BoxRec

im not wanting to harp on about things but i was disgusted at the referee last night. if it had been prescott who was put down like that then there is no way he would hav ebeen allowed to carry on, and rightly so. the referee was so influenced by his paymaster, that he potentially put amir khans health at risk by letting him take even more of a beating when he was in no fit state to do so. compare last night to the premature stoppage (imo) of fewkes the night before.

there is just no consistency in these officials. khan was gone, it was plain to see, so why let him get separated from his senses, just to save yourself from abuse from the promoter...

disgusting !!!!!!!! :x

Agreed wholeheartedly.

And on a lesser note, the 114-115 crd on the Arthur fight.

Both were O'Connor, weren't they Eddie?

AT LEAST this way we all know Khan was fcuked.... Warren and co (should that be and KO) have not a leg to stand on as regards his chin now.

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:Both were O'Connor, weren't they Eddie?

Yes mate

So O'Connor thought it was a good idea to let Khan carry on fighting, But a bad idea to let Peter Manfredo carry on fighting against Calzaghe when he wasn't even hurt.

Exoddus wrote:So O'Connor thought it was a good idea to let Khan carry on fighting, But a bad idea to let Peter Manfredo carry on fighting against Calzaghe when he wasn't even hurt.

Not that the BBBofC would see it that way, ofcourse.

If I remember rightly, there is nothing in the rules that says about the duration of the count is there?

It is just "a count of 10"....as oppoed to "a 10 second count".

He's a dodgy ref alright, but he was on a hiding to nothing there. Huge pressure. If he'd waved it off after the first KD, Khan's people would have ripped him limb from limb, claiming a premature stopage, saying Amir was more hurt in the Limmond fight and came back to win etc etc

At least there's no arguments today, and I don't think Khan was anyway close to being injured there, he only took two decent punches. I don't think any boxer has ever been injured in a first round KO.

MightyWarrior wrote:He's a dodgy ref alright, but he was on a hiding to nothing there. Huge pressure. If he'd waved it off after the first KD, Khan's people would have ripped him limb from limb, claiming a premature stopage, saying Amir was more hurt in the Limmond fight and came back to win etc etc

At least there's no arguments today, and I don't think Khan was anyway close to being injured there, he only took two decent punches. I don't think any boxer has ever been injured in a first round KO.

A ref is not there to be scared of what the promotors, team, or fans of the fighter are going to say.

He is there to ensure the fighters follow the rules, and to protect them - if required.

Any ref who's performance would be effected by what the paymasters say or do, should not be entrusted with the fighters safety, or responsibility of upholding the rules, full stop.

Sadly it doesn't work like that.

Allegedly.

I was okay with the stoppage. Rightly or wrongly I felt that, given the profile of the fight, the second knockdown had to happen. It provided complete closure to the event. Without that the post-fight would have been an absolute farce and we'd be listening to all kinds of ongoing bullshit right now.

It was a brutal finish but we've seen dozens of ref stoppages worse than that.

Kilburn wrote:I was okay with the stoppage. Rightly or wrongly I felt that, given the profile of the fight, the second knockdown had to happen. It provided complete closure to the event. Without that the post-fight would have been an absolute farce and we'd be listening to all kinds of ongoing bullshit right now.

It was a brutal finish but we've seen dozens of ref stoppages worse than that.

I agree completely.

100% agree OP.

The referee should hang his head in shame.

Khan could have been very seriously hurt IMO.

Syntax Error wrote:100% agree OP.

The referee should hang his head in shame.

Khan could have been very seriously hurt IMO.

Can you give a similar situation in which a fighter was seriously hurt?

boxrec wrote:

Horse wrote:

Kilburn wrote:I was okay with the stoppage. Rightly or wrongly I felt that, given the profile of the fight, the second knockdown had to happen. It provided complete closure to the event. Without that the post-fight would have been an absolute farce and we'd be listening to all kinds of ongoing bullshit right now.

It was a brutal finish but we've seen dozens of ref stoppages worse than that.

I agree completely.

I also agree the referee did ok. If the 2nd knockdown didn't happen, Khans people would have complained.

No matter how bad Khan does, theres always some excuse. To Khans fans- He lost fair and square. Face it.

No-one is arguing that it should have continued - ofcourse he lost, and in devastating fashion.

My point, was that the referee isn't there to worry about whether Khans people would complain. He's appointed by Sports Network, sorry, the BBBofC, to ensure the fighters safety.

Khan was in no fit state to continue after the first knockdown. It should have been called off. If it were the away fighter, I doubt the ref would have even finished his count.

i'm not as against refs giving fighters a chance early in fights.

the history of tragic outcomes in a fight is where a guy has taken a sustained pounding over 9, 10, 11 rds.

never from a 1 or 2 rd blowout.

i agree khan should have been waved off last night though.

he was f*cked.

Horse wrote:

Syntax Error wrote:100% agree OP.

The referee should hang his head in shame.

Khan could have been very seriously hurt IMO.

Can you give a similar situation in which a fighter was seriously hurt?

No.

I refer you to my post where I use the word 'could' & the abbreviation 'IMO' (in my opinion).

It was my opinion; it was not meant to be anecdotal or actual fact.

Syntax Error wrote:I refer you to my post where I use the word 'could' & the abbreviation 'IMO' (in my opinion).

It was my opinion; it was not meant to be anecdotal or actual fact.

I just wondered if anyone had been hurt in a similar situation.

I've been going around saying that the referee was right to allow the fight to continue, as fighters don't get seriously hurt by being KO'ed in one round. But if I knew of some examples in which fighters had been seriously damaged I might stop saying things like that.

Horse wrote:

Syntax Error wrote:I refer you to my post where I use the word 'could' & the abbreviation 'IMO' (in my opinion).

It was my opinion; it was not meant to be anecdotal or actual fact.

I just wondered if anyone had been hurt in a similar situation.

I've been going around saying that the referee was right to allow the fight to continue, as fighters don't get seriously hurt by being KO'ed in one round. But if I knew of some examples in which fighters had been seriously damaged I might stop saying things like that.

Surely, its not about what round it is in though....

The fighter gets heavily knocked down. His legs are gone, he struggles to his feet, looks out of it. Stumbles around some more. The ref asks his to come forward and show he's ready to continue. The fighter stumbles about some more and looks confused.

If the fighter is unable to convince the ref he is fit to continue, the fight should be stopped, regardless of which round it is.

Where the ref could take into account what round it is etc, whether it's early or late in the fight, is if the fighter goes down a couple of times, but gets back up and appears fine to continue - as happens enough in the sport. In that situation - early in a fight, the ref would give him the benefit of the doubt, however, if its later on in the fight, and he's been taking punishment, then the ref should likely stop it.

This was neither of those scenarios. Khan was hurt, all over the place, and should have been stopped first time round.

Horse wrote:

Syntax Error wrote:I refer you to my post where I use the word 'could' & the abbreviation 'IMO' (in my opinion).

It was my opinion; it was not meant to be anecdotal or actual fact.

I just wondered if anyone had been hurt in a similar situation.

I've been going around saying that the referee was right to allow the fight to continue, as fighters don't get seriously hurt by being KO'ed in one round. But if I knew of some examples in which fighters had been seriously damaged I might stop saying things like that.

Exactly - it always seems to be in long contests with sustained punishment that injuries occur.

EddieShredder wrote:

Horse wrote:

Syntax Error wrote:I refer you to my post where I use the word 'could' & the abbreviation 'IMO' (in my opinion).

It was my opinion; it was not meant to be anecdotal or actual fact.

I just wondered if anyone had been hurt in a similar situation.

I've been going around saying that the referee was right to allow the fight to continue, as fighters don't get seriously hurt by being KO'ed in one round. But if I knew of some examples in which fighters had been seriously damaged I might stop saying things like that.

Surely, its not about what round it is in though....

The fighter gets heavily knocked down. His legs are gone, he struggles to his feet, looks out of it. Stumbles around some more. The ref asks his to come forward and show he's ready to continue. The fighter stumbles about some more and looks confused.

If the fighter is unable to convince the ref he is fit to continue, the fight should be stopped, regardless of which round it is.

Where the ref could take into account what round it is etc, whether it's early or late in the fight, is if the fighter goes down a couple of times, but gets back up and appears fine to continue - as happens enough in the sport. In that situation - early in a fight, the ref would give him the benefit of the doubt, however, if its later on in the fight, and he's been taking punishment, then the ref should likely stop it.

This was neither of those scenarios. Khan was hurt, all over the place, and should have been stopped first time round.

Dead right.

The referee should not be worrying about which round the contest is at.

Richard Steele got a lot of stick for stopping Meldrick Taylor with 12 seconds of a 12 round fight left, but he acted right & proper; he was only worried about the fighter, not the clock; it should not be the referrees concern.

MightyWarrior wrote:...I don't think Khan was anyway close to being injured there...

Are you serious??

Did you not see the massive right hands that Prescott threw (which just failed to land) as Khan was falling on the 1st and 2nd knockdown?

Khan was lucky not to have been sparked unconscious, especially after he got up after the first Knockdown.

liamlion wrote:

MightyWarrior wrote:...I don't think Khan was anyway close to being injured there...

Are you serious??

Did you not see the massive right hands that Prescott threw (which just failed to land) as Khan was falling on the 1st and 2nd knockdown?

Khan was lucky not to have been sparked unconscious, especially after he got up after the first Knockdown.

I'll say it again - has a fighter ever been seriously injured in the first round of a fight?
If not, why do you reckon that is?

And of course, if a fighter is out of it the ref has to stop it, whatever round it is. And Khan did bring his gloves up when asked by the ref.
I just think talk of Amir getting seriously injured inside 60 secs is way off the mark.

It was fine. He'd regained his feet, was standing facing the referee, looking at his eyes, with his hands up. Yes, it was a bad knockdown, but not much worse than vs Limond. I don't know what all the fuss is about.