BoxRec

Dioufy wrote:I don't know, hence my post. Perhaps if I decipher your grammar mistakes, then I might be more successful?

You mean my grammatical errors?

I wish you well.

Hatton will stop Pacquiao late on with body shots. I am sure I have seen Pacquiao knocked down with a jab before, and he's certainly been knocked out to the body. Even if he was weight-drained, that's got to be a massive worry for the Pacman. Hatton KO10.

DG. wrote:

Dioufy wrote:I don't know, hence my post. Perhaps if I decipher your grammar mistakes, then I might be more successful?

You mean my grammatical errors?

I wish you well.

Oh dear, you used an alternative. How big and clever. I am in such awe.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Phenom, you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Clinching is perfectly legal, as long as you are working in the clinches. That is what Hatton and plenty of other fighters do.

What is not allowed is holding, where you just tie your opponent up in order to protect yourself.

1 of the first Queensbury rules of - No wrestling or hugging allowed. Hitting and holding is illegal, fighting 'out of the clinches' is permitted, now don't tell me Hatton is continually trying to get out of clinching he wrestles/holds to his advantage. Fighters will inevitably clinch but when they do clinch they are supposed to work their way out or be split by the ref, not wrestle, hold and hit, thats illegal fighting plain and simple.

The difference between holding and clinching bending the rules happen but Hatton has taken it all a little too far occasionally and relys on breaking the rules too much. The link DG posted of Hatton-Urango showed some terrible holding/wrestling, Akiwande was DQ'ed for less. Against Mayweather and Urango he needed to do this, But obviously he didn't need to against Mallignaggi

Now fair play most top fighters bend the rules and no one expects fighters to be choir boys, Ali held and pushed opponents head down, Holyfield headbutts, Mayweather's elbow etc. But don't be suprised when said fighters get pulled up on the rules and start complaining about it, thats just moronic.

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

banjo wrote:My problem with Cortez is not how he handled the Hatton-Mayweather fight(because he was spot on) but how he did the complete opposite in Calzaghe-Hopkins letting Hopkins hold at will. He's too inconsistent.

Both Hatton and Hopkins held, both were broken up, the difference is Hatton wants to be able to hold for as long as he wants and hit and hold, Hopkins will try and get away with that too but isn't quite as blatant. But both were broken up anyway. Hatton was warned for holding though, but maybe this is partly due to Mayweather complaining to Cortez before the fight. Cortez also made the mistake of once or twice breaking before there was a clinch, but the amount of times he had to break clinches this could be a quite an easy mistake to make

It should also be noted Cortez reffed Hatton-Castillo, he took points from Castillo for hitting on the belt line after Hatton play acted and Cortez had said the belt line was fine. I think Cortez watched his own performance and saw Hatton get away with hitting and holding and play acting and didn't want to be shown up like that a second time. Officials do make opinions of fighters after making mistakes, for instance the judges that wrongly scored Quartey-DLH to DLH went against him when he faced Tito. All in all Cortz is getting on a bit and these are hard fights to ref

I obviously need to watch Calzaghe - Hopkins and Hatton - Mayweather again, because the first time around I saw them as a clear example of refereeing double standards.

It is true that Hopkins is sneakier and smarter than Hatton, and therefore more difficult to referee and stop, but Cortez let him get away with murder in that fight on a whole range of punishable infractions, one of which was the number of times he held on and initiated spoiling cinches in which neither fighter was able to work in the second half of the fight.

In contrast, he gave Hatton next to no leeway against Mayweather.

Now I have no complaint with Cortez's refereeing in the Hatton -- Mayweather in and of itself. However, I do have a problem with his refereeing given the context of his performance in the Hopkins fight. In one fight, he was an almost puritanical agent of strict application of the rules on holding, and separated the fighters as soon as they got within 2 feet of eachother, and in the other, he took a laissez faire attidute that the referee should be invisible and fighters should be left to get on with it, it seemed to me.

And I think I'm not alone in this.

Mayweather was so superior on the night, that Ricky's mam could have been refereeing, and Mayweather would've won, but that's hardly the point. Equally, Cortez's performance as a one off, seen in isolation, may have tended toward the pedantic, but the area of holding and clinching and inside fighting is a gray area, and so that whole shebang is open to different interpretations; but that's not the point either. The problem we have is the brazen and almost bi-polar inconsistency of the two performances, both of which happened to favour the home fighter.

Let's imagine Cortez was a German referee refereeing two big fights involving British fighters going up against Universum superstars, and did so in completely different ways for both fights and in ways that benefitted the German-based fighters. How would we react? In your sanguine manner? I think not.

Now, Cortez is usually an excellent referee, but one has to wonder about his performances in those two fights, when viewed against eacher. Was he influenced by Mayweather, or Hatton's reputation?

Who knows, but there is legitimate reason to complain about Cortez's refereeing of both fights on the basis of consistency. And, as I see it, it has little to do with what “Hatton wants” and much to do with brazen inconsistency. What’s good for Hopkins should have been good for Hatton, and I’m sure Calzaghe would have loved some of the protection Cortez afforded Mayweather.

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Phenom, you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Clinching is perfectly legal, as long as you are working in the clinches. That is what Hatton and plenty of other fighters do.

What is not allowed is holding, where you just tie your opponent up in order to protect yourself.

1 of the first Queensbury rules of - No wrestling or hugging allowed. Hitting and holding is illegal, fighting 'out of the clinches' is permitted, now don't tell me Hatton is continually trying to get out of clinching he wrestles/holds to his advantage. Fighters will inevitably clinch but when they do clinch they are supposed to work their way out or be split by the ref, not wrestle, hold and hit, thats illegal fighting plain and simple.

The difference between holding and clinching bending the rules happen but Hatton has taken it all a little too far occasionally and relys on breaking the rules too much. The link DG posted of Hatton-Urango showed some terrible holding/wrestling, Akiwande was DQ'ed for less. Against Mayweather and Urango he needed to do this, But obviously he didn't need to against Mallignaggi

Now fair play most top fighters bend the rules and no one expects fighters to be choir boys, Ali held and pushed opponents head down, Holyfield headbutts, Mayweather's elbow etc. But don't be suprised when said fighters get pulled up on the rules and start complaining about it, thats just moronic.

again, agreed mate

I wasn't impressed with the way Cortez repeatedly let PBF lead with elbows/forearms to the face and throat. He did warn PBF a couple of times, including a stern chat between rounds, but it meant sod all because he then let him carry on. I don't blame PBF per se, he knew Hatton would want to be a bit rough, so he pre-empted it with some rough tactics himself, but the ref should do his job. Not meaning that Hatton is an angel, but still, it kind of soured the fight a bit (regardless of what the outcome could, would or should have been).

The point is not Cortez's refereeing of the Hatton fight -- although there was plenty to complain about -- it's the refereeing of that match when compared to his refereeing in the Hopkins -- Calzaghe fight.