BoxRec

and the bonus question....


How long was Tyson really down when Douglas floored him?

Don King would be best able to answer both those questions

Il Duce wrote:

yancey wrote:and the bonus question....


How long was Tyson really down when Douglas floored him?

Elapsed Time....................9.62

Not precise enough!

I made them just over 13 seconds each.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHcbFUTIslI

Controversial wrote:I made them just over 13 seconds each.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHcbFUTIslI

Great video.


If anyone cares to watch this then they will realise that Tyson wa son his feet when the ref waved it off - why did the ref not do it against Douglas in an earlier round?

Douglas beat the ref's count. If he counted quicker, Buster would have gotten up quicker.

Yep the rules are "the count of ten" not "ten seconds".

Pretty subjective stuff.


However....it may STILL not be to late for Don King to have that decision nullified, and give Tyson back the titles.

Even if the ref allowed Tyson to continue there is no way he would have seen the round out as there was over 90 seconds to go. He was out on his feet, Douglas would've smashed him to the floor pretty quick.

Controversial wrote:Even if the ref allowed Tyson to continue there is no way he would have seen the round out as there was over 90 seconds to go. He was out on his feet, Douglas would've smashed him to the floor pretty quick.

Yup, it was just a testament to his guts that he got up at all. Buster was completely coherent, watching the ref count the whole time. There was just no way Mike was winning that night.

Controversial wrote:Even if the ref allowed Tyson to continue there is no way he would have seen the round out as there was over 90 seconds to go. He was out on his feet, Douglas would've smashed him to the floor pretty quick.

The problem is that none of us could ever say for sure what would have happened...
Maybe Tyson closes the round out with a number of clinches...
Maybe he lands a heavy blow of his own and knocks Douglas on his back again.
Who knows?

Anyone without Tyson goggles knows for sure, that was a great stoppage.

Crease wrote:

Controversial wrote:Even if the ref allowed Tyson to continue there is no way he would have seen the round out as there was over 90 seconds to go. He was out on his feet, Douglas would've smashed him to the floor pretty quick.

The problem is that none of us could ever say for sure what would have happened...
Maybe Tyson closes the round out with a number of clinches...
Maybe he lands a heavy blow of his own and knocks Douglas on his back again.
Who knows?

Of course you can say that about any scenario but the way Tyson slumped into the refs arms when he stood up I think its highly unlikely he would've lasted much longer.

2 years 8 months if you belive some people

Tunney was down for a decade vs dempsey as well

Controversial wrote:Of course you can say that about any scenario but the way Tyson slumped into the refs arms when he stood up I think its highly unlikely he would've lasted much longer.

Indeed you can... But the point that I am making her eis that NONE of us can know for 100% what would have happened next. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but that is all they are - they are not concrete facts as to what would have happened - the way that some people are making out to be.

Crease wrote:

Controversial wrote:Of course you can say that about any scenario but the way Tyson slumped into the refs arms when he stood up I think its highly unlikely he would've lasted much longer.

Indeed you can... But the point that I am making her eis that NONE of us can know for 100% what would have happened next. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but that is all they are - they are not concrete facts as to what would have happened - the way that some people are making out to be.

Nonsense, he was finished.

Adamj1987 wrote:Tunney was down for a decade vs dempsey as well

Well he wasn't down for a decade - but it is a statistical fact that he was down for longer than 10 seconds...
There's no disputing that... And you would be the worst sort of fool to try.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Nonsense, he was finished.

As I've said you're entitled to your opinion, sir. And, from what I've read on here many times in the past - you will have legions of supporters who would agree with your view.

I was merely throwing a couple of "what ifs" in to the mixing pot - if you don't want to entertain them, then that is your entitlement.

I'm a big Tyson fan but it's clear he was out of it, crawling around the floor trying to pick his gumshied up all glassy eyed. If there was a few seconds to go maybe he could've survived but he had over half a round to last. The odds weren't on his side.

Similarly if Douglas had to last 90+ seconds maybe Tyson would've stopped him, we will never know.

Out of the two Tyson was in a far worse condition.

Crease wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Nonsense, he was finished.

As I've said you're entitled to your opinion, sir. And, from what I've read on here many times in the past - you will have legions of supporters who would agree with your view.

I was merely throwing a couple of "what ifs" in to the mixing pot - if you don't want to entertain them, then that is your entitlement.

Even I can't argue with that. This is just a scenario I've never seen, maybe that was your intention, I assumed it was universally accepted that Mike was toast. I wouldn't have wanted to see him take anymore punishment.

Same as Vitali/Lewis, I was cheering for Klitschko but that was a moment where I was creaming for them to stop the fight. He looked worse than the Elephant Man.

....honestly...it's not about the passing of time....it's however long the ref takes to count to 10.

We've all seen fast counts, we've all seen slow counts, IF you choose to use "seconds" as the time frame.

Which although it may be assumed is the measure....I assure you, it is not. As I recall, The rules of boxing do not refer to "seconds". Only "to the count of ten". I don't think I've seen any ref stretch the count into anything fully insane, But it seems to range between 8 seconds, and 13 seconds.

No ref has been "busted" for bending it too far either way have they?

BoxBuzz wrote:....honestly...it's not about the passing of time....it's however long the ref takes to count to 10.

We've all seen fast counts, we've all seen slow counts, IF you choose to use "seconds" as the time frame.

Which although it may be assumed is the measure....I assure you, it is not. As I recall, The rules of boxing do not refer to "seconds". Only "to the count of ten". I don't think I've seen any ref stretch the count into anything fully insane, But it seems to range between 8 seconds, and 13 seconds.

No ref has been "busted" for bending it too far either way have they?

The timekeeper at ringside counts using a stopwatch so the count should be in seconds. The ref should make sure the other fighter is in a neutral corner first and then look to the timekeeper to pick up the count. The floored boxer should only listen to the refs count so if he is on the floor for 10 seconds before the ref starts the count then he is fully within his right to stay down. That's why Tyson and Douglas were actually down for roughly 13 seconds each because the ref was checking to see the other fighter was in a neutral corner.

Has the refs count ever been overuled by the guy holding the watch?

If so, I stand corrected. But I think for all practical purposes fighters are at the mercy of the referees "perception" of what a second is. And I think it has been "controversial" throughout the century.

Can anyone quote the rule book?

As mentioned, fighters often adjust their actions based on the actions of referees. It seemed clear to me watching the video above that Douglas was timing his rise so that he'd get up in time; the referee counted slowly, so he arose slowly and still beat the count. Tyson, however, looks out of it and I think he stood up as fast as he could. While it may be unfair for one fighter to be allowed to continue when another fighter was ruled out with a count of the same length, I have no doubt that Tyson would've been stopped if he continued.

The same logic applies to many bouts, including Klitschko-Povetkin. I've seen countless people argue that Wlad should've been DQ'd, but the referee let him hold continually so he kept doing it; had the referee been strict, Wlad probably wouldn't have held so much. That's also the reason I have problems with the results of amateur fights being overturned when a panel decides after the fact that the referee didn't penalize a boxer when they should have. In these cases, the boxer who loses on reversal often wasn't warned to stop committing the relevant infraction.

BoxBuzz wrote:Has the refs count ever been overuled by the guy holding the watch?

If so, I stand corrected. But I think for all practical purposes fighters are at the mercy of the referees "perception" of what a second is. And I think it has been "controversial" throughout the century.

Can anyone quote the rule book?

I think the most high profile would be Jersey Joe's inept count during Ali/Liston II, albeit that it was the owner of ring mag who jumped up and down, the timekeeper was involved.

The ref is supposed to pick up the count from the timekeeper.

crusader wrote: Tyson, however, looks out of it and I think he stood up as fast as he could. While it may be unfair for one fighter to be allowed to continue when another fighter was ruled out with a count of the same length, I have no doubt that Tyson would've been stopped if he continued

Yep even if Tyson got up at 9 the ref really had no choice but to stop him anyway, Tyson was clearly not fit to continue. No way he would have lasted the round out in his condition.