BoxRec

Old bones Ian wrote:In Parris's defense he didn't see the bite happen. So couldn't DQ Chisora, it was on his blind side.

I do wonder why he didn't look at Butlin's ear for bite marks.

Old bones Ian wrote:In Parris's defense he didn't see the bite happen. So couldn't DQ Chisora, it was on his blind side.

He wouldn't have done anything anyway.

Old bones Ian wrote:In Parris's defense he didn't see the bite happen. So couldn't DQ Chisora, it was on his blind side.

I didn't watch this fight live... only saw it after reading the round by round on here. Sorry, OBI I don't believe that - Butlin made it obvious what happend and Paris is a big man. He could see over that. I know we had a better view of it - but it wasn't well disguised.

Asterix wrote:

Old bones Ian wrote:In Parris's defense he didn't see the bite happen. So couldn't DQ Chisora, it was on his blind side.

I do wonder why he didn't look at Butlin's ear for bite marks.

It does look like he did..
This was Crazy of Chisora, he was in control of the fight i just dont understand

Look at the way he wipe his Mouth after the biting



Here it is.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3My1Lb ... re=related

Londonirish wrote:

Asterix wrote:

Old bones Ian wrote:In Parris's defense he didn't see the bite happen. So couldn't DQ Chisora, it was on his blind side.

I do wonder why he didn't look at Butlin's ear for bite marks.

It does look like he did..
This was Crazy of Chisora, he was in control of the fight i just dont understand

Look at the way he wipe his Mouth after the biting



Here it is.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3My1Lb ... re=related

Funny how the memory plays tricks. Looks like Parris did a good job.

BIGMARK wrote:

dbflex wrote:http://www.boxingnewsonline.net/BN08/detail.asp?id=1158

Finchley's Del-boy gets banned and fined for biting Paul Butlin and, unless he decides to appeal (and is successful) he won't be fighting Danny Williams this season. All feedback appreciated. Flex

this is good news as a few on here thought that he was going to get away with it and well done to the board for showing some stones.

yes i agree he thought he was getting away with it as after the fight he was laughing about it sooner he get punched up the better he shit anyway hope he fights rogen and gets knocked out

For me, that makes it worst!!!! If he didn't think Chisora bit him why look! If he did, but didn't mark him he still should have been disqualified.

Parris didn't miss this (which is good)... but it kind of makes it worst that he didn't call it correctly then.

Instant DQ - not a DQ based on the state of his ear.

Also, is that blood in Butlin's inner glove or the colour of the tape. About 17 seconds into the youtube clip!!

Same he did with Barker vs Samuels!! bottle job.

stujones wrote:Same he did with Barker vs Samuels!! bottle job.

What was wrong with his performance in that fight?

Barker KO'd Samuels when the ref called break if memory serves me. Not intentional, but should have been a no contest.

mrrocco wrote:

stujones wrote:Barker KO'd Samuels when the ref called break if memory serves me. Not intentional, but should have been a no contest.

I thought Samuels dropped Barker, and before PArris had the chance to get in and call break, Darren sprung up and chinned him?

I can find the clip online...so not certain

Something like that, but I felt a no contest would have been the right call there.

stujones wrote:For me, that makes it worst!!!! If he didn't think Chisora bit him why look! If he did, but didn't mark him he still should have been disqualified.

Parris didn't miss this (which is good)... but it kind of makes it worst that he didn't call it correctly then.

Instant DQ - not a DQ based on the state of his ear.

Parris almost certainly didn't see it. The original TV view was roughly the same as his; there was no way you could see Chisora's mouth or Butlin's ear; their heads were just in close as often happens.

Yes, Butlin reeled back and yes, he told the ref what happened, but if the ref didn't see it for himself, and in the absence of an injury, you can't expect Parris to have called the DQ.

I agree that the lack of an injury should have no bearing on the call, and I also agree that Chisora deserved to be DQd, but you can't blame Parris in this instance. DQing a fighter based on the opponent's word alone would set a dangerous precedent.

Should turn the result into a NC - that would be just desserts!

Captain Hook wrote:

teddy007 wrote:

DavidPayne wrote:The bloke is a dick.

Carrying on like he's a top 10 world contender. He's beat nobody, been inactive and has the charisma of an Austin Marina and then ends up BITING a journeyman.

Just a 42 caret prat.

Give me gobby Fury or Kipling Williams any day.

x3 i want Fury to smash this fat piece of sh!t out of boxing.

:) that's my boy....

lets all get behind tyson to KO this wannker from british boxing.... come on tyson.....

Captain Hook wrote:

teddy007 wrote:

DavidPayne wrote:The bloke is a dick.

Carrying on like he's a top 10 world contender. He's beat nobody, been inactive and has the charisma of an Austin Marina and then ends up BITING a journeyman.

Just a 42 caret prat.

Give me gobby Fury or Kipling Williams any day.

x3 i want Fury to smash this fat piece of sh!t out of boxing.

:) that's my boy....

lets all get behind tyson to KO this wannker from british boxing.... come on tyson.....

he is a complete shmuck, i hope he gets knocked out quick smart.

In instances like that why couldnt the referee take advice from those ringside?

Like an assistant referee? who could have said yes the fat bloke bit the other fat blokes ear, get rid !

Good decision it was a stupid thing to do as he was winning and there didnt seem to be head butting or anything like that he definetly deserves to be suspened but it should of been worse he should of been dq'd imo

If the penalty for a bite is a DQ, surely this can be changed retrospectively. This has been done in the past (I think Jorge Paez had a late career KO loss turned into a DQ win).
edit: he was actually KO'd as the result of an unintentional foul. After the fight, the tape was reviewed and the result changed to a TD. I appreciate that this is different, but it does have parallels.

i think he should be banned for at least an ear

abuse welcome

Stop Press: blubbery heavyweight vs blubbery heavyweight is off for at least four months.
Scoops are just for ice cream parlours these days.

Carlos-Wigan wrote:Should turn the result into a NC - that would be just desserts!

even better turn it into a DQ - Surely losing his "0" will hurt him more than the suspension. Certainly in terms of his ego!

earsjohn wrote:

Carlos-Wigan wrote:Should turn the result into a NC - that would be just desserts!

even better turn it into a DQ - Surely losing his "0" will hurt him more than the suspension. Certainly in terms of his ego!

The problem with changing the result is this- where do you draw the line?

There are loads of fights where a person has broken the rules- low blows, headbutts and the like- but havn't been disqualified- should the board review video footage of EVERY fight and make a retrospect decision? What about dubious stoppages?

In some fights a boxer is given a "long count" slightly longer than 10 seconds, but is allowed to continue. By the rules, he has been knocked out. Should the board have the power to review every knockdown and time it etc, reversing results if required?

It could get crazy. See what I mean?

whicker wrote:

earsjohn wrote:

Carlos-Wigan wrote:Should turn the result into a NC - that would be just desserts!

even better turn it into a DQ - Surely losing his "0" will hurt him more than the suspension. Certainly in terms of his ego!

The problem with changing the result is this- where do you draw the line?

There are loads of fights where a person has broken the rules- low blows, headbutts and the like- but havn't been disqualified- should the board review video footage of EVERY fight and make a retrospect decision? What about dubious stoppages?

In some fights a boxer is given a "long count" slightly longer than 10 seconds, but is allowed to continue. By the rules, he has been knocked out. Should the board have the power to review every knockdown and time it etc, reversing results if required?

It could get crazy. See what I mean?

I totally agree - setting a bad precedent is a lot worse than doing nothing. But in this case, the Board have acted against Chisora (suspension and fine) so they have acknowledged that action needed to be taken. I don't know how the process works, but in this case did the Butlin camp make a complaint or did the Board just act off their own backs as a result of the obviousness of the foul?

There's clearly a difference between something that is dubious (or open to interpretation or as a result of the actions taken by the ref) and an obvious foul that was not seen (as in this case).

I think maybe I'm just saying that changing the result might be more of a dis-incentive to repeat the act than a simple suspension, that will be forgotton about in a matter of months and a fine that will, in all liklihood be covered by his promoter.

4 months seems stupid - it should be 6 months, and a larger fine, at worst.

oliverfennell wrote:

stujones wrote:For me, that makes it worst!!!! If he didn't think Chisora bit him why look! If he did, but didn't mark him he still should have been disqualified.

Parris didn't miss this (which is good)... but it kind of makes it worst that he didn't call it correctly then.

Instant DQ - not a DQ based on the state of his ear.

Parris almost certainly didn't see it. The original TV view was roughly the same as his; there was no way you could see Chisora's mouth or Butlin's ear; their heads were just in close as often happens.

Yes, Butlin reeled back and yes, he told the ref what happened, but if the ref didn't see it for himself, and in the absence of an injury, you can't expect Parris to have called the DQ.

I agree that the lack of an injury should have no bearing on the call, and I also agree that Chisora deserved to be DQd, but you can't blame Parris in this instance. DQing a fighter based on the opponent's word alone would set a dangerous precedent.

IMO Mills Lane didn't see the Tyson bite, but he DQ'd him. Whilst he didn't admit it, funny he DQ'd him after the reply was shown. Maybe that should be something the BBBoC should consider in light of this. the use of TV monitors or something.

Whilst it might be not have been a clear cut with us with the advantage of replays. I thought it was pretty obvious on first viewing (although I am at a disadvantage cause I was preparing myself for it) - you can see their heads go in, then you can see Chisora tilt his head as if he is going to lick his ear lobe.

I think Parris saw enough to give Chisora a ticking off.... which says it all for me. That wasn't a ticking off offense. Either say to Butlin "i didn't see it" and say/do nothing or DQ Chisora. Also, still would like to know if that was blood in Butlin's inside of his glove.

Did anyone else read the nonsense of a letter Chisora sent into the BN this week?

What a utter moron