BoxRec

hurlock wrote:I allway's thought that there ain't no such thing as an eight count unless the fighter jumps up & the ref wants to score the knockdown & give time ??

There isn't. That's what I'm saying. It should be an available option in order to give the referee a bit of extra thinking time.

Aden wrote:

hurlock wrote:I allway's thought that there ain't no such thing as an eight count unless the fighter jumps up & the ref wants to score the knockdown & give time ??

There isn't. That's what I'm saying. It should be an available option in order to give the referee a bit of extra thinking time.

Agree. The option might have prevented some of Ian John Lewis' odd stoppages of recent years too.

hurlock wrote:I allway's thought that there ain't no such thing as an eight count unless the fighter jumps up & the ref wants to score the knockdown & give time ??
Also if they think the ropes have stopped the fighter from getting knocked over they administer one, which I didn't know & if foster thought this was the case & didn't do it he played froch the advantage

Can a referee administer a standing eight count if leaning on their opponent is keeping a boxer up?

Whatever you think of Powell, I think (may be wrong) that he's the only dedicated boxing journalist in the popular press.

He keeps boxing in the public eye

Been a pretty poor year for British boxing - although a good year at the same time... almost a transitional period with lots of fighters moving into the worlds top ten.

My fighter of the year - it is a close call, but I go for Jamie McDonnell - three wins this year. Froch's lack of activity in 2013 has cost him this particular crown.... Another decent win to go with his controversial win and genuine great win would have giving him the award IMO.

Fight of the year - Froch vs Kessler 2.... its the controversial ending of Groves vs Froch that costs it.

World fighter of the year - Some good calls - Bradley, Rigo etc.... but going for Floyd - 2 fantastic wins and the manner of them.

Fight of the year - Bradley vs Prod.

Aden wrote:

hurlock wrote:I allway's thought that there ain't no such thing as an eight count unless the fighter jumps up & the ref wants to score the knockdown & give time ??

There isn't. That's what I'm saying. It should be an available option in order to give the referee a bit of extra thinking time.

But there is if the ropes keep the fighter from falling it says in the rules.if foster felt groves fell into the ropes & was kept up by them he should of administers the count.

Viktor Vaughn wrote:I agree with Froch as #1 for 2013. Anyone who thinks otherwise can simply name a UK fighter who has better world title wins than Kessler and Groves.

But Froch didn't beat Groves. Barker's win against Geale is on about the same level as Froch's win against Kessler.

Murray controversially losing against Martinez in Argentina is the best performance from a British fighter this year.

hurlock wrote:

Aden wrote:

hurlock wrote:I allway's thought that there ain't no such thing as an eight count unless the fighter jumps up & the ref wants to score the knockdown & give time ??

There isn't. That's what I'm saying. It should be an available option in order to give the referee a bit of extra thinking time.

But there is if the ropes keep the fighter from falling it says in the rules.if foster felt groves fell into the ropes & was kept up by them he should of administers the count.

That wasn't applicable in the Groves' case, mate. George did touch the ropes during the attack but he was not on them at the time of the stoppage. Foster would have been in the wrong had he issued a standing eight. The point I'm failing to make to you is that I think it should be an available option to referees, irrespective of whether or not the ropes are a factor in the equation or not.

stujones wrote:Been a pretty poor year for British boxing - although a good year at the same time... almost a transitional period with lots of fighters moving into the worlds top ten.

My fighter of the year - it is a close call, but I go for Jamie McDonnell - three wins this year. Froch's lack of activity in 2013 has cost him this particular crown.... Another decent win to go with his controversial win and genuine great win would have giving him the award IMO.

Fight of the year - Froch vs Kessler 2.... its the controversial ending of Groves vs Froch that costs it.

World fighter of the year - Some good calls - Bradley, Rigo etc.... but going for Floyd - 2 fantastic wins and the manner of them.

Fight of the year - Bradley vs Prod.

You say Froch ahead been inactive then give fighter of the year to McDonnell who has fought once more. He's beat Ceja in an excellent win then 2 tune ups. Froch's resume smashes his out the park this year

Horse wrote:

taffytoon wrote:You should be fired at.

Is that a threat?

You need protecting from yourself, your head is gone you idiot.

taffytoon wrote:You need protecting from yourself, your head is gone you idiot.

Calm down.

jackukmma wrote:

stujones wrote:Been a pretty poor year for British boxing - although a good year at the same time... almost a transitional period with lots of fighters moving into the worlds top ten.

My fighter of the year - it is a close call, but I go for Jamie McDonnell - three wins this year. Froch's lack of activity in 2013 has cost him this particular crown.... Another decent win to go with his controversial win and genuine great win would have giving him the award IMO.

Fight of the year - Froch vs Kessler 2.... its the controversial ending of Groves vs Froch that costs it.

World fighter of the year - Some good calls - Bradley, Rigo etc.... but going for Floyd - 2 fantastic wins and the manner of them.

Fight of the year - Bradley vs Prod.

You say Froch ahead been inactive then give fighter of the year to McDonnell who has fought once more. He's beat Ceja in an excellent win then 2 tune ups. Froch's resume smashes his out the park this year

As I said....froch = one fantastic win, one very controversial win...not sure how that smashes anyone out of the park. The controversial win was against a "domestic level" (his words) fighter.

I can't imagine anyone reading the Daily Mail for an insightful and considered article on anything, never mind boxing.

palooka wrote:I can't imagine anyone reading the Daily Mail for an insightful and considered article on anything, never mind boxing.

All the newspapers stink. Why single out the Daily Mail?

Horse wrote:

palooka wrote:I can't imagine anyone reading the Daily Mail for an insightful and considered article on anything, never mind boxing.

All the newspapers stink. Why single out the Daily Mail?

Whilst I am inclined to agree ... The Daily Mail stands out for me ... I have heard them being called "racist" ... if I were honest the reason why I cannot stand them is Jeff Powell ... I think he is slimy **** - I determined not to go into a rant today so I will leave it there.

Horse wrote:

palooka wrote:I can't imagine anyone reading the Daily Mail for an insightful and considered article on anything, never mind boxing.

All the newspapers stink. Why single out the Daily Mail?

Because it panders to the middle class bigot, pours scorn on the working class/non property owing class and is deferential to the upper class, my in laws read it and it is a horrible rag and it was pro nazi; anyone who reads it looking for informed views, particularly about a sport such as boxing I think is a bit dodgy. (The rugby and rowing coverage and maybe the polo have good articles).

Viktor Vaughn wrote:

Aden wrote:

hurlock wrote:I allway's thought that there ain't no such thing as an eight count unless the fighter jumps up & the ref wants to score the knockdown & give time ??

There isn't. That's what I'm saying. It should be an available option in order to give the referee a bit of extra thinking time.

It was until 1998, when the Association of Boxing Commissions did away with it, and it should be brought back. One of the arguments was that refs could abuse it to hand tired boxers a chance to have a breather, but that's taking a pretty negative view of refs and the alternative, either let it go on or risk stepping in too early, isn't too much help, either.

I agree with Froch as #1 for 2013. Anyone who thinks otherwise can simply name a UK fighter who has better world title wins than Kessler and Groves.

Without meaning to sound like im sucking up Terry, im impressed with your knowledge of little known regulations, etc. Could you provide some links to some of the sites, etc that you find your info? Would be truely appreciative. Thanks.

palooka wrote:I can't imagine anyone reading the Daily Mail for an insightful and considered article on anything, never mind boxing.

I don't like it because it's...

anti-drinking culture
anti-drugs
anti-biker
anti-tattoo
anti-speeding
anti-kinky sex
anti-porn

Basically anti-me and that goes for pretty much any paper.

banjo wrote:

palooka wrote:I can't imagine anyone reading the Daily Mail for an insightful and considered article on anything, never mind boxing.

I don't like it because it's...

anti-drinking culture
anti-drugs
anti-biker
anti-tattoo
anti-speeding
anti-kinky sex
anti-porn

Basically anti-me and that goes for pretty much any paper.

It's pretty much anti-humanity as a whole.

Yeah, but if you tell one of their readers that an asylum seeker has killed a pedophile it really f*ecks up their moral compass

Back on topic - i'm suprised that Kovalev hasn't been mentioned as he has really emerged this year - Campillo, White, Cleverly, Sillakh all by destruction.

Mayweather is still at the top of the tree (although i wouldn't argue against Rigo being more skilled) but if for instance Austin Trout beat Guerrero & Canelo this year who would be voting for him as boxer of 2013?

Wales wrote:Yeah, but if you tell one of their readers that an asylum seeker has killed a pedophile it really f*ecks up their moral compass

How awful those Daily Mail readers are for not liking immigrants and nonces. They should get with the times.

Horse wrote:

Wales wrote:Yeah, but if you tell one of their readers that an asylum seeker has killed a pedophile it really f*ecks up their moral compass

How awful those Daily Mail readers are for not liking immigrants and nonces. They should get with the times.

The editors and writers lump everyone not in their social bracket as being as worthy of derision as nonces and other such scum; if you continue reading the rag you will turn into a nasty man.

palooka wrote:The editors and writers lump everyone not in their social bracket as being as worthy of derision as nonces and other such scum; if you continue reading the rag you will turn into a nasty man.

And everyone who reads the other papers are lovely.

Horse wrote:

palooka wrote:The editors and writers lump everyone not in their social bracket as being as worthy of derision as nonces and other such scum; if you continue reading the rag you will turn into a nasty man.

[/quote]And everyone who reads the other papers are lovely.

Not at all; though if you choose to read a hate mongering rag and flag up one article to disagree with... I'd be surprised if anyone sentient could find one article they agree with, not one they don't; though I've wasted enough time on this topic.