BoxRec

Following the other nights fight and some of the discussions that have followed i thoughht it appropriaate to ask for opinions on stoppages. whilemost accept thhe other nights stoppage was fair,based on some comments i have read i wonder ow long can/should a ref allow the ear muff defence strategy to go on assuming no/not many big shots are landing clean and no return fire is being given. surely there somes a time when even if a fighhter is noot being damaged(not saying roy wasnt and certainly not saying he wasnt prior to earmuffing).surely you cannot just there for 2 minutes withh earmuffs on??

an exaample i would give would be Shannon taylor v Julian Holland (if memory serves me right).Shannon complained about the stoppage and said he was covering up though he was certainly hurt prior to ear muffing.i thoought at the time the stoppage was a bit premature and Taylor reckoned in the states it would not have been stopped.

the other thing thaat has to bee accounted for is ok-a fighter is ear muffing(like roy was0.say danny stopped punching and roy stopped e/m but being on dodgey legs danny starts wailing again then roy e/muffs again etc etc. how long should a ref let that go on.clearly IMO if danny had of relented the other night and roy tried to find footing he was leaving himself open to being clocked badly.withouut legs he would of no doubt earmuffed again. does the ref take into account what the status of a fighters legs are when he is not just leaning on the ropes and e/m. thoughts?????

by the way-i apologise for the overuse of the term earmuffing but i like it

In OZ, refs are not insured & can't get insurance, therefore it doesn't take much for them to pull the plug.
Don't blame them either. I never did & never would consider reffing.

AntonS wrote:In OZ, refs are not insured & can't get insurance, therefore it doesn't take much for them to pull the plug.
Don't blame them either. I never did & never would consider reffing.

I agree Anton

Reffing is a demanding job, They are never going to please everyone. IMO id rather see the ref step in early than let a fighter take 2 or 3 more shots that could harm them seriously. Jones was a good stoppage and i also think Taylors stoppage against Sherrington was also good.
Another thing with reffing is most people will remeber the stuff ups but forget the other 100 good fights that the ref did before hand, Its a pretty thankless job to be honest.

Just in case i will say without question my post was not having a crack at any ref , in case what i wrote(albeit badly)has been misinterpreted.didnt see Taylor v Sherrington.

was nt aware of the insurance thing-that is ridiculous. I n tis day and age of litigation why would you be a ref if that is the case.

I wasn't implying you were having a dig mate.
To answer your question in regards to the EarMuffing, Its up to the Ref to decide when he thinks the Person covering up should be stopped. The ref is the closest guy to the action and has the best perspective of whats going on.

If a guy has not thrown a punch in over a minute while the other guy is throwing at will, it's over.

Hope this clears up the confusion.

ra2006 wrote:If a guy has not thrown a punch in over a minute while the other guy is throwing at will, it's over.

Hope this clears up the confusion.

he threw a healf hearted deperta right uppercut/hook that missed but still should of been stopped

ra2006 wrote:If a guy has not thrown a punch in over a minute while the other guy is throwing at will, it's over.

Hope this clears up the confusion.

6/7 unanswered punches within 10 seconds usually does it.

If one fighter is hitting the other at will without anything coming back it is time to pull the plug.