Page 14 of 16
Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua
Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 21:04
by Ilya Muromets
Lancenix wrote:Tarkus wrote:x2x wrote:
Does it actually say "fully erect" someplace?
Yes, thats how I remember but don't ask me to back it up with the proof.
There is no official rule book in boxing. I have asked this question to Teddy Atlas twice. The first time he told me it was a good point. The second time he told me that I should get to work on it in my free time. So it is kind of viewed as a joke that there is nothing concrete about this.
Yeah, I know, it is hard to pin down this alleged sport on any of its alleged rules, like the often debated subject of holding and when is holding too much holding and lots of other things. The best I've been able to turn up in the way of rules are these for the WBO, and here is what it says about the count:
" If, when reaching the count of eight (8), the fighter is up, the Referee, if he
deems it necessary, may examine said contestant taking all the time needed to
evaluate whether the contestant is fit to continue. If the Referee determines that
the fighter is fit to continue, the Referee shall promptly order the contest to
continue.
(d) If the contestant taking the count is still down when the Referee calls the
count of ten (10), the Referee shall wave both arms indicating that the contestant
has been knocked out. "
Well that is ambiguous and unclear. This man was neither up at eight nor "still down"...but since he was not "still down" I would say the fight should have continued, but I've already said I'm done with this.
Link (Section 25 is Count):
http://www.wbo-europe.com/files/file/wbo_rules.pdf
Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua
Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 21:07
by Lancenix
Tarkus wrote:Lancenix wrote:x2x wrote:I just watched it again and it looked to me that Martin was off the floor and halfway up but not fully erect at the count of ten. How exactly is the ten count rule worded? The ref should havesome leeway in this and the leeway should not be towards prematurely stopping a fight where both men can continue.
When the ref said ten it looked like his glove was on the canvas to me. Even on the first knockdown martin was given the benefit of the doubt as he waited so long he was almost counted out and could have been. He took way too long getting up. Not the refs fault at all here.
There are rule books. For example rulebook of British Board says:
"Boxer shall be considered to be down until he has regained his feet within the boxing ring and is in a position and a condition to defend himself."
"He must regain his feet unassisted within ten seconds. The Referee shall not permit a Boxer to continue boxing, if in his opinion he is able to do so, until the expiration of 8 seconds following the knock down."
There is no official rule book of boxing rules That is accepted across jurisdictions. That is quite well known actually. Each commission has their own rules but there is not a rule book that is accepted like in every other sport.
Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua
Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 21:11
by Ilya Muromets
Tarkus wrote:
There are rule books. For example rulebook of British Board says:
"Boxer shall be considered to be down until he has regained his feet within the boxing ring and is in a position and a condition to defend himself."
"He must regain his feet unassisted within ten seconds. The Referee shall not permit a Boxer to continue boxing, if in his opinion he is able to do so, until the expiration of 8 seconds following the knock down."
Beating a dead horse...but OK Martin regained his feet unassisted at, I think, 10, and was also in a position to defend himself with his hands up and nodding OK. I don't have a clue what that last sentence means. I think it's double talk.
Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua
Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 21:15
by Ilya Muromets
Lancenix wrote:
There is no official rule book of boxing rules That is accepted across jurisdictions. That is quite well known actually. Each commission has their own rules but there is not a rule book that is accepted like in every other sport.
And even these local jurisdiction rules are poorly and ambiguously written as you can see by the samples above.
Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua
Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 21:16
by diddy
Starboxer, nice call, you sure know your stuff!!
![[icon_knockout.gif] :KO:](./images/smilies/icon_knockout.gif)
Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua
Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 21:18
by Tarkus
x2x wrote:Tarkus wrote:
There are rule books. For example rulebook of British Board says:
"Boxer shall be considered to be down until he has regained his feet within the boxing ring and is in a position and a condition to defend himself."
"He must regain his feet unassisted within ten seconds. The Referee shall not permit a Boxer to continue boxing, if in his opinion he is able to do so, until the expiration of 8 seconds following the knock down."
Beating a dead horse...but OK Martin regained his feet unassisted at, I think, 10, and was also in a position to defend himself with his hands up and nodding OK. I don't have a clue what that last sentence means. I think it's double talk.
I think it should say unable rather then able. Essentially ref decides if he is able to continue. Its on refs assessment and in this case he made a reasonable decision in my opinion.
Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua
Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 21:19
by Lancenix
x2x wrote:Lancenix wrote:
There is no official rule book of boxing rules That is accepted across jurisdictions. That is quite well known actually. Each commission has their own rules but there is not a rule book that is accepted like in every other sport.
And even these local jurisdiction rules are poorly and ambiguously written as you can see by the samples above.
Agreed.

Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua
Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 21:23
by Lancenix
Tarkus wrote:x2x wrote:Tarkus wrote:
There are rule books. For example rulebook of British Board says:
"Boxer shall be considered to be down until he has regained his feet within the boxing ring and is in a position and a condition to defend himself."
"He must regain his feet unassisted within ten seconds. The Referee shall not permit a Boxer to continue boxing, if in his opinion he is able to do so, until the expiration of 8 seconds following the knock down."
Beating a dead horse...but OK Martin regained his feet unassisted at, I think, 10, and was also in a position to defend himself with his hands up and nodding OK. I don't have a clue what that last sentence means. I think it's double talk.
I think it should say unable rather then able. Essentially ref decides if he is able to continue. Its on refs assessment and in this case he made a reasonable decision in my opinion.
Have you ever seen Jack Reiss after a knockdown?? The guy asks the fighter to take eight steps and recite the Bill of Rights. And there are other refs who are only interested in wiping gloves. Remember the first JMM Pacman fight? JMM barely beats that count on the third knockdown (if he
did)of the first round when his nose got broken but the ref gave him every benefit of the doubt. If the ref calls that fight off after the 3rd knockdown in the first that may have changed the history of boxing.
Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua
Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 21:26
by Tarkus
Lancenix wrote:Tarkus wrote:x2x wrote:
Beating a dead horse...but OK Martin regained his feet unassisted at, I think, 10, and was also in a position to defend himself with his hands up and nodding OK. I don't have a clue what that last sentence means. I think it's double talk.
I think it should say unable rather then able. Essentially ref decides if he is able to continue. Its on refs assessment and in this case he made a reasonable decision in my opinion.
Have you ever seen Jack Reiss after a knockdown?? The guy asks the fighter to take eight steps and recite the Bill of Rights. And there are other refs who are only interested in wiping gloves. Remember the first JMM Pacman fight? JMM barely beats that count on the third knockdown (if he
did)of the first round when his nose got broken but the ref gave him every benefit of the doubt. If the ref calls that fight off after the 3rd knockdown in the first that may have changed the history of boxing.
Those are only acceptable if a fighter beats the count first. If he is not standing in 10 sec he should loose the fight even if he gets up on 11th and looks fine.
Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua
Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 22:53
by Wales
Starboxer wrote:Wales wrote:Dont rate Martin at all.
Neither does Eddie Hearn who jumped at chance to get him over to fight Joshua by offering him huge money. $5m plus a percentage of ppv sales apparently! Martin reportedly got $250k for fighting Glazkov
Martin is the best fighter Joshua has faced as a pro by a country mile
Like i said, dont rate him at all. Absolute garbage. not sure what fights youd been watching?
Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua
Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 22:54
by Wales
diddy wrote:Starboxer, nice call, you sure know your stuff!!
![[icon_knockout.gif] :KO:](./images/smilies/icon_knockout.gif)
Watched too much "beyond the ropes" not enough of his fights.
Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua
Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 22:59
by Nightmare Roy
diddy wrote:Starboxer, nice call, you sure know your stuff!!
![[icon_knockout.gif] :KO:](./images/smilies/icon_knockout.gif)
Tried to help him save his money. People fall for the Hype.
Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua
Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 23:41
by Wales
Nightmare Roy wrote:diddy wrote:Starboxer, nice call, you sure know your stuff!!
![[icon_knockout.gif] :KO:](./images/smilies/icon_knockout.gif)
Tried to help him save his money. People fall for the Hype.
Surely cant have watched any of his fights though. He's always looked about as much use as an ash tray on a motor bike
Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua
Posted: 10 Apr 2016, 02:34
by dave_81
Congrats to Joshua for beating this bum , i watched the clip in this tread , Martin just came to collect his money and made sure he
did not miss the first flight home
Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua
Posted: 10 Apr 2016, 09:42
by Taansend
I'm guessing Starboxer will go back to his other username now

Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua
Posted: 10 Apr 2016, 09:50
by The Insider
The Insider wrote:The more I see of Martin the more I think he'll get knocked out. He's not quick enough or light enough on his feet to evade AJs quick thunderous punches. Don't get me wrong I'm no AJ fan boy and think he'll come unstuck soon enough but Martin is made for him. He leaves his chin out and doesn't get his hands back quick enough to block counters. His footwork is pretty shocking too. His Southy stance may bamboozle AJ for a minute or two but I think when Joshua hits him it's lights out. I'm not confident enough to bet on the result but if see this as a massive upset if Martin won.
Standard

Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua
Posted: 10 Apr 2016, 10:23
by ImranSarwar
Taansend wrote:I'm guessing Starboxer will go back to his other username now

No..... HAAAAAAAAA! Come "Star boxer" what yah have to SAY?? You were so VERY CERTAIN! WHAT ELSE YOU CERTAIN ABOUT?
I put down $80.00 three times against $30.00.
But, will say it, CHARLES MARTIN A SUCCESSFUL MAN! No doubt! Anyone see the You tube his after interview with "Rahman"? He's NICE GUY!
Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua
Posted: 10 Apr 2016, 10:25
by ImranSarwar
dave_81 wrote:Congrats to Joshua for beating this bum , i watched the clip in this tread , Martin just came to collect his money and made sure he
did not miss the first flight home
Pretty harsh though! I don't look at it like that! How you rate RON STANDER?
Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua
Posted: 10 Apr 2016, 10:35
by ImranSarwar
Wales wrote:Starboxer wrote:Wales wrote:Dont rate Martin at all.
Neither does Eddie Hearn who jumped at chance to get him over to fight Joshua by offering him huge money. $5m plus a percentage of ppv sales apparently! Martin reportedly got $250k for fighting Glazkov
Martin is the best fighter Joshua has faced as a pro by a country mile
Like i said, dont rate him at all. Absolute garbage. not sure what fights youd been watching?
Martin received only 250,000.00 for boxing for the VAC title? Is that a fact? Would seem Martin is Joshua's top talent yet though! Would seem! Joshua beat KEVIN JOHNSON a year ago..but...KEVIN washed up (???)
Saying that Martin don't have YOUR RATING -at all- may be reflection on the person saying such more than anything other! Their much competition even at the GOLDEN GLOVES, GUY! How well really you know? Their are "bums" in the SPORT but you can't call people like the MIKE QUARRY'S or the TONY LICATA'S OR THE GEORGE CHUVALO'S OR (even) CHUCK WEPNER "bums". What are you comparing with? [what am I talking with? "Smoker common litter bugs here"?] GET ELITE!
Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua
Posted: 10 Apr 2016, 10:36
by ImranSarwar
diddy wrote:Starboxer, nice call, you sure know your stuff!!
![[icon_knockout.gif] :KO:](./images/smilies/icon_knockout.gif)
Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua
Posted: 10 Apr 2016, 10:54
by snake33
How meaningful are world titles when you only have to beat 2nd or 3rd rate fighters to get one.
Like Joshua and Wilder.
Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua
Posted: 10 Apr 2016, 11:08
by the_doctor
Tarkus wrote:Lancenix wrote:Tarkus wrote:
I think it should say unable rather then able. Essentially ref decides if he is able to continue. Its on refs assessment and in this case he made a reasonable decision in my opinion.
Have you ever seen Jack Reiss after a knockdown?? The guy asks the fighter to take eight steps and recite the Bill of Rights. And there are other refs who are only interested in wiping gloves. Remember the first JMM Pacman fight? JMM barely beats that count on the third knockdown (if he
did)of the first round when his nose got broken but the ref gave him every benefit of the doubt. If the ref calls that fight off after the 3rd knockdown in the first that may have changed the history of boxing.
Those are only acceptable if a fighter beats the count first. If he is not standing in 10 sec he should loose the fight even if he gets up on 11th and looks fine.
Absolutely right. Watch the count back - when the ref calls "Ten", Martin is only halfway up. He is not standing, ready to continue therefore he is counted out. He knew what he was doing, clearly didn't fancy it after the two knockdowns and I don't blame him.
Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua
Posted: 10 Apr 2016, 11:34
by gp.
x2x wrote:Tarkus wrote:
There are rule books. For example rulebook of British Board says:
"Boxer shall be considered to be down until he has regained his feet within the boxing ring and is in a position and a condition to defend himself."
"He must regain his feet unassisted within ten seconds. The Referee shall not permit a Boxer to continue boxing, if in his opinion he is able to do so, until the expiration of 8 seconds following the knock down."
Beating a dead horse...but OK Martin regained his feet unassisted at, I think, 10, and was also in a position to defend himself with his hands up and nodding OK. I don't have a clue what that last sentence means. I think it's double talk.
The last sentence just means that even if the boxer gets up straight away and is fine, the ref has to make sure at least eight seconds have passed before allowing the fight to continue.
Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua
Posted: 10 Apr 2016, 11:39
by Tanzio
So we found out that Martin isn't on AJ's level. Who is on Joshua's level?
This fight accomplished the mission; AJ now has a (meaningless) belt, though certainly not worthless, to build on. Martin certainly did cash in, and I congratulate him for it. He will have other opportunities now, including the possibility of a Glazkov rematch which I think is winnable for him.
Joshua needs some rounds, IMO. I was wrong to think that Martin could give them to him.
Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua
Posted: 10 Apr 2016, 11:47
by Rexob
Tanzio wrote:So we found out that Martin isn't on AJ's level. Who is on Joshua's level?
This fight accomplished the mission; AJ now has a (meaningless) belt, though certainly not worthless, to build on. Martin certainly did cash in, and I congratulate him for it. He will have other opportunities now, including the possibility of a Glazkov rematch which I think is winnable for him.
Joshua needs some rounds, IMO. I was wrong to think that Martin could give them to him.
Yes you was, anybody with a tiny bit of boxing knowledge would have realised that Martin was shite and was cashing in, it was so obvious it's difficult to understand why anybody would think any different?