BoxRec

Fair enough.

rhino222 wrote:it was an awfully long count, the timekeeper should be counting and the ref latches onto the number the time keeper is at once the fuss has died down. i was already at about 12 when the ref started on 6...

it was awful, count it yourself from when he is knocked down.......i challenge you to say its not a long count.

yeah the ref was way off.

bute was a very lucky man.

hitman_hatton1 wrote:

rhino222 wrote:it was an awfully long count, the timekeeper should be counting and the ref latches onto the number the time keeper is at once the fuss has died down. i was already at about 12 when the ref started on 6...

it was awful, count it yourself from when he is knocked down.......i challenge you to say its not a long count.

yeah the ref was way off.

bute was a very lucky man.

That ref was to Bute what Micky Vann was to Ricky Hatton.

wouter wrote:

Asterix wrote:

wouter wrote: If you knew how the fight would eventually unfold, would you still stop it?

If I could predict the future, I'd be a rich man.

We are looking at it now.

The referee should have stopped the bout when Bute was taking too much punishment, for the sake of Bute's health, but now we know that it wasn't needed. You're not making much sense, Wouter.

DG. wrote:

hitman_hatton1 wrote:

rhino222 wrote:it was an awfully long count, the timekeeper should be counting and the ref latches onto the number the time keeper is at once the fuss has died down. i was already at about 12 when the ref started on 6...

it was awful, count it yourself from when he is knocked down.......i challenge you to say its not a long count.

yeah the ref was way off.

bute was a very lucky man.

That ref was to Bute what Micky Vann was to Ricky Hatton.

not that old chesnut again.

my u have got a good memory for an old man.

Asterix wrote: The referee should have stopped the bout when Bute was taking too much punishment, for the sake of Bute's health, but now we know that it wasn't needed. You're not making much sense, Wouter.

We are talking about two different things. I agree that a stoppage win for Andrade was defensible at the time, but knowing what we know now it is pretty ridiculous to say that Bute was unable to continue.

hitman_hatton1 wrote:

not that old chesnut again.

my u have got a good memory for an old man.

Old? Moi?

Call me....MAN!



Shut up, BOY!



Can you imagine if MICKY VANN was the ref for the PBF fight?

Vann would DQ Floyd for hitting him.

wouter wrote:

Asterix wrote: The referee should have stopped the bout when Bute was taking too much punishment, for the sake of Bute's health, but now we know that it wasn't needed. You're not making much sense, Wouter.

We are talking about two different things. I agree that a stoppage win for Andrade was defensible at the time, but knowing what we know now it is pretty ridiculous to say that Bute was unable to continue.

Bute was not able to continue!


If there were 30 seconds left in the round and the ref let him carry on then Bute would have been seriously hurt.

DG. wrote:

wouter wrote:

Asterix wrote: The referee should have stopped the bout when Bute was taking too much punishment, for the sake of Bute's health, but now we know that it wasn't needed. You're not making much sense, Wouter.

We are talking about two different things. I agree that a stoppage win for Andrade was defensible at the time, but knowing what we know now it is pretty ridiculous to say that Bute was unable to continue.

Bute was not able to continue!


If there were 30 seconds left in the round and the ref let him carry on then Bute would have been seriously hurt.

Now we're talking about three different things.

wouter wrote:

DG. wrote:

wouter wrote:We are talking about two different things. I agree that a stoppage win for Andrade was defensible at the time, but knowing what we know now it is pretty ridiculous to say that Bute was unable to continue.

Bute was not able to continue!
If there were 30 seconds left in the round and the ref let him carry on then Bute would have been seriously hurt.

Now we're talking about three different things.

Thanks for clearing things up, Wouter. I understand where you're coming from now.

wouter wrote:[
but knowing what we know now it is pretty ridiculous to say that Bute was unable to continue.

Bute was not able to continue!


If there were 30 seconds left in the round and the ref let him carry on then Bute would have been seriously hurt.[/quote]

Now we're talking about three different things.[/quote]


You said it was ridiculous to say bute was UNABLE to continue. HE COULD NOT CONTINUE for 1 second!

The bell does not save a fighter in the final round.

Listen to the commentary.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BVSYKzXmKhI

Shows it better, including the ridiculous 'knockdown' when it was clearly a trip due to their southpaw/orthodox stance's.

I read someone say it 'wouldnt have been fair for Andrade to win' after Bute dominating for long spells.

Boxing isn't fair - as this shoddy episode cleary proved.

And what's with the world's biggest boxing ring? he might of well had a sprint-track.

DG - there wasn't 1 second left in the fight though. You are right the bell cannot save him, so if Bute didn't beat the count the fight would have been stopped. But he clearly does, long count or not - Bute is up before 10 seconds all the shanangans with the neutral corner happend AFTER Bute was up.

Dioufy wrote:. And the referee going over to Andrade during the count was a joke because he wasn't even too far out of the corner.

Really? So how far from the corner does a fighter have to be before you consider him being out of the neutral corner?

That's one big ass corner if you think he's still in it.

stujones wrote:DG - there wasn't 1 second left in the fight though. You are right the bell cannot save him, so if Bute didn't beat the count the fight would have been stopped. But he clearly does, long count or not - Bute is up before 10 seconds all the shanangans with the neutral corner happend AFTER Bute was up.

True, I just wonder what would have happened if the ref asked Bute to walk forward - could he walk forward?

I still think the ref was doint his best to help bute!

That pictures doesn't tell the full story. Didn't the referee send him to the wrong corner at first, and then back to the neutral corner?

Yeah the ref played a huge part in winning him the fight, but what folk don't realise is the amount of physical damage that has been done to Bute.
Fighters often don't recover from beatings like that

Right am i wrong or not, should the bell not have rung during the count?
it rang once the ref ordered them to continue fighting, so really in that case although Bute was up on his feet, he was in no position to continue.
If the bell had rung during the count, then it was just a case of if Bute could beat the 10 count , which he did.

wouter wrote:
If you knew how the fight would eventually unfold, would you still stop it?

To use my example:

If you know that someone won't cause any harm by drink driving, is it still right for him to drive?

Of course not.

Rules are put in place for a reason. They may not work/be relevant in every instance, but overall they benefit so must be adhered to. You need consistency and to not set up bad examples that other people can point to.

---------------

To respond to you Stu, that is a different argument. I was simply arguing against Wouters logic that just because he recovered, it was correct that he was allowed to carry on. I haven't even seen the fight.

Maelstrom wrote:

wouter wrote:
If you knew how the fight would eventually unfold, would you still stop it?

To use my example:

If you know that someone won't cause any harm by drink driving, is it still right for him to drive?

Of course not.

Rules are put in place for a reason. They may not work/be relevant in every instance, but overall they benefit so must be adhered to. You need consistency and to not set up bad examples that other people can point to.

---------------

To respond to you Stu, that is a different argument. I was simply arguing against Wouters logic that just because he recovered, it was correct that he was allowed to carry on. I haven't even seen the fight.

If not adhering to the rule does not have grave consequences, then maybe the rule needs changing. A rule is never an end in itself and its effectiveness should be controlled continuously.

wouter wrote:
If not adhering to the rule does not have grave consequences, then maybe the rule needs changing. A rule is never an end in itself and its effectiveness should be controlled continuously.

You are squirming bad son. Rules can never cover every situation.

Again, answer my question about the drink driving...

Would you give your blessing for someone to drink drive if you knew they wouldn't cause harm?

.... before you answer, think what saying yes would mean. Think of all the people in the future who would say... well he did it....

Maelstrom wrote:

wouter wrote:
If not adhering to the rule does not have grave consequences, then maybe the rule needs changing. A rule is never an end in itself and its effectiveness should be controlled continuously.

You are squirming bad son. Rules can never cover every situation.

Again, answer my question about the drink driving...

Would you give your blessing for someone to drink drive if you knew they wouldn't cause harm?

.... before you answer, think what saying yes would mean. Think of all the people in the future who would say... well he did it....

If I knew that drinking wouldn't cause any harm, I'd say let's all get behind the wheel drunk.
But let's try my own analogy. Let's say you managed to drive home - no accidents, no speeding, no whatsover - while drunk. You park your car in front of your house and feeling guilty - you did after all break a rule - you go to the nearest police station. You confess to having had more to drink than is good for a driver and manage to convince the officer for 100% that you are telling the truth. What should he do? Arrest you? Nah he'll probably say 'go to bed son, you got lucky and don't do it again.'

wouter wrote:

Maelstrom wrote:

wouter wrote:
If not adhering to the rule does not have grave consequences, then maybe the rule needs changing. A rule is never an end in itself and its effectiveness should be controlled continuously.

You are squirming bad son. Rules can never cover every situation.

Again, answer my question about the drink driving...

Would you give your blessing for someone to drink drive if you knew they wouldn't cause harm?

.... before you answer, think what saying yes would mean. Think of all the people in the future who would say... well he did it....

If I knew that drinking wouldn't cause any harm, I'd say let's all get behind the wheel drunk.
But let's try my own analogy. Let's say you managed to drive home - no accidents, no speeding, no whatsover - while drunk. You park your car in front of your house and feeling guilty - you did after all break a rule - you go to the nearest police station. You confess to having had more to drink than is good for a driver and manage to convince the officer for 100% that you are telling the truth. What should he do? Arrest you? Nah he'll probably say 'go to bed son, you got lucky and don't do it again.'

Of course he should arrest you. You have broken the law. Whether it is practical or not to do so, is an entirely different matter.

Maelstrom wrote:Of course he should arrest you. You have broken the law. Whether it is practical or not to do so, is an entirely different matter.

Don't you find it of importance that the rationale behind the rule that the ref supposedly broke (once again back to the Bute v. Andrade situation) is to specifically serve the best interest of Bute - and not those of the general public as in your drink & drive analogy? And that it has turned out that in this specific situation Bute's interest were best served by not following the rule?

wouter wrote:

Maelstrom wrote:Of course he should arrest you. You have broken the law. Whether it is practical or not to do so, is an entirely different matter.

Don't you find it of importance that the rationale behind the rule that the ref supposedly broke (once again back to the Bute v. Andrade situation) is to specifically serve the best interest of Bute - and not those of the general public as in your drink & drive analogy? And that it has turned out that in this specific situation Bute's interest were best served by not following the rule?

But it is not just for Bute. The rule is for ALL boxers and there can be no exceptions.

And crucially, at the time of making the decision, the referee obviously did not have the benefit of hindsight.

Look at it like this:

- There are 100 boxers who all 'appear' to be in the same situation in a fight
- The fights aren't stopped
- 99 boxers get injured
- 1 comes back and wins the fight

In the case of the 1 fighter, was the referee correct?

Of course not. Because if he found himself in the same position over and over again and made the same decision, he would get it wrong 99% of the time.

Like I say, I haven't seen the Bute fight. I just do not agree with the logic that because we know a fighter recovered, the referee made the right call.

It is in the interest of ALL fighters - (not just Bute) - to stop the fight. That is the point, it is a general rule that shouldn't be broken.