BoxRec

So if I get this right from the news, Kooner is cut from an accidental headbutt, and when the fight is stopped, he loses by TKO? Explain please? The cut was not caused by a punch and 4 rounds had not been completed? Why does Britain have these barbaric rules?

The British rule remains that if a fighter is unable to continue as the result of an accidental injury, then the bout is awarded to his opponent.

It certainly is controversial- in this case a "no decision" or "no contest" would be logical.

However, there IS no perfect rule. For example , what if one fighter was taking a real battering in the first three rounds, and was on the verge of being stopped, and then picked up an accidental injury? Is it right that the other guy is denied the win which was probably coming soon anyway?

Or equally, a guy has a great first five rounds, but is getting totally battered in rounds 6 and 7, and its clear the fight has "turned" and he is probably going to be stopped, or lose on points over 12- but then picks up an accidental injury. Is it fair that he should be declared the winner based on the points total for just half the fight?


In other sports- tennis for example- if one person is injured, then the match goes to the opponent.

Or take motor racing. A guy is winning the race, but then he is put out of the race by an accidental crash, he is out of the race, even that it was an accident.

No simple answer.

ridiculas rule makes us look a laughing stock and has done for years, please sort it out :(

whicker wrote:The British rule remains that if a fighter is unable to continue as the result of an accidental injury, then the bout is awarded to his opponent.

It certainly is controversial- in this case a "no decision" or "no contest" would be logical.

However, there IS no perfect rule. For example , what if one fighter was taking a real battering in the first three rounds, and was on the verge of being stopped, and then picked up an accidental injury? Is it right that the other guy is denied the win which was probably coming soon anyway?

Or equally, a guy has a great first five rounds, but is getting totally battered in rounds 6 and 7, and its clear the fight has "turned" and he is probably going to be stopped, or lose on points over 12- but then picks up an accidental injury. Is it fair that he should be declared the winner based on the points total for just half the fight?


In other sports- tennis for example- if one person is injured, then the match goes to the opponent.

Or take motor racing. A guy is winning the race, but then he is put out of the race by an accidental crash, he is out of the race, even that it was an accident.

No simple answer.

Thanks for this excellent answer. I agree with what you say, it's tough to decide what is fair in this case. I like the 4 rounds or less - no decision rule. I think it kind of falls somewhere in between. While it would be unfair to award a no decision to a fighter who is leading after 3 rounds, it seems even more unfair to award a win to a fighter with less than one round gone by. Plus fighters don't get a say in whether they want a fight to continue sometimes. I'm sure Kooner would have fought through the cut, but if the doctor says he can't, he'll stop it.

Its a bad rule I was annoyed it happened as i was looking forwrd to seeing Kooner in action but a really bad cut

i hate the rule aswell,always have done,i also hate the ref being the sole scorer in a non title fight in britain

caffrey wrote:i hate the rule aswell,always have done,i also hate the ref being the sole scorer in a non title fight in britain

Ye you see a lot of robberies that way the ref should focus on being the ref not the judge as well imo

alexpaterson wrote:

caffrey wrote:i hate the rule aswell,always have done,i also hate the ref being the sole scorer in a non title fight in britain

Ye you see a lot of robberies that way the ref should focus on being the ref not the judge as well imo

yep even the ref and 2 independent judges would be better even in a 4x2 s