BoxRec

It may have.

Is there good reason to think that the stoppage was a product of corruption? I've seen the full round now and the referee's decision hardly suggests corruption to me, meaning that I don't see why it wouldn't have occurred if amateur boxing were invariably fair. Plenty of people are quick to anger and perceive injustice where there isn't any, and perhaps the Croatian is one of those people.

crusader wrote:

Can you provide some evidence that corruption resulted in the boxer being stopped?

Go one post above my initial comment....

How is the Lewis-Bowe stoppage evidence that the Croatian's loss was at least partially due to corruption?

The amateurs aren't the pros. It's a convention for refs to stop things much more quickly than professional refs tend to, and I don't see how that ref is so out of line with the standard for amateur stoppages that he should be banned for a year or more.

crusader wrote:I don't see why it wouldn't have occurred if amateur boxing were invariably fair. .

I see you go backwards to modify your posts, lol.

As i said, the attack was wrong, but it was bound to happen , and will happen again, if corruption still drives boxing.

The fact is this kind of behavior would never have happened 40 or 50 years ago, when big money hadn't yet permeated this sport ( and others).

You can't dissociate the two.

What's funny about that? I usually don't proofread my initial posts so there are often things I want to change after posting; I don't think editing my post altered my point and if the amateurs were invariably fair (the wording I added) there would be no corruption.

You've suggested the stoppage was a product of corruption, but why should we think that? Is there evidence that the referee acted as he did due to corruption? I thought the stoppage was fine and even a bad stoppage can simply be due to incompetence rather than corruption. Is there evidence that the Croatian was the victim of corruption previously and that this assault wouldn't have occurred without that influence? Perhaps he's just a hot-head who tends to be aggressive when the situation doesn't call for it.

Without good reasons for thinking corruption was behind the assault, I don't see how we can assume that it wouldn't have occured without that factor.

crusader wrote: Is there evidence that the referee acted as he did due to corruption? Is there evidence that the Croatian was the victim of corruption previously and that this assault wouldn't have occurred without that influence?
Without good reasons for thinking corruption was behind the assault, I don't see how we can assume that it wouldn't have occured without that factor.

:??

Give me two minutes to check with my lawyer, and i'll get back to ya in a flash.