BoxRec

Baby Face Finster wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

Baby Face Finster wrote:ACL tear for sure. I saw the way his knee buckled.

I have a ton of experience working with athletes, and that's exactly what it looks like. Of course you never can tell, but it looked nasty up close.

I've had 2 ACL tears. I could tell by the way his knee buckled and the way he was walking after he got up that it was a tear.

No doubt. I honestly think that Glazkov is just too small for the modern HW Div. I really think that Martin realized that Glazkov couldn't hurt him and he was going to walk him down.

Freedom2013 wrote:Shouldn't it be a no contest?

Replay showed Martin's punch didn't land.

Good question!

Freedom2013 wrote:Shouldn't it be a no contest?

Replay showed Martin's punch didn't land.

Doesn't matter.
It only goes to the cards on a head-butt.
This injury was not caused by a head-butt or something else outside of the rules.
If the injured boxer cannot continue he loses by tko.

Perseus wrote:

Freedom2013 wrote:Shouldn't it be a no contest?

Replay showed Martin's punch didn't land.

Doesn't matter.
It only goes to the cards on a head-butt.
This injury was not caused by a head-butt or something outside of the rules.
If the injured boxer cannot continue he loses by tko.

Same thing happened to Kirk Johnson and Michael Grant. I think fights that end like that should be ruled no contests, but that's not the rules.

I'd be worried about that rule being abused.

Here are the WBO boxing rules. I can't find anything about this situation in it.

http://www.wbo-europe.com/files/file/wbo_rules.pdf

That blond Showtime presenter just tried to make Martin look like a tart & then insulted Lennox Lewis

Perseus wrote:

Freedom2013 wrote:Shouldn't it be a no contest?

Replay showed Martin's punch didn't land.

Doesn't matter.
It only goes to the cards on a head-butt.
This injury was not caused by a head-butt or something else outside of the rules.
If the injured boxer cannot continue he loses by tko.

Thanks Mate

Freedom2013 wrote:Shouldn't it be a no contest?

Replay showed Martin's punch didn't land.

Mike Tyson s loss to Williams was never changed......as were many others

Taansend wrote:That blond Showtime presenter just tried to make Martin look like a tart & then insulted Lennox Lewis

How he insulted Lennox?

punchoutsb wrote:

Perseus wrote:

Freedom2013 wrote:Shouldn't it be a no contest?

Replay showed Martin's punch didn't land.

Doesn't matter.
It only goes to the cards on a head-butt.
This injury was not caused by a head-butt or something outside of the rules.
If the injured boxer cannot continue he loses by tko.

Same thing happened to Kirk Johnson and Michael Grant. I think fights that end like that should be ruled no contests, but that's not the rules.

So every time a boxer is losing a fight you want him to have the option of saying he is hurt to stop the fight and avoid a loss going on his record?

Perseus wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

Perseus wrote:
Doesn't matter.
It only goes to the cards on a head-butt.
This injury was not caused by a head-butt or something outside of the rules.
If the injured boxer cannot continue he loses by tko.

Same thing happened to Kirk Johnson and Michael Grant. I think fights that end like that should be ruled no contests, but that's not the rules.

So every time a boxer is losing a fight you want him to have the option of saying he is hurt to stop the fight and avoid a loss going on his record?

Absolutely that's what I want. Clearly, who wouldn't want this?

Call the fight as it happens live; award the TKO. Then review it. If a guy breaks an ankle or has a torn ACL or some other serious non-contact injury that can be 100% verified with the commission then I think a no contest would be fair.

So according to the IBF Martin is more deserving of World Championship than Fury.

So every time a boxer is losing a fight you want him to have the option of saying he is hurt to stop the fight and avoid a loss going on his record?[/quote]

Absolutely that's what I want. Clearly, who wouldn't want this?

Call the fight as it happens live; award the TKO. Then review it. If a guy breaks an ankle or has a torn ACL or some other serious non-contact injury that can be 100% verified with the commission then I think a no contest would be fair.[/quote]

No it would not be fair.
Injuries are part of sports period.
If one happens to take place in the ring the other guy still won the fight fair and square.
The injured fighter probably does not suffer said broken ankle or torn ACL if he's not in the ring at that moment.
Once the bell for round one has been sounded if one fighter is unable to continue and nothing outside the rules has happened he loses via TKO, that is fair.

Is it just me or did Martin have a deer in the headlights look to him? He had this weird look on his face like he was surprised he was in the position he was. Or maybe he simply looks dopey like that all the time.

Baby Face Finster wrote:Is it just me or did Martin have a deer in the headlights look to him? He had this weird look on his face like he was surprised he was in the position he was. Or maybe he simply looks dopey like that all the time.

I thought that he was just elated and surprised by the ease of the outcome.

It's a little futile to debate who would have won between Martin and other non ATGs, who claimed a or the title from Marvin Hart to Leon Spinks. But I think Martin would have faired well on size alone.

Martin is a good contender who has done everything asked of him. He beat at least 2 other undefeated heavyweights in pick em fights as another poster alluded to. It's a shame he was booed last night as Glaskov is legitimately injured and not Martin's fault.

Perseus wrote:So every time a boxer is losing a fight you want him to have the option of saying he is hurt to stop the fight and avoid a loss going on his record?

Absolutely that's what I want. Clearly, who wouldn't want this?

Call the fight as it happens live; award the TKO. Then review it. If a guy breaks an ankle or has a torn ACL or some other serious non-contact injury that can be 100% verified with the commission then I think a no contest would be fair.[/quote]

No it would not be fair.
Injuries are part of sports period.
If one happens to take place in the ring the other guy still won the fight fair and square.
The injured fighter probably does not suffer said broken ankle or torn ACL if he's not in the ring at that moment.
Once the bell for round one has been sounded if one fighter is unable to continue and nothing outside the rules has happened he loses via TKO, that is fair.[/quote]

I agree it would not be fair. Injuries ARE part of the game. It ultimately doesn't matter as to why you can't continue unless your opponent fouled you. It would be like giving a presidential candidate a break because he/she couldn't debate or campaign because of the stomach flu. In both cases, being healthy is part of the competition.

Perseus wrote: No it would not be fair.
Injuries are part of sports period.
If one happens to take place in the ring the other guy still won the fight fair and square.
The injured fighter probably does not suffer said broken ankle or torn ACL if he's not in the ring at that moment.
Once the bell for round one has been sounded if one fighter is unable to continue and nothing outside the rules has happened he loses via TKO, that is fair.

Fair enough. If missing a punch and your opponent tearing his ACL makes you a winner in your book then so be it.


I'd say an immediate rematch should be in order then as the point of boxing is to prove who the better boxer is, not who has stronger ligaments or tendons.

punchoutsb wrote:

Perseus wrote: No it would not be fair.
Injuries are part of sports period.
If one happens to take place in the ring the other guy still won the fight fair and square.
The injured fighter probably does not suffer said broken ankle or torn ACL if he's not in the ring at that moment.
Once the bell for round one has been sounded if one fighter is unable to continue and nothing outside the rules has happened he loses via TKO, that is fair.

Fair enough. If missing a punch and your opponent tearing his ACL makes you a winner in your book then so be it.


I'd say an immediate rematch should be in order then as the point of boxing is to prove who the better boxer is, not who has stronger ligaments or tendons.

It does make him a winner.
Like it or not the reality is Glazkov probably doesn't tear an ACL Saturday evening if he's not dodging punches from Martin.
Martin threw a legal punch that eventually resulted in the fight being stopped, that's a tko.

punchoutsb wrote:

Perseus wrote: No it would not be fair.
Injuries are part of sports period.
If one happens to take place in the ring the other guy still won the fight fair and square.
The injured fighter probably does not suffer said broken ankle or torn ACL if he's not in the ring at that moment.
Once the bell for round one has been sounded if one fighter is unable to continue and nothing outside the rules has happened he loses via TKO, that is fair.

Fair enough. If missing a punch and your opponent tearing his ACL makes you a winner in your book then so be it.


I'd say an immediate rematch should be in order then as the point of boxing is to prove who the better boxer is, not who has stronger ligaments or tendons.

If you don't have strong ligaments and tendons, boxing is not for you. I just re-watched that fight and Glaskov looked terrified of Martin's power. I have no problem with a rematch, another easy win for Martin.

koolkc107 wrote:I thought Martin was ahead on the cards. Wonder how the judges had it...

One judge had 2-0 for Martin
One Judge had 2-0 for Glaskov
One judge had 1-1

Close 2 rounds

I had it 1-1--first for Martin and second for Glazkov.

Sam Soliman hobbled through a world title fight. Danny Williams fought and won by KO with a clearly dislocated shoulder. Boohoo for the guy who never belonged in this situation in the first place. Serves them all right.

Firstly we should not even be having this debate.

Why on earth the IBF stripped Fury is beyond me. They acted far to quickly given Fury and Wlad are now activating the rematch clause you'd THINK the IBF would be ok with the NEW champion facing the Former Champion as in the bloke he just won it off in a rematch. By stripping Fury they now land themselves a weaker Champion and are looked at as a lesser title because of it.