Printable View
I voted #2, but I have to qualify it somewhat - I don't think he is incompetent, I just think he made some bad decisions and had a rough beginning. Could have been from nerves, or just getting caught up in the "Hatton holds and mauls" expectation.
I was cussing him pretty bad for the first few rounds. He barely let em make contact before breaking em up. Horrible.
Wow. ''Clucthing at straws'', ''blowing things out of proportion''?Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Rover
These are far from the truth im my case. So i would like to clear MY name in that regard... I make no issue over the fact that Hatton was severly outclassed. See the link in place of my sig? Click it and you will see what i have been saying for months.
I just feel that Floyd was allowed to get away with a lot in that fight, and i say that regardles to the fact that Hatton himself was aloud to get away with many things throughout his own career.
I am a fan boy, but i wouldn't let that cloud my own judgement.
Yes, but I think that's why it would have been unusual for Cortez to penalize Floyd. For a referee to take a point in a fight like this, it usually has to be something that's dangerous and/or gives an unfair advantage -- i.e. rabbit punching or low blows or head butts, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Grinch
If Floyd had been *hitting* Hatton with the elbow, he certainly would have been penalized, but he never really crossed into that territory. I mean, if you'd penalized Floyd for what he was doing, Bernard Hopkins would never be able to fight again.
When one fighter leads with his shoulder and the other leads with his face, you have to kind of expect that an elbow is going to get in between them once in awhile. Was it borderline for Floyd to shove off with them? Sure, but Hatton's problem was more with Floyd's fists.
I voted 'he was biased'
However Hatton wouldn't have won even if Micky Vann was the referee... ;D
I'll list my reasons now....
1: Cortez broke the fighters up early on everytime they got close. He didn't let them do any inside work and that takes away probably about 50% of Hatton's game (altho we later found out floyd was awesome on the inside - cortez wasn't to know this until later on)
2: The minute Hatton was cut, Cortez decided it was ok for them to fight on the inside. This is what pissed me off the most.
3: Cortez coming over to Hatton's corner after the 8th to warn him he's going to stop the fight if he takes some more flush shots.....this was just after Floyd had unleashed a barrage on the ropes where maybe 3 or 4 punches landed. That was all. The fact that Ricky Hatton actually had a perfectly coherant conversation with Cortez supports the fact that he wasn't in any trouble
4: The points deduction - open to interpretation but imo it was very very harsh. Basically if a fighter bows down to your waistline and basically turns his back on you, he is bound to take one to the back of the head. Where else are you able to land a punch? Don't get me wrong, those sort of punches are highly dangerous but imo Floyd's bowing down to Hatton's waistline was main cause of it.
Its also worth remembering that Cortez was pretty biased against Castillo when Hatton fought him in June. Not quite sure why......any ideas?
YUPQuote:
Originally Posted by Floyd_Fears_Cotto
I din't vot cuz none of the options really relates to what I think. Which is, he was way too involved in the fight for the first 3 rounds. After that he did ok.
I do have one problem in that he took a point away from Hatton for missing a shot behind the head and at the end of the very next round Mayweather really does hit Ricky behind the head while Ricky had his back turned on a break and Joe did not even warn him. Whether it was incompetance or biased behavior I leave to you to decide.
But honestly guys, what frigin difference does it make.
Im one of these guys who thinks. ''Well okay, Floyd was the better man by far, but i want as many people to know that the Ref had a hand in this''.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rookie Fan
I could be... No in fact, in many was, i AM wrong. But theres an element of my point that is too hard to fully explain without a huge debate that i wish for people to observe and take on board.
Not that it makes much of a difference.
Its hilarious how the Hatton fans are all up on arms about Cortez being biased, yet in Ricky's biggest win (tszyu) Dave Parris refereed in Hattons favor the whole fight. Ask Hattons fans about this and they'll deny it or say it would have not made a difference to the outcome.
Yet when the shoe is on the other foot see some of them cry.
Anyone who votes for the first option is in denial.
Id actually like to know who said Cortez was being biased.