Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
A fighters welfare has nothing to do with this debate. If a boxer is hurt badly enough that it would be unsafe to let him continue, the fight should be stopped irrelevant of whether he's been floored or not.
It's about whether a RULE works. The three knockdown rule CLEARLY doesn't. It can't differentiate between a GENUINE knockdown and a SLIP.
Of course it can determined! the difference between a slip and a kd is often obvious.
The ref obviously deems it a slip or a KD. If it's a knockdown it's counted as one.
Sure there may be the ocasional mistake but whats the liklihood of three slips in one round being deemed Knockdowns?
Refs call it wrong all the time. Recent example - Barrera-Marquez. Barrera CLEARLY floored Marquez but Nady called it a SLIP!
The likelihood of three slips is irrelevant. A fighter could LOSE a fight because of it. That's enough to warrant the rule being unfair.
Just EXPLAIN why Marquez-Pac should have been stopped?
It is relevant.
You can see three slips being ruled knockdowns in one round and a fighter losing a fight because of a three knockdown rule?
Do you think Marquez was hurt?
How come Nady ruled Barrera's knockdown of Marqez a SLIP when everyone else on earth could see it was a GENUINE knockdown?
Of course Marquez was hurt. But he recovered to outbox Pac for the most part. This fight just highlights why your argument is useless.
Why should it have been stopped?
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
A fighters welfare has nothing to do with this debate. If a boxer is hurt badly enough that it would be unsafe to let him continue, the fight should be stopped irrelevant of whether he's been floored or not.
It's about whether a RULE works. The three knockdown rule CLEARLY doesn't. It can't differentiate between a GENUINE knockdown and a SLIP.
Of course it can determined! the difference between a slip and a kd is often obvious.
The ref obviously deems it a slip or a KD. If it's a knockdown it's counted as one.
Sure there may be the ocasional mistake but whats the liklihood of three slips in one round being deemed Knockdowns?
Refs call it wrong all the time. Recent example - Barrera-Marquez. Barrera CLEARLY floored Marquez but Nady called it a SLIP!
The likelihood of three slips is irrelevant. A fighter could LOSE a fight because of it. That's enough to warrant the rule being unfair.
Just EXPLAIN why Marquez-Pac should have been stopped?
It is relevant.
You can see three slips being ruled knockdowns in one round and a fighter losing a fight because of a three knockdown rule?
Do you think Marquez was hurt?
The 3 knockdown rule is ridiculous and ive actually won a fight because of it. On sat 4th december 1999 I boxed in the isle of man at a venue called Summerland. I knocked my opponent down twice in the first round and the ref also gave him a standing 8 count. I knew when the round ended the ref had to stop it. Something he did when the bell for the second round started. Now my opponent was a strong sod and my legs were gone.
Now if the ref had let the fight go on he could have fought back and beaten me. the rule is blatantly stupid.
in the fight i had after this which was @ some hotel in warrington I got two standing 8 counts in the first round. yet the fight went the full 3 rounds and at the end my opponent was out of gas and i could have gone another 3 rounds.
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
A fighters welfare has nothing to do with this debate. If a boxer is hurt badly enough that it would be unsafe to let him continue, the fight should be stopped irrelevant of whether he's been floored or not.
It's about whether a RULE works. The three knockdown rule CLEARLY doesn't. It can't differentiate between a GENUINE knockdown and a SLIP.
Wait,your saying that a referee cant be trusted to differentiate between a slip and a genuine knockdown but should have full discretion over when a fighters safety is in jepardy?
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
A fighters welfare has nothing to do with this debate. If a boxer is hurt badly enough that it would be unsafe to let him continue, the fight should be stopped irrelevant of whether he's been floored or not.
It's about whether a RULE works. The three knockdown rule CLEARLY doesn't. It can't differentiate between a GENUINE knockdown and a SLIP.
Of course it can determined! the difference between a slip and a kd is often obvious.
The ref obviously deems it a slip or a KD. If it's a knockdown it's counted as one.
Sure there may be the ocasional mistake but whats the liklihood of three slips in one round being deemed Knockdowns?
Refs call it wrong all the time. Recent example - Barrera-Marquez. Barrera CLEARLY floored Marquez but Nady called it a SLIP!
The likelihood of three slips is irrelevant. A fighter could LOSE a fight because of it. That's enough to warrant the rule being unfair.
Just EXPLAIN why Marquez-Pac should have been stopped?
It is relevant.
You can see three slips being ruled knockdowns in one round and a fighter losing a fight because of a three knockdown rule?
Do you think Marquez was hurt?
How come Nady ruled Barrera's knockdown of Marqez a SLIP when everyone else on earth could see it was a GENUINE knockdown?
Of course Marquez was hurt. But he recovered to outbox Pac for the most part. This fight just highlights why your argument is useless.
Why should it have been stopped?
That was one knockdown. And your arguing as to what if slips are being ruled knockdowns???
Marquez was badly hurt, he did recover and in my opinion did enough to win. But tell me how often does that happen? And how often does the alternative happen and a fighter gets badly Ko'd. Sure it's great to see a one in a million win, but not as good as seeing a fighter in danger being saved from imminent danger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEANIE
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
A fighters welfare has nothing to do with this debate. If a boxer is hurt badly enough that it would be unsafe to let him continue, the fight should be stopped irrelevant of whether he's been floored or not.
It's about whether a RULE works. The three knockdown rule CLEARLY doesn't. It can't differentiate between a GENUINE knockdown and a SLIP.
Of course it can determined! the difference between a slip and a kd is often obvious.
The ref obviously deems it a slip or a KD. If it's a knockdown it's counted as one.
Sure there may be the ocasional mistake but whats the liklihood of three slips in one round being deemed Knockdowns?
Refs call it wrong all the time. Recent example - Barrera-Marquez. Barrera CLEARLY floored Marquez but Nady called it a SLIP!
The likelihood of three slips is irrelevant. A fighter could LOSE a fight because of it. That's enough to warrant the rule being unfair.
Just EXPLAIN why Marquez-Pac should have been stopped?
It is relevant.
You can see three slips being ruled knockdowns in one round and a fighter losing a fight because of a three knockdown rule?
Do you think Marquez was hurt?
The 3 knockdown rule is ridiculous and ive actually won a fight because of it. On sat 4th december 1999 I boxed in the isle of man at a venue called Summerland. I knocked my opponent down twice in the first round and the ref also gave him a standing 8 count. I knew when the round ended the ref had to stop it. Something he did when the bell for the second round started. Now my opponent was a strong sod and my legs were gone.
Now if the ref had let the fight go on he could have fought back and beaten me. the rule is blatantly stupid.
in the fight i had after this which was @ some hotel in warrington I got two standing 8 counts in the first round. yet the fight went the full 3 rounds and at the end my opponent was out of gas and i could have gone another 3 rounds.
I call bullshit.
You said in another thread you boxed between 2000 and 2002.
In an anmateur fight 2 standing 8 counts is an automatic loss.
Unless the referee was completely ignorant of Irish British and European amateur boxing rules and authority that didn't happen
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Monkey and Donny, you're the only two that don't understand so -
Is there the possibility that a ref can call a knockdown incorrectly? Yes.
Is there any examples of refs calling knockdowns incorrectly? Yes.
Is there the possibilty an incorrect call could have a bearing on a fight? Yes.
Does this affect the three-knockdown rule? Yes.
Does this show the three-knockdown rule is highly flawed? Yes.
The end.
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Monkey and Donny, you're the only two that don't understand so -
Is there the possibility that a ref can call a knockdown incorrectly? Yes.
Is there any examples of refs calling knockdowns incorrectly? Yes.
Is there the possibilty an incorrect call could have a bearing on a fight? Yes.
Does this affect the three-knockdown rule? Yes.
Does this show the three-knockdown rule is highly flawed? Yes.
The end.
Very condescending.
I'll go over it one more time.....
Is it likely to happen that three slips in one round could be ruled knockdowns? No.
Is it true that a fighter knocked down three times (and alloweed continue) is a lot more likely to suffer injury? Yes.
Which is more important. A fighters health or letting fights continue so as to come to a satisfying conclusion for "the fans?"............
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Monkey and Donny, you're the only two that don't understand so -
Is there the possibility that a ref can call a knockdown incorrectly? Yes.
Is there any examples of refs calling knockdowns incorrectly? Yes.
Is there the possibilty an incorrect call could have a bearing on a fight? Yes.
Does this affect the three-knockdown rule? Yes.
Does this show the three-knockdown rule is highly flawed? Yes.
The end.
No your the only one who doesnt understand
Odds that you have three slips in one round all called knockdowns,so small you cant even see it from here
Odds that within 3 minutes a fighter knocked down three times is allready hurt,huge
Odds that most refs even let it go to 3 knockdowns,so minimal as to be laughable
Odds that a slip is caused by a wet corner,most of the time
Odds that a ref doesnt notice that,apparantly in your world the WBA IBF and the WBO are allowing ref's to park their seeing eye dogs besides the ring
Do you like the fighters you claim to be a fan of?
Want to see them die in the ring?
Bad stoppages happen all the time,but its almost never on a 3 knockdown rule,the three knockdown rule is to protect fighters from bad reffing,and from themselves.Some guys want to keep going,Jerry Quarry comes to mind
Howd his life end up?
Talk for five minutes to Ken Norton,try and tell me exactly what he said.Tommy Hearns sounds exactly like he did in 85 right?
No?
Huh,maybe fighters do need some protections then
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
A fighters welfare has nothing to do with this debate. If a boxer is hurt badly enough that it would be unsafe to let him continue, the fight should be stopped irrelevant of whether he's been floored or not.
It's about whether a RULE works. The three knockdown rule CLEARLY doesn't. It can't differentiate between a GENUINE knockdown and a SLIP.
Of course it can determined! the difference between a slip and a kd is often obvious.
The ref obviously deems it a slip or a KD. If it's a knockdown it's counted as one.
Sure there may be the ocasional mistake but whats the liklihood of three slips in one round being deemed Knockdowns?
Refs call it wrong all the time. Recent example - Barrera-Marquez. Barrera CLEARLY floored Marquez but Nady called it a SLIP!
The likelihood of three slips is irrelevant. A fighter could LOSE a fight because of it. That's enough to warrant the rule being unfair.
Just EXPLAIN why Marquez-Pac should have been stopped?
It is relevant.
You can see three slips being ruled knockdowns in one round and a fighter losing a fight because of a three knockdown rule?
Do you think Marquez was hurt?
How come Nady ruled Barrera's knockdown of Marqez a SLIP when everyone else on earth could see it was a GENUINE knockdown?
Of course Marquez was hurt. But he recovered to outbox Pac for the most part. This fight just highlights why your argument is useless.
Why should it have been stopped?
That was
one knockdown. And your arguing as to what if slips are being ruled knockdowns???
Marquez was badly hurt, he did recover and in my opinion did enough to win. But tell me how often does that happen? And how often does the alternative happen and a fighter gets badly Ko'd. Sure it's great to see a one in a million win, but not as good as seeing a fighter in danger being saved from imminent danger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEANIE
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
A fighters welfare has nothing to do with this debate. If a boxer is hurt badly enough that it would be unsafe to let him continue, the fight should be stopped irrelevant of whether he's been floored or not.
It's about whether a RULE works. The three knockdown rule CLEARLY doesn't. It can't differentiate between a GENUINE knockdown and a SLIP.
Of course it can determined! the difference between a slip and a kd is often obvious.
The ref obviously deems it a slip or a KD. If it's a knockdown it's counted as one.
Sure there may be the ocasional mistake but whats the liklihood of three slips in one round being deemed Knockdowns?
Refs call it wrong all the time. Recent example - Barrera-Marquez. Barrera CLEARLY floored Marquez but Nady called it a SLIP!
The likelihood of three slips is irrelevant. A fighter could LOSE a fight because of it. That's enough to warrant the rule being unfair.
Just EXPLAIN why Marquez-Pac should have been stopped?
It is relevant.
You can see three slips being ruled knockdowns in one round and a fighter losing a fight because of a three knockdown rule?
Do you think Marquez was hurt?
The 3 knockdown rule is ridiculous and ive actually won a fight because of it. On sat 4th december 1999 I boxed in the isle of man at a venue called Summerland. I knocked my opponent down twice in the first round and the ref also gave him a standing 8 count. I knew when the round ended the ref had to stop it. Something he did when the bell for the second round started. Now my opponent was a strong sod and my legs were gone.
Now if the ref had let the fight go on he could have fought back and beaten me. the rule is blatantly stupid.
in the fight i had after this which was @ some hotel in warrington I got two standing 8 counts in the first round. yet the fight went the full 3 rounds and at the end my opponent was out of gas and i could have gone another 3 rounds.
I call bullshit.
You said in another thread you boxed between 2000 and 2002.
In an anmateur fight 2 standing 8 counts is an automatic loss.
Unless the referee was completely ignorant of Irish British and European amateur boxing rules and authority that didn't happen
I boxed between december 1998 when i boxed GARY HAMPTON @ Austin rawlinson sports centre in Speke till Feb 2000 when i boxed in Warrington.
Ive got all the details on my trophys i'll check the dates when i get home and post up a summary of my amauteur career tommorow 5 bouts 1 win 4 losses.
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Monkey and Donny, you're the only two that don't understand so -
Is there the possibility that a ref can call a knockdown incorrectly? Yes.
Is there any examples of refs calling knockdowns incorrectly? Yes.
Is there the possibilty an incorrect call could have a bearing on a fight? Yes.
Does this affect the three-knockdown rule? Yes.
Does this show the three-knockdown rule is highly flawed? Yes.
The end.
Very condescending.
I'll go over it one more time.....
Is it likely to happen that three slips in one round could be ruled knockdowns? No.
Is it true that a fighter knocked down three times (and alloweed continue) is a lot more likely to suffer injury? Yes.
Which is more important. A fighters health or letting fights continue so as to come to a satisfying conclusion for "the fans?"............
::**
It's not about LIKELY. It's possible. Therefore proves the three-knockdown rule is flawed. Fact.
I'll give you one more chance - EXPLAIN why Marquez should have been PREVENTED from continuing against Pac? Even though you believe he WON THE FIGHT!!!
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Monkey and Donny, you're the only two that don't understand so -
Is there the possibility that a ref can call a knockdown incorrectly? Yes.
Is there any examples of refs calling knockdowns incorrectly? Yes.
Is there the possibilty an incorrect call could have a bearing on a fight? Yes.
Does this affect the three-knockdown rule? Yes.
Does this show the three-knockdown rule is highly flawed? Yes.
The end.
Very condescending.
I'll go over it one more time.....
Is it likely to happen that three slips in one round could be ruled knockdowns? No.
Is it true that a fighter knocked down three times (and alloweed continue) is a lot more likely to suffer injury? Yes.
Which is more important. A fighters health or letting fights continue so as to come to a satisfying conclusion for "the fans?"............
::**
It's not about LIKELY. It's possible. Therefore proves the three-knockdown rule is flawed. Fact.
I'll give you one more chance - EXPLAIN why Marquez should have been PREVENTED from continuing against Pac? Even though you believe he WON THE FIGHT!!!
Would you agree that it is also a strong possability that a fightergetting knocked down three times would be likely to sustain an injury if allowed continue?
And as you didn answer my question I womn't answer yours.
However i think I mad my logic clear.
Had there been a three knockdown rule yes, it should have been stopped, but there wasn't.
Do I still believe there should be a three knockdown rule? Yes.
Why? Because fighters that get knocked down more than twice oin a round find themselves 10-7 down and are extremely like to be badly hurt.
Fighters before fans.
Re: Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Monkey and Donny, you're the only two that don't understand so -
Is there the possibility that a ref can call a knockdown incorrectly? Yes.
Is there any examples of refs calling knockdowns incorrectly? Yes.
Is there the possibilty an incorrect call could have a bearing on a fight? Yes.
Does this affect the three-knockdown rule? Yes.
Does this show the three-knockdown rule is highly flawed? Yes.
The end.
Very condescending.
I'll go over it one more time.....
Is it likely to happen that three slips in one round could be ruled knockdowns? No.
Is it true that a fighter knocked down three times (and alloweed continue) is a lot more likely to suffer injury? Yes.
Which is more important. A fighters health or letting fights continue so as to come to a satisfying conclusion for "the fans?"............
::**
It's not about LIKELY. It's possible. Therefore proves the three-knockdown rule is flawed. Fact.
I'll give you one more chance - EXPLAIN why Marquez should have been PREVENTED from continuing against Pac? Even though you believe he WON THE FIGHT!!!
Would you agree that it is also a strong possability that a fightergetting knocked down three times would be likely to sustain an injury if allowed continue?
And as you didn answer my question I womn't answer yours.
However i think I mad my logic clear.
Had there been a three knockdown rule yes, it should have been stopped, but there wasn't.
Do I still believe there should be a three knockdown rule? Yes.
Why? Because fighters that get knocked down more than twice oin a round find themselves 10-7 down and are extremely like to be badly hurt.
Fighters before fans.
Fair enough.
Your question had nothing to do with what i'm trying to make you understand.
Not to worry, son ;)
