BoxRec

Finn wrote:

dookus wrote:

The Insider wrote: The fact he was unable to be upright and in a position to defend himself at 9.5 seconds I'm guessing. The only crux of the matter is the time from 9 till the fight was terminated and if your willing to gamble a loss/your career on a couple of a hundredths of a second, more fool him.

But we don't know that because the ref waved it off at 9.3 seconds. It doesn't matter if you're not in a position to defend yourself at 9 seconds if you are at 9.9; those are the rules!

I'm not going to deny Scott was utterly foolish to put himself in that position, but I didn't see any sign he would have been unable to continue had the ref put a full second between 9 and out. Maybe the ref saw something, but I don't know what it would have been and the BBBC's shifty explanation doesn't mention anything either.

i was under the impression you had to be rising at 8 and ready to continue at 10 if you arent even standing at 9.2 then the ref cant check you are ready to continue without giving you longer than the 10 count to recover. How many times have we ever seen a fighter take a knee and not be up by 9?

I've never seen any rule suggesting a fighter must be rising by 8, nor does this practice seem conventional.

What if the referee is thorough in evaluating the state of a fighter, to the point which the count and the evaluation reach 10 seconds? That seems to happen regularly (often when a mandatory 8 count is effective and the ref then orders the boxer to walk forward or raise their hands), it's conventional for the bout not to be stopped in these cases due to a count out, and no one complains about that.

9.2 and almost standing straight leaves enough time to beat the count in my opinion, but by waving the fight so early the referee rendered moot considerations of how Scott looked upon fully standing.

He was at least a whole, a WHOLE half a second out before Scott was almost back on his feet unable to continue

The count was short by more than a half-second, so you're right if you mean it was at least 0.5 too quick.

Dead Mouse wrote:

crusader wrote:
What if the referee is thorough in evaluating the state of a fighter, to the point which the count and the evaluation reach 10 seconds? That seems to happen regularly (often when a mandatory 8 count is effective and the ref then orders the boxer to walk forward or raise their hands), it's conventional for the bout not to be stopped in these cases due to a count out, and no one complains about that.

That's not the same at all. The fighter in that scenario is up at 8, hands up as well and the ref then evaluates him. Wilder wasn't up, not ready so there was nothing to evaluate. He was counted out in the act of rising.

Finn suggested that the process of evaluating a fighter must be completed before ten seconds have passed since the knockdown. I was noting how that doesn't seem to be conventional, not suggesting that it's relevant to this case; Scott was counted out, and as I already stated that rendered the issue moot.

The main issue, and the one you keep missing amidst your declarations that people should know better and your red-herrings about how many counts are to be issued or whether someone can be counted out when rising, is that the count was too quick; counts should be 7......8.......9.......out and not 7......8......9.out.

Some of you really take the biscuit The count is irrelevant, he WAS NOT counted out. It was/is a TKO. Time to move on surely.

taffytoon wrote:Some of you really take the biscuit The count is irrelevant, he WAS NOT counted out. It was/is a TKO. Time to move on surely.

I never knew when I watched it that I was watching the most controversial ending in history, just as well it was filmed, boxing fans in a hundred years will debate this bout and it may cause friends to fall out and fights to break out.

No, the fighter should be up at eight and ready to show he can defend himself or run the risk of what happened to Scott. There's no red herrings, you just don't understand the application of the rules. It was clear to me when watching live that Scott had messed up the count. It's since been confirmed by the Board. Scott wasn't full erect with his fists up by the time the count hit out. That's the bottom line.

How don't I understand the application of the rules? My issue was with the referee stopping the bout immediately after reaching nine, even though the rules state a full count is ten seconds. You aren't addressing this point; you are instead clinging to issues that I don't dispute (e.g. the acceptability of being counted out while rising).

The stoppage was equally questionable if the referee waved the count (it seemed like he went through with a 'full' count though) and the fight was ruled a TKO.

Than anal who put a stop watch on the count confirmed it was not a full count it was 9.2 seconds so the ref didn't count him out he stopped the bought = TKO.

Or the ref acted as if the transition from nine to out represented a count/second, and thus counted Scott out despite only giving him roughly nine seconds.

The stoppage is equally questionable IF he decided to terminate the count because he felt Scott was in no shape to continue. He apparently didn't feel that need for nine counts while Scott was down, so I don't see grounds for him thinking that only when Scott starts rising and looking more ready to continue than he previously had.

And since how fast the count was issued is an important issue, I don't see how taking a few seconds to time such a controversial count is anal. I'd rather have precise figures than made up ones.

I bet you are the life and soul of the party.

I am.

Taking a few seconds to time a count and a few minutes now and then to debate the merits of a stoppage don't impair my ability to party or reflect an inability to party.

taffytoon wrote:I bet you are the life and soul of the party.

The Tory party

'The Peckham One' is such a shite nickname it's genius. I went with the third option.

crusader wrote:

Dead Mouse wrote:

crusader wrote:
What if the referee is thorough in evaluating the state of a fighter, to the point which the count and the evaluation reach 10 seconds? That seems to happen regularly (often when a mandatory 8 count is effective and the ref then orders the boxer to walk forward or raise their hands), it's conventional for the bout not to be stopped in these cases due to a count out, and no one complains about that.

That's not the same at all. The fighter in that scenario is up at 8, hands up as well and the ref then evaluates him. Wilder wasn't up, not ready so there was nothing to evaluate. He was counted out in the act of rising.

Finn suggested that the process of evaluating a fighter must be completed before ten seconds have passed since the knockdown. I was noting how that doesn't seem to be conventional, not suggesting that it's relevant to this case; Scott was counted out, and as I already stated that rendered the issue moot.

The main issue, and the one you keep missing amidst your declarations that people should know better and your red-herrings about how many counts are to be issued or whether someone can be counted out when rising, is that the count was too quick; counts should be 7......8.......9.......out and not 7......8......9.out.

My opinion is that Scott would have been in a position to continue if he had been standing by 10, from what i saw if given the full 10 scott would have been on his feet, but we cant be certain because the count wasnt finished or was short. However as i said i was under the impression that you had to be rising by 8 or the fight is waved off and the count doesnt need to be completed. I've been looking at the rules and cant see anything that states this so i could be wrong but shouldnt this be something we all know after all its a pretty major rule.

If the rules are he should get the full 10 to get to his feet then the fight shouldnt have been waved off, simple as.

Having said that there is another alternative that the ref saw something we didnt and Scott was more injured than he appeared and considered not in a position to continue.

Riddick Blowe wrote:'The Peckham One' is such a shite nickname it's genius. I went with the third option.

Though he was from Finchley?

Dead Mouse wrote:

palooka wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:'The Peckham One' is such a shite nickname it's genius. I went with the third option.

Though he was from Finchley?

It's the Only Fools And Horse thing. I still think he should come out to the theme tune.

He'll not want to if the David Jason thread has any truth to it