

I think the ropes kept Lawton up here

[jamesmcdonnell]

I think the ropes kept Lawton up here

There's a much more famous fight, I think it might have been one of Lamottas, but cannot be sure.

[Cask]

I think the ropes kept Lawton up here

There's a much more famous fight, I think it might have been one of Lamottas, but cannot be sure.

there's quite a few of guys staggering from corner to corner only to almost collapse into the ropes and the ref stops it for a knockdown and everyone assumes it's over

[Cask]

I think the ropes kept Lawton up here

There's a much more famous fight, I think it might have been one of Lamottas, but cannot be sure.

As to your point on the ropes , they changed from three taut ropes to four more slack ropes after the Benny Paret incidenct. Of course a referee should be able to tell if a guy is unconscious or not , Ken Norton was seated on the Middle turnbuckle while Cooney bashed his brains in, Cooney could have beaten Norton to death ten times over in that position, get the fk in there ref

[Grilling Machine]

Yeah, Paret and Norton were the first examples I thought of. Don't think I've seen any worse.