BoxRec

And I still think unless the ref says stop or tells you to stop punching it fair game. It's a fight and you're going to let your punches go if he doesn't tell you to stop. He done a shit of a job by letting them fight and then calling a foul after it happened.

fox wrote:And I still think unless the ref says stop or tells you to stop punching it fair game. It's a fight and you're going to let your punches go if he doesn't tell you to stop. He done a poo of a job by letting them fight and then calling a foul after it happened.

As we both know, in the ring the referee is the rules.

Clearly the referee deemed it a fowl blow and if the doctor and referee hadn't been convinced by Green he was willing and able to continue the fight was over.

If Green hadn't been able to tell the referee the doctor's name, because that was the test he used, Mundine's night was over and with DQ next to his name.

It's a poor job of officiating if the command is so vague. If he means for them to stop boxing, he should say 'stop boxing!', or something obviously to that effect.

bogan whisperer wrote:

p4p1 wrote:

bogan whisperer wrote:
In the video you can clearly hear the referee's instruction well before Mundine hits Green.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_gAZkEsdKQ

The referee was plainly of the view he had given Mundine fair warning because he very nearly stopped the fight on a foul.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/boxing/dann ... 40a1ecbb33

"Green had been caught in the back of the head, while not looking, by a cheap shot from Mundine as referee Frank Garza tried to break the fighters. Garza wanted to call Friday night’s fight off, then and there".

Again. Let him go IS NOT an instruction from the referee to stop fighting.

It matters not what we think about what was said by the referee.

1/ He was in charge of the fight.
2/ Mundine would have heard what the referee said because it can clearly be heard in the video.
3/ In the opinion of the referee it was a fowl blow.

Mundine is very lucky he wasn't disqualified. That much is indisputable.

The only thing that matters is what was said by the referee and what was said was not a command to stop fighting but a command to green to let go.

As you said his words can be clearly heard in the video. That's all the evidence that is needed to prove he never stopped the action. Green is lucky he wasn't counted out as he was struck with a legal blow. Mundine broke no rules so is therefore not lucky that he wasn't disqualified. He is unlucky he had a point unfairly deducted and that he didn't get an extra point for a knockdown he legally scored.

Referees make mistakes and but seldom admit it, his opinon is clearly biased and should be taken with a grain of salt. If he comes out and admits that he fucked up and didn't say stop, break or get in between the two then it calls into question why Mundine was penalised for not breaking a rule and why he penalised a fighter because of his own mistake.

bogan whisperer wrote:

fox wrote:And I still think unless the ref says stop or tells you to stop punching it fair game. It's a fight and you're going to let your punches go if he doesn't tell you to stop. He done a poo of a job by letting them fight and then calling a foul after it happened.

As we both know, in the ring the referee is the rules.

Clearly the referee deemed it a fowl blow and if the doctor and referee hadn't been convinced by Green he was willing and able to continue the fight was over.

If Green hadn't been able to tell the referee the doctor's name, because that was the test he used, Mundine's night was over and with DQ next to his name.

We could go on about it forever but the ref done a shit job. Mundine did nothing wrong so if he go DQed it would have been an uproar.

What the referee said and what we think about those words means absolutely zip.

Once the fight starts the referee is the rules, and the referee would have disqualified Mundine if Green hadn't been able to continue.

End of story.

crusader wrote:It's a poor job of officiating if the command is so vague. If he means for them to stop boxing, he should say 'stop boxing!', or something obviously to that effect.

Exactly.

Like a Boss wrote:What the referee said and what we think about those words means absolutely zip.

Once the fight starts the referee is the rules, and the referee would have disqualified Mundine if Green hadn't been able to continue.

End of story.

And then there would have been a protest and the DQ would have been changed to a no contest. We can all see he did nothing wrong

Like a Boss wrote:What the referee said and what we think about those words means absolutely zip.

Once the fight starts the referee is the rules, and the referee would have disqualified Mundine if Green hadn't been able to continue.

End of story.

Except he didn't give a clear instruction on what he wanted so it's a moot point. The ref giving clear universally recognised instructions is very important. And as fox said it would've been overturned very quickly to an NC.

The referee is the rules get the fornicate outta here with that shit. It's the referees job to correctly enforce the rules and he didn't. If the referee was in fact the rules once the bell rung then no decision of the referees could be overturned but we've seen that to happen plenty of times.

Ref was nothing sort of terrible, like certain NSW ref, who had a habit of hitting boxers' glove while ordering them to fight out of clinch.
Which no doubt irritated them......and pissed off yours truly no end.

bogan whisperer wrote:

p4p1 wrote:

bogan whisperer wrote:
In the video you can clearly hear the referee's instruction well before Mundine hits Green.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_gAZkEsdKQ

The referee was plainly of the view he had given Mundine fair warning because he very nearly stopped the fight on a foul.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/boxing/dann ... 40a1ecbb33

"Green had been caught in the back of the head, while not looking, by a cheap shot from Mundine as referee Frank Garza tried to break the fighters. Garza wanted to call Friday night’s fight off, then and there".

Again. Let him go IS NOT an instruction from the referee to stop fighting.

It matters not what we think about what was said by the referee.

1/ He was in charge of the fight.
2/ Mundine would have heard what the referee said because it can clearly be heard in the video.
3/ In the opinion of the referee it was a fowl blow.

Mundine is very lucky he wasn't disqualified. That much is indisputable.

Lucky he didn't get a 10 count, that was terrible refereeing, no clear instructions, wasn't in control of the fight, Green allowed the referee to turn him around due to his holding, hardly Mundine's fault at all, Danny Green would have done the same

I can't believe this fight is the 'biggest' in Australian boxing history. It has absolutely zero significance in any context that I can think of

Crowd wise it aint the biggest attended fight!

Carruthers defended his title four months later, knocking out Toweel in ten rounds. He then defeated the American Henry `Pappy’ Gault in November 1953 despite slashed eyebrows and a tapeworm, which was discovered later. The bout, promoted by the Federation of New South Wales Police-Citizens Boys’ Clubs, drew an Australian record boxing crowd of 32,500 at the Sydney Sports Ground. While some of the takings went to charity, Carruthers received £8625, the largest purse earned by an Australian boxer to that time.

bogan whisperer wrote:

fox wrote:

p4p1 wrote:I thought Mundine won. Danny was more active but not landing much. However it's a worrying for boxing.

Round seven clearly being a Mundine round, 2 judges awarded 10-9 for Mundine plus the deduction making it a 10-8. The judge that had it 96-94 scored the round a draw then failed to deduct a point in his adding up of the total score.

Im also not sure about the point deduction for Mundine, the referee had yet to break them Danny was stupidly looking at the referee and both guys were hitting on the break constantly all night long. I don't think the point off was justified. We've seen worse in boxing. A call of let him go to green is not calling both fighters to break. The referee was yet to physically seperate them. Sorry guys it's fair game at that point.

Yes I don't think it was Mundine's fault. The ref was on the other side of Green and with all the noise at the fight, Mundine probably didn't even hear him. Protect yourself at all times and Green wasn't looking at Mundine. Probably a bit of a cheap shot but Mundine was not to blame I don't think.

Take a listen to the video above. You can clearly hear the referee well before Mundine strikes Green and the referee is almost in touching distance of them when he says it. That he didn't hear the call is all too convenient. He heard it alright

What did he hear ''let him go'' that's what the ref said ''let him go''

I personally think it was a dirty punch by Mundine, he appears to look at the back of Danny's head before he throws. He would've thrown it intentionally, but hey, it's not like Danny is Mr Clean. IMO the point loss was justified.

As for the crap fight overall - I think the two judges got it about right. 94-94 and 95*-94 (* Adjusted correctly for bad maths). I think it could have gone either way.
I had Danny winning the first four, 5-6 going either way, and Anthony prob winning 3/7-10 at least.
Neither fighter looked good and the fight was horrible. My six-year old could probably punch harder than Danny judging by that fight.

As far as retiring goes, Danny needs to definitely retire unless he can get fights with other over-the-hill 40yo's who are coming up in weight. No natural cruisers, no-one under 40. Regardless of cheap shot or not, with how he went down in the 1st round, a true-cruiser/light-heavy will have him snoring.
Anthony could maybe fight a domestic fight or two still or another Argentine cab driver, but he's definitely no longer anything resembling world-class.

Retire the both of you and regardless of some of your opponent choices in the past or results, you can both walk away as two of the better Aussie boxers to compete.

The only scores that really matter :



Puzzled with how the first judge scored round 7 though?

bogan whisperer wrote:The only scores that really matter :



Puzzled with how the first judge scored round 7 though?

Yeah even the 98-90 judge gave Mundine the seventh which was a clear Mundine round and remembered to take the point off Green. So much about this fight was totally incompetent at best or corrupt at worst.

p4p1 wrote:

bogan whisperer wrote:The only scores that really matter :



Puzzled with how the first judge scored round 7 though?

Yeah even the 98-90 judge gave Mundine the seventh which was a clear Mundine round and remembered to take the point off Green. So much about this fight was totally incompetent at best or corrupt at worst.

I don't get how a round can be scored 10-10 when a boxer is deducted a point during that round.

I also don't get how anyone can possibly claim Mundine won easily.

Some had it for Mundine. Some had it for Green. But it was a close fight. Nobody won easily.

madball1982 wrote:I personally think it was a dirty punch by Mundine, he appears to look at the back of Danny's head before he throws. He would've thrown it intentionally, but hey, it's not like Danny is Mr Clean. IMO the point loss was justified.

As for the crap fight overall - I think the two judges got it about right. 94-94 and 95*-94 (* Adjusted correctly for bad maths). I think it could have gone either way.
I had Danny winning the first four, 5-6 going either way, and Anthony prob winning 3/7-10 at least.
Neither fighter looked good and the fight was horrible. My six-year old could probably punch harder than Danny judging by that fight.

As far as retiring goes, Danny needs to definitely retire unless he can get fights with other over-the-hill 40yo's who are coming up in weight. No natural cruisers, no-one under 40. Regardless of cheap shot or not, with how he went down in the 1st round, a true-cruiser/light-heavy will have him snoring.
Anthony could maybe fight a domestic fight or two still or another Argentine cab driver, but he's definitely no longer anything resembling world-class.

Retire the both of you and regardless of some of your opponent choices in the past or results, you can both walk away as two of the better Aussie boxers to compete.

Watched a you-tube replay but the quality was so poor couldn't get it to full screen so only watched a little screen. Scored it 1 point for Green. But a lot of neutral boxing people(which is nobody on this board ) scored it for Mundine. Adam Auld said sportsbet were offering these odds going to the last round.



Say's it all really.

DA GOOSE wrote:

madball1982 wrote:I personally think it was a dirty punch by Mundine, he appears to look at the back of Danny's head before he throws. He would've thrown it intentionally, but hey, it's not like Danny is Mr Clean. IMO the point loss was justified.

As for the crap fight overall - I think the two judges got it about right. 94-94 and 95*-94 (* Adjusted correctly for bad maths). I think it could have gone either way.
I had Danny winning the first four, 5-6 going either way, and Anthony prob winning 3/7-10 at least.
Neither fighter looked good and the fight was horrible. My six-year old could probably punch harder than Danny judging by that fight.

As far as retiring goes, Danny needs to definitely retire unless he can get fights with other over-the-hill 40yo's who are coming up in weight. No natural cruisers, no-one under 40. Regardless of cheap shot or not, with how he went down in the 1st round, a true-cruiser/light-heavy will have him snoring.
Anthony could maybe fight a domestic fight or two still or another Argentine cab driver, but he's definitely no longer anything resembling world-class.

Retire the both of you and regardless of some of your opponent choices in the past or results, you can both walk away as two of the better Aussie boxers to compete.

Watched a you-tube replay but the quality was so poor couldn't get it to full screen so only watched a little screen. Scored it 1 point for Green. But a lot of neutral boxing people(which is nobody on this board ) scored it for Mundine. Adam Auld said sportsbet were offering these odds going to the last round.



Say's it all really.

It says sportsbet had Green ahead far enough that the last round wasn't going to be enough to get Mundine home.

bogan whisperer wrote:

DA GOOSE wrote:

madball1982 wrote:I personally think it was a dirty punch by Mundine, he appears to look at the back of Danny's head before he throws. He would've thrown it intentionally, but hey, it's not like Danny is Mr Clean. IMO the point loss was justified.

As for the crap fight overall - I think the two judges got it about right. 94-94 and 95*-94 (* Adjusted correctly for bad maths). I think it could have gone either way.
I had Danny winning the first four, 5-6 going either way, and Anthony prob winning 3/7-10 at least.
Neither fighter looked good and the fight was horrible. My six-year old could probably punch harder than Danny judging by that fight.

As far as retiring goes, Danny needs to definitely retire unless he can get fights with other over-the-hill 40yo's who are coming up in weight. No natural cruisers, no-one under 40. Regardless of cheap shot or not, with how he went down in the 1st round, a true-cruiser/light-heavy will have him snoring.
Anthony could maybe fight a domestic fight or two still or another Argentine cab driver, but he's definitely no longer anything resembling world-class.

Retire the both of you and regardless of some of your opponent choices in the past or results, you can both walk away as two of the better Aussie boxers to compete.

Watched a you-tube replay but the quality was so poor couldn't get it to full screen so only watched a little screen. Scored it 1 point for Green. But a lot of neutral boxing people(which is nobody on this board ) scored it for Mundine. Adam Auld said sportsbet were offering these odds going to the last round.



Say's it all really.

It says sportsbet had Green ahead far enough that the last round wasn't going to be enough to get Mundine home.

No it doesn't. They were so confident that Mundine was going to win they were offering 8-1 odds on a Green win while you had to put a dollar down to win 6 cents on Mundine.

p4p1 wrote:

bogan whisperer wrote:

DA GOOSE wrote: Watched a you-tube replay but the quality was so poor couldn't get it to full screen so only watched a little screen. Scored it 1 point for Green. But a lot of neutral boxing people(which is nobody on this board ) scored it for Mundine. Adam Auld said sportsbet were offering these odds going to the last round.



Say's it all really.

It says sportsbet had Green ahead far enough that the last round wasn't going to be enough to get Mundine home.

No it doesn't. They were so confident that Mundine was going to win they were offering 8-1 odds on a Green win while you had to put a dollar down to win 6 cents on Mundine.

Correct

I misread the odds. Gambling isn't something I am into.

I would argue that in boxing close and clear are not mutually exclusive. I thought Mundine won a close but clear fight and it seems many others do. IMO the majority of the rounds had a clear winner. Putting aside scoring mistakes and point deductions I think it's certainly fair to say that Mundine was robbed in the same way Kovalev was robbed despite it still being a close fight. The argument that because scores are only a few rounds apart it can't mean it's a robbery is invalid as a lot of the time when we see those kind of controversial decision in boxing it comes down to a few clear rounds that were given by the judges to the fighter that clearly lost the round. For example round 7 was clearly a Mundine round but one judge scoring it even changed the result, the same things happened in Kovalev vs Ward (going from memory here so the round could be off) but round 10 was clearly a Kovalev round that the judges gave to Ward. Ifthe round had gone to Kovalev like it should've he wins the fight. That is why close decisions can still be robberies.

p4p1 wrote:I would argue that in boxing close and clear are not mutually exclusive. I thought Mundine won a close but clear fight and it seems many others do. IMO the majority of the rounds had a clear winner. Putting aside scoring mistakes and point deductions I think it's certainly fair to say that Mundine was robbed in the same way Kovalev was robbed despite it still being a close fight. The argument that because scores are only a few rounds apart it can't mean it's a robbery is invalid as a lot of the time when we see those kind of controversial decision in boxing it comes down to a few clear rounds that were given by the judges to the fighter that clearly lost the round. For example round 7 was clearly a Mundine round but one judge scoring it even changed the result, the same things happened in Kovalev vs Ward (going from memory here so the round could be off) but round 10 was clearly a Kovalev round that the judges gave to Ward. Ifthe round had gone to Kovalev like it should've he wins the fight. That is why close decisions can still be robberies.

Good post