Page 2 of 2
Re: WILD WILL'S TITLE DEFENCE
Posted: 19 May 2012, 06:21
by Da Voice
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
Posted: 19 May 2012, 06:47
by jezzamundo
jezzamundo wrote:It would have been more fitting if this had happened during a James Toney fight.
C'mon.......James "Lights Out" Toney.........nothing?
Re: WILD WILL'S TITLE DEFENCE
Posted: 19 May 2012, 06:50
by colin russell
Where did you dig that up from Da Voice even Geoff Kanofsky won that night. :
Re: WILD WILL'S TITLE DEFENCE
Posted: 19 May 2012, 06:54
by Da Voice
colin russell wrote:Where did you dig that up from Da Voice even Geoff Kanofsky won that night. :
When you reach my age, you'll find long term memory is somewhat better than current
Old man Kanofski was not a bad stick in them days.
Re: WILD WILL'S TITLE DEFENCE
Posted: 19 May 2012, 08:50
by Brute
fox wrote:Brute wrote: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.
Did you see the fight? Ruiz was getting the worst of it and in a rematch would only get more punishment.
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.
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.
Re: WILD WILL'S TITLE DEFENCE
Posted: 19 May 2012, 08:52
by Brute
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.
Re: WILD WILL'S TITLE DEFENCE
Posted: 19 May 2012, 21:41
by Monty
amwsnw wrote:Brute wrote:AntonS wrote:No Decision to be exact
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?
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.
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 complaints
Re: WILD WILL'S TITLE DEFENCE
Posted: 20 May 2012, 03:16
by Brute
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.
Re: WILD WILL'S TITLE DEFENCE
Posted: 20 May 2012, 03:34
by Da Voice
Monty wrote:amwsnw wrote: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?
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.
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 complaints
Re: WILD WILL'S TITLE DEFENCE
Posted: 20 May 2012, 06:12
by amwsnw
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
Posted: 20 May 2012, 06:46
by Da Voice
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 ??
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.
Re: WILD WILL'S TITLE DEFENCE
Posted: 20 May 2012, 06:54
by Brute
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 ??
No, an IBO defence. Take it up with the referee if you think you could do better.
Re: WILD WILL'S TITLE DEFENCE
Posted: 20 May 2012, 07:17
by Da Voice
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
Posted: 20 May 2012, 07:40
by Da Voice
Yep...loose terms...very loose terms in fact.
Re: WILD WILL'S TITLE DEFENCE
Posted: 20 May 2012, 20:12
by Brute
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
Posted: 21 May 2012, 02:38
by amwsnw
Brute wrote: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 ??
No, an IBO defence. Take it up with the referee if you think you could do better.
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.
Re: WILD WILL'S TITLE DEFENCE
Posted: 21 May 2012, 23:22
by Monty
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.
And many people think that until they actually give it a go.....
Re: WILD WILL'S TITLE DEFENCE
Posted: 21 May 2012, 23:30
by Brute
amwsnw wrote:Brute wrote: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 ??
No, an IBO defence. Take it up with the referee if you think you could do better.
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.
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?
Re: WILD WILL'S TITLE DEFENCE
Posted: 21 May 2012, 23:34
by Like a Boss
amwsnw wrote:Brute wrote: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 ??
No, an IBO defence. Take it up with the referee if you think you could do better.
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.
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 entirely
