BoxRec

Can someone explain why refs do this- In tonights fight, the Ref counted the Finnish fighter, up to 8, and THEN waved the fight off. Why give a count if he has already made the decision to stop the fight.

Jim Watt's commentary- "the referee's job is to stop a fight BEFORE a fighter gets hurt..."

EH??

A referee , I though, it meant to stop a fight when a fighter is unable to continue?

Hurting the opponent is, after all, the whole point of the sport.

OK, I know what Watt means- the referee's job is to stop a contest when a fighter is unable to continue and/or defend himself, to prevent serious injury.

But if a fighter is up, and looks capable, surely he should let the bout go on?

sg1985 wrote:I'm guessing one look in the eyes of a fighter with nothing left would be an obvious indicator as to whether he could continue.

Fair point, but in that case, why count?

Possibly, but a couple of example- the fight last night with that Finnish guy, and Darren McDermott V Barker. In both cases, the fighter seem steady, was taking his count and looking right at the ref, and the ref reached 8 then decided to wave it off.

In both cases, the fighter look surprised and angry- hardly the reaction of a man unfit to box on.

its all about the eyes and the balance, the ref starts his count and does not make his decision till he reaches 8, then, looking into the fighters eyes he can see if he still has focus and is compus mentus. i think its a fair way of doing business.

when a fighter is pole-axed, and is obviously in danger of airway compromisation, then the fight is often called off either pre or mid count. the renda fight last night was a good example of this. a man twitching on the floor is not a good sign.

i was there last night and thought the ref should have let it go but ive seen it now on replay and think it was the right decision, if anyone hasnt seen the renda ko then thats brutal!!!

?

When most refs count to 8 look in the boxers eyes, and asks if he is OK, if the boxers eyes are not focussed or he does not answer properley, or if they ask him to step forward and staggers, they stop it! simple.........
When you have been in close to a boxer, you will undestand

whicker wrote:Can someone explain why refs do this- In tonights fight, the Ref counted the Finnish fighter, up to 8, and THEN waved the fight off. Why give a count if he has already made the decision to stop the fight
But if a fighter is up, and looks capable, surely he should let the bout go on?

You have to give a mandatory 8 count, while your counting, your looking at the fighters eyes.

rf wrote:Just shows that we all Slate referees for stopping fights early but take the renda fight. Had the ref stopped it after the first knock down we would all be shouting too premature he should have let him go on but 2 punches later horton is polaxed twitching on the canvas.

whicker wrote:Can someone explain why refs do this- In tonights fight, the Ref counted the Finnish fighter, up to 8, and THEN waved the fight off. Why give a count if he has already made the decision to stop the fight.

Jim Watt's commentary- "the referee's job is to stop a fight BEFORE a fighter gets hurt..."

EH??

A referee , I though, it meant to stop a fight when a fighter is unable to continue?

Hurting the opponent is, after all, the whole point of the sport.

OK, I know what Watt means- the referee's job is to stop a contest when a fighter is unable to continue and/or defend himself, to prevent serious injury.

But if a fighter is up, and looks capable, surely he should let the bout go on?

I suppose he could have let it go on but what would have happened, he would have gone the same way as Sam Horton maybe worse

sg1985 wrote:

whicker wrote: Do you remember the chavez taylor stoppage? That was shocking.

I've never had a problem with it. Taylor was in no fit state to continue.

whicker wrote:Can someone explain why refs do this- In tonights fight, the Ref counted the Finnish fighter, up to 8, and THEN waved the fight off. Why give a count if he has already made the decision to stop the fight.

Jim Watt's commentary- "the referee's job is to stop a fight BEFORE a fighter gets hurt..."

EH??

A referee , I though, it meant to stop a fight when a fighter is unable to continue?

Hurting the opponent is, after all, the whole point of the sport.

OK, I know what Watt means- the referee's job is to stop a contest when a fighter is unable to continue and/or defend himself, to prevent serious injury.

But if a fighter is up, and looks capable, surely he should let the bout go on?

He made the count as he should have done to give him time to recover, at the count of 8 he decided he would not recover in time so waved it off. A fair stoppage imo

sg1985 wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Wm18vkXRF0

Just in case you've never seen it.

First time i've seen that.

Didn't see a great deal wrong with it to be honest.

If you want to talk about referee error, then watch Bute vs Andrade round 12.

Bute was falling around like a drunk and the ref did nothing.

rf wrote:Just shows that we all Slate referees for stopping fights early but take the renda fight. Had the ref stopped it after the first knock down we would all be shouting too premature he should have let him go on but 2 punches later horton is polaxed twitching on the canvas.

Yes, but the point is (without meaning to sound brutal) knocking the opponent out IS the whole point of boxing.

A fighter can get up and box on after a knock down- and indeed some people come back to win.

It's a hard one to call.

ERIC GUY wrote:

whicker wrote:Can someone explain why refs do this- In tonights fight, the Ref counted the Finnish fighter, up to 8, and THEN waved the fight off. Why give a count if he has already made the decision to stop the fight
But if a fighter is up, and looks capable, surely he should let the bout go on?

You have to give a mandatory 8 count, while your counting, your looking at the fighters eyes.

you do NOT have to give a mandatory 8 count, you can stop the fight with no count at all if you like !! .. its all about the safety of the boxer.

whicker wrote:

rf wrote:Just shows that we all Slate referees for stopping fights early but take the renda fight. Had the ref stopped it after the first knock down we would all be shouting too premature he should have let him go on but 2 punches later horton is polaxed twitching on the canvas.

Yes, but the point is (without meaning to sound brutal) knocking the opponent out IS the whole point of boxing.

A fighter can get up and box on after a knock down- and indeed some people come back to win.

It's a hard one to call.

Not any more, that was the case in fights like Dempsey Willard where as long as the fighter can raise himself off the canvas the fight continues but nowadays the ref will stop the fight when a boxer can no longer protect himself.
The Finns legs were stiff and his eyes were glazed. However from seeing some stills of him i think he might always look a bit like that. Anyway, I thought the stoppage was fair, the first kd did all the damage and the ref gave him a chance to survive but he was taking a hammering because he was too dazed to protect himself.

Most pointless count in boxing history?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhVi7cH-LaQ

Fair play, he gave him every chance...

Matt W wrote:Most pointless count in boxing history?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhVi7cH-LaQ

Fair play, he gave him every chance...

Stupid count like you say but thats Cortez for you

For a second there I thought you called me a stupid coont

Remember a few years back, one off mine sparked a Kid. It was a Bad one, I jumped in the Ring and removed The Kids gumshield which He had swollowed. Looking up I noticed the Ref still counting .

rhino222 wrote:

ERIC GUY wrote:

whicker wrote:Can someone explain why refs do this- In tonights fight, the Ref counted the Finnish fighter, up to 8, and THEN waved the fight off. Why give a count if he has already made the decision to stop the fight
But if a fighter is up, and looks capable, surely he should let the bout go on?

You have to give a mandatory 8 count, while your counting, your looking at the fighters eyes.

you do NOT have to give a mandatory 8 count, you can stop the fight with no count at all if you like !! .. its all about the safety of the boxer.

You DO have to give a mandatory count. What your talking about is two rules overlapping almost.

If a boxer goes down, even just touches down, is clearly totally fine, could be on his feet by the count of one... the Ref MUST count to 8. That is the rule and that is a Mandatory 8 count. Eric Guy is right. Thats the first rule.

What you also have to remember is that the referee is the ONLY person who can stop the fight. Not a towl from the corner, not the doctor ONLY the referee. Now obviously the referee will use these things to help make his decision but ultimatly it's his decision alone (IE Dave Paris with Khan Vs Barrera and the doctor. Mickey Vann with Earl Vs Katsides and the throwing out of the towel). The flip side of this is that the referee can stop the fight at ANY time (a boxer against the ropes not fighting back, the ref jumps in). If a boxer is knocked down and out and is in distress the referee will often halt the count or not count at all.

In short, there IS a mandatory 8 count. This will only be not completed in extreme KO cases and that would be the referee halting the bout, his right at anytime, rather than the boxer not making the count.

I may have explained that poorly, but in short, you will never see a referee stop a count at anything less than 8 for a boxer who is up and clerly alright. This is the mandatory 8 count.

Funny subject this, I was asked to do a corner of a Kid Fighting a Hot Prospect. He got put on His arse a couple of times the 1st rd, then came back to the corner. Sat Him down and said Im pulling you son, to which He nodded His Head. Called the Ref over who I think is one ofthe Best. Told Him the Kid had hurt His hand, He said okay then asked, Scrap how did it happen He never threw a Punch