New rule idea to cut down on dodgy stoppages.....
It seems to me that sometimes we have fights ended too early on a premature stoppage when the stopped fighter is still on his feet and fighting back.
Rafael Marquez last weekend in the most recent example and of course Manfredo's ridicoulously early stoppage earlier this year stand out, another one that sticks in my mind is Angel Manfredy being stopped against Floyd Mayweather.
Anyway in these situations rather than end the fight prematurely wouldn't it be better if like in amatuer boxing the referee could enforce a standing 8 count, so that the fighter gets the benefit of the doubt and a second chance and just as importantly the paying fans don't end up being shortchanged?
I know there would be a danger of them being too standing count happy and interupting the flow of fights but if it was done in a last resort in a situation where a fighter was under pressure but still on his feet and fighting back, and the referee would otherwise stop the fight, an 8 count alternative would be better?
Re: New rule idea to cut down on dodgy stoppages.....
Seems like a good idea to me. It also gives the ref a chance to carry out a more thorough look at the fighter to see if he's really all done in. There are always fighters who will say "I wasn't hurt" or "The punches were all on the arms", but if the eyes aren't clear after an 8-count, then it's bull. If they are, fight on.
Re: New rule idea to cut down on dodgy stoppages.....
Re: New rule idea to cut down on dodgy stoppages.....
Some states and some sanctioning bodies already have a standing 8 count....
Ever notice when Lederman or Bernstien are announcing the rules of the fight there is always the no standing 8 count in effect or standing 8 count is in effect part...
Usually right before only the ref or doctor can stop the fight
Re: New rule idea to cut down on dodgy stoppages.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
It seems to me that sometimes we have fights ended too early on a premature stoppage when the stopped fighter is still on his feet and fighting back.
Rafael Marquez last weekend in the most recent example and of course Manfredo's ridicoulously early stoppage earlier this year stand out, another one that sticks in my mind is Angel Manfredy being stopped against Floyd Mayweather.
Anyway in these situations rather than end the fight prematurely wouldn't it be better if like in amatuer boxing the referee could enforce a standing 8 count, so that the fighter gets the benefit of the doubt and a second chance and just as importantly the paying fans don't end up being shortchanged?
I know there would be a danger of them being too standing count happy and interupting the flow of fights but if it was done in a last resort in a situation where a fighter was under pressure but still on his feet and fighting back, and the referee would otherwise stop the fight, an 8 count alternative would be better?
Yeah but you'd also have to consider Castillo Corrales and if the standing 8 was used there for Castillo would it still have had that classic umf it had.
Re: New rule idea to cut down on dodgy stoppages.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majesty
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
It seems to me that sometimes we have fights ended too early on a premature stoppage when the stopped fighter is still on his feet and fighting back.
Rafael Marquez last weekend in the most recent example and of course Manfredo's ridicoulously early stoppage earlier this year stand out, another one that sticks in my mind is Angel Manfredy being stopped against Floyd Mayweather.
Anyway in these situations rather than end the fight prematurely wouldn't it be better if like in amatuer boxing the referee could enforce a standing 8 count, so that the fighter gets the benefit of the doubt and a second chance and just as importantly the paying fans don't end up being shortchanged?
I know there would be a danger of them being too standing count happy and interupting the flow of fights but if it was done in a last resort in a situation where a fighter was under pressure but still on his feet and fighting back, and the referee would otherwise stop the fight, an 8 count alternative would be better?
Yeah but you'd also have to consider Castillo Corrales and if the standing 8 was used there for Castillo would it still have had that classic umf it had.
It could have been even better, Castillo would have got some precious few seconds and a possible chance to come back.
Remember Castillo himself felt he had not been given a fair chance.
Re: New rule idea to cut down on dodgy stoppages.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaxxKahn
Some states and some sanctioning bodies already have a standing 8 count....
Ever notice when Lederman or Bernstien are announcing the rules of the fight there is always the no standing 8 count in effect or standing 8 count is in effect part...
Usually right before only the ref or doctor can stop the fight
Ha yeah you are, he always says 'There's no standing 8 count only the referee can stop the fight...........
Has he EVER said 'there is a standing 8 count rule in effect?'
I don't recall ever seeing it.
Re: New rule idea to cut down on dodgy stoppages.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaxxKahn
Some states and some sanctioning bodies already have a standing 8 count....
Ever notice when Lederman or Bernstien are announcing the rules of the fight there is always the no standing 8 count in effect or standing 8 count is in effect part...
Usually right before only the ref or doctor can stop the fight
Ha yeah you are, he always says 'There's no standing 8 count only the referee can stop the fight...........
Has he EVER said 'there is a standing 8 count rule in effect?'
I don't recall ever seeing it.
Tis why I said in some places....If there was no such thing in Pro Boxing it would not even be mentioned now would it?.....It would go..."And unlike in the Amatuers there is no standing 8 count in pro boxing"
Re: New rule idea to cut down on dodgy stoppages.....
There aren't many places or organisations that still have the standing 8 in affect is there?
Just to play devils advocate doesnt it also rob the fighter who is dishing it out his chance of outright victory? Should a pro fighter have to essentially win the fight twice?
Re: New rule idea to cut down on dodgy stoppages.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis
There aren't many places or organisations that still have the standing 8 in affect is there?
Just to play devils advocate doesnt it also rob the fighter who is dishing it out his chance of outright victory? Should a pro fighter have to essentially win the fight twice?
No not too many places still have it but it does exist
Re: New rule idea to cut down on dodgy stoppages.....
I remember they had that in Razor Ruddock vs Tommy Morrison fight only problem i see with this is if you got guy in trouble and then ref gives your opponent an 8 count then he is getting the time he needs to recover and then you have to work even harder i think its bit unfair good idea but unfair.
It would work in some fights but in others it wouldn't it depends on the fight if your opponent wobbles he gets standing 8 count ?? and if he wobbles 3 times in the round and the ref gives him 3 standing 8 counts in the round won't the fight be over and that would be even more unfair wouldn't it ??
Re: New rule idea to cut down on dodgy stoppages.....
IMO it should be mandatory, of course to be used at the ref's better judgement. They should have that option tho. Its perfect for saving fighters from unnecessary punishment, like being pinned against the ropes, look at what happened to Paret he didnt go down, so what just let Griffith pummel him to death til he drops? OK, that doesnt make sense. Only thing that could be bad, would be less k.o.s and when the ref give 8 counts to easily...thats kind of the same boat we are in now, but the fighter has more protection this way.
Re: New rule idea to cut down on dodgy stoppages.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
It seems to me that sometimes we have fights ended too early on a premature stoppage when the stopped fighter is still on his feet and fighting back.
Rafael Marquez last weekend in the most recent example and of course Manfredo's ridicoulously early stoppage earlier this year stand out, another one that sticks in my mind is Angel Manfredy being stopped against Floyd Mayweather.
Anyway in these situations rather than end the fight prematurely wouldn't it be better if like in amatuer boxing the referee could enforce a standing 8 count, so that the fighter gets the benefit of the doubt and a second chance and just as importantly the paying fans don't end up being shortchanged?
I know there would be a danger of them being too standing count happy and interupting the flow of fights but if it was done in a last resort in a situation where a fighter was under pressure but still on his feet and fighting back, and the referee would otherwise stop the fight, an 8 count alternative would be better?
I think this is a great idea... The Manfredo fight would have been stopped anyway but 35000+ people and the viewing audience around the world would have atleast hopefully seen a fight!
CC :D
Re: New rule idea to cut down on dodgy stoppages.....
At first I agreed, but after thinking about it some more I am not for standing 8 counts..
If you think stoppages are too subjective, standing kd's are way more so. Corrupt ref's could use them to favor his guy after he lands a few nice shots. Fighters should know to take a knee if they can't stand and fight back, or else expect the fight to be stopped. This is what cuts down on subjectivity.
Re: New rule idea to cut down on dodgy stoppages.....
I don't understand how they can stop a fight for "fear of what may happen to the fighter." and then let them do it a third time.
It was done to make the third fight. That's my opinion.
It's obvious that Vazquez had the upperhand and the chance to KO Marquez was well at hand, but Vazquez was a dang mess and I thought it wouldn't be long until his wounds ended the fight.
Marquez did himself in by taking those shots so willingly.
