Toney Rahman: why a TKO was the right call

By William Dettloff of The Ring Magazine


"As dissatisfying as was James Toney’s victory over Hasim Rahman, it was exactly right to call it a TKO rather than a no-contest. Why? Rahman chose not to fight anymore; that makes him the loser. If the ringside doctor said the cut was too bad for the fight to continue (it wasn’t), then a no-decision would have been the right call.


That wasn’t the case. Rahman had the same look on his face that he did when Evander Holyfield made him look like he had a Lincoln Navigator on his forehead. The look said: “Get me out of here.” If a fighter surrenders, he loses. I know that’s not what the rules say. The rules are wrong."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lance Uppercut

By William Dettloff of The Ring Magazine


"As dissatisfying as was James Toney’s victory over Hasim Rahman, it was exactly right to call it a TKO rather than a no-contest. Why? Rahman chose not to fight anymore; that makes him the loser. If the ringside doctor said the cut was too bad for the fight to continue (it wasn’t), then a no-decision would have been the right call.


That wasn’t the case. Rahman had the same look on his face that he did when Evander Holyfield made him look like he had a Lincoln Navigator on his forehead. The look said: “Get me out of here.” If a fighter surrenders, he loses. I know that’s not what the rules say. The rules are wrong."

---

Yeah I read after the fight that Rahman said he couldn't continue so technically the decision was correct even if wrong in the eyes of fans. I have not seen the fight but if that report I read was correct then the decision is technically correct. Right or wrong i guess.

Having watched the fight a few times more I couldnt take anything away from Toney. He came to fight and Rahman did wuss out. I initially thought the decision questionable but on reflection have no issues with Toney taking the win. Rahman gave himself away in the post fight interviews.

Yeah if a fighter says he can't continue then the decision has to go that way i guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lance Uppercut

By William Dettloff of The Ring Magazine


"As dissatisfying as was James Toney’s victory over Hasim Rahman, it was exactly right to call it a TKO rather than a no-contest. Why? Rahman chose not to fight anymore; that makes him the loser. If the ringside doctor said the cut was too bad for the fight to continue (it wasn’t), then a no-decision would have been the right call.


That wasn’t the case. Rahman had the same look on his face that he did when Evander Holyfield made him look like he had a Lincoln Navigator on his forehead. The look said: “Get me out of here.” If a fighter surrenders, he loses. I know that’s not what the rules say. The rules are wrong."

---

I thought the Holyfield fight should have been a no-contest. I think they ruled the swelling came from a punch and it came from Holyfield's forehead. There's no way that fight could have continued.

I saw a several things;

- Toney dictated the pace which was way to fast for Rahman
- Toney was hitting Rahman with the harder punches and Hasim could not get any consistent leather on Toney...
- The cut further rattled Rahman and he just wanted out.

The controversy gave Hasim Rahman a great argument and even left doubt which is what will get Rahman another high level fight...He did the smart thing for his career because Hasim Rahman was going to get stopped if this fight went on...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Killface

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lance Uppercut

By William Dettloff of The Ring Magazine


"As dissatisfying as was James Toney’s victory over Hasim Rahman, it was exactly right to call it a TKO rather than a no-contest. Why? Rahman chose not to fight anymore; that makes him the loser. If the ringside doctor said the cut was too bad for the fight to continue (it wasn’t), then a no-decision would have been the right call.


That wasn’t the case. Rahman had the same look on his face that he did when Evander Holyfield made him look like he had a Lincoln Navigator on his forehead. The look said: “Get me out of here.” If a fighter surrenders, he loses. I know that’s not what the rules say. The rules are wrong."

---

I thought the Holyfield fight should have been a no-contest. I think they ruled the swelling came from a punch and it came from Holyfield's forehead. There's no way that fight could have continued.

---

The holyfield fight was ruled an accidental head butt, but it was after 4 rounds were complete so they went to the score cards.

It was a complete miscall. I think people should examine what happened on the same night on ESPN2 and get a bit of a reality check.

If the first priority of every commission is fighter safety, then the California Commission failed in a very big way. Rahman did not say "I can't continue", he said "I can't see". NONE of us know if this is true or not. What we do know is that the cut was caused by headbutt.

Assume this is true, because if you are going to value fighter safety as number one priority, you have to. Then OF COURSE he has to stop the fight. It's a matter of fighter safety, you can't have a fight with a guy competing with sight in only one eye.

What do we want? Rahman to say he is perfectly fine and risk his health in doing so? The California Commission just penalized Rahman for telling the doctor he can't see. If it was true, which you have to assume it is, then they should all be ashamed of themselves. So what happens next time a fighter genuinely can't see?

"No doc, I'm fine"

Ridiculous. Toney was well on his way to winning the fight but that is no justification. That's my take on it anyways.

The answer that Rahman gave the doctor when asked did he want to continue was "I ain't fighting with one eye."

The doctor never implied the cut would merit a stoppage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amat

It was a complete miscall. I think people should examine what happened on the same night on ESPN2 and get a bit of a reality check.

If the first priority of every commission is fighter safety, then the California Commission failed in a very big way. Rahman did not say "I can't continue", he said "I can't see". NONE of us know if this is true or not. What we do know is that the cut was caused by headbutt.

Assume this is true, because if you are going to value fighter safety as number one priority, you have to. Then OF COURSE he has to stop the fight. It's a matter of fighter safety, you can't have a fight with a guy competing with sight in only one eye.

What do we want? Rahman to say he is perfectly fine and risk his health in doing so? The California Commission just penalized Rahman for telling the doctor he can't see. If it was true, which you have to assume it is, then they should all be ashamed of themselves. So what happens next time a fighter genuinely can't see?

"No doc, I'm fine"

Ridiculous. Toney was well on his way to winning the fight but that is no justification. That's my take on it anyways.

---

Yes good points. however it depends on what he said i suppose. I've heard conflicting reports on that. You say he said he didn't say he can't continue and others say he did. I don't know as i still haven't seen the fight. If he did then no prob's if he didn't then it gets very technical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amat

It was a complete miscall. I think people should examine what happened on the same night on ESPN2 and get a bit of a reality check.

If the first priority of every commission is fighter safety, then the California Commission failed in a very big way. Rahman did not say "I can't continue", he said "I can't see". NONE of us know if this is true or not. What we do know is that the cut was caused by headbutt.

Assume this is true, because if you are going to value fighter safety as number one priority, you have to. Then OF COURSE he has to stop the fight. It's a matter of fighter safety, you can't have a fight with a guy competing with sight in only one eye.

What do we want? Rahman to say he is perfectly fine and risk his health in doing so? The California Commission just penalized Rahman for telling the doctor he can't see. If it was true, which you have to assume it is, then they should all be ashamed of themselves. So what happens next time a fighter genuinely can't see?

"No doc, I'm fine"

Ridiculous. Toney was well on his way to winning the fight but that is no justification. That's my take on it anyways.

---

Your argument is ridiculous and it gives any fighter an "out" when getting beaten up...The fact is a medical expert examined the cut and ruled there was no physical danger due to the cut to Hasim Rahman...Hasim Rahman decided he did not want to fight any longer so he quit, pretty simple...

I have it here on my computer. The doctor comes over, asks about the cut, and it goes like this.

Cornerman: That was a headbutt wasn't it?
Doctor: Yes I believe it was
Rahman: I can't see, it's not clear.

Fight was immediately waved off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Promoter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amat

It was a complete miscall. I think people should examine what happened on the same night on ESPN2 and get a bit of a reality check.

If the first priority of every commission is fighter safety, then the California Commission failed in a very big way. Rahman did not say "I can't continue", he said "I can't see". NONE of us know if this is true or not. What we do know is that the cut was caused by headbutt.

Assume this is true, because if you are going to value fighter safety as number one priority, you have to. Then OF COURSE he has to stop the fight. It's a matter of fighter safety, you can't have a fight with a guy competing with sight in only one eye.

What do we want? Rahman to say he is perfectly fine and risk his health in doing so? The California Commission just penalized Rahman for telling the doctor he can't see. If it was true, which you have to assume it is, then they should all be ashamed of themselves. So what happens next time a fighter genuinely can't see?

"No doc, I'm fine"

Ridiculous. Toney was well on his way to winning the fight but that is no justification. That's my take on it anyways.

---

Your argument is ridiculous and it gives any fighter an "out" when getting beaten up...The fact is a medical expert examined the cut and ruled there was no physical danger due to the cut to Hasim Rahman...Hasim Rahman decided he did not want to fight any longer so he quit, pretty simple...

---

No, you're wrong. The medical expert was told by Rahman that he couldn't see, and that was the fight. There was NO examination of the cut. The doctor was on the post fight broadcast and clearly stated that. He did not rule that there was no physical danger because he didn't rule anything at all. He heard that and stopped it before ever examining the cut.

It doesn't matter if Rahman was using it as an "out" or not. Either way he wasn't fighting. Anyone who saw the fight knows who was winning and who was going to win, but it doesn't make this right. Commissions are supposed to have fighter safety first, unless they want to call Rahman an outright liar, this was a terrible ruling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Promoter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amat

It was a complete miscall. I think people should examine what happened on the same night on ESPN2 and get a bit of a reality check.

If the first priority of every commission is fighter safety, then the California Commission failed in a very big way. Rahman did not say "I can't continue", he said "I can't see". NONE of us know if this is true or not. What we do know is that the cut was caused by headbutt.

Assume this is true, because if you are going to value fighter safety as number one priority, you have to. Then OF COURSE he has to stop the fight. It's a matter of fighter safety, you can't have a fight with a guy competing with sight in only one eye.

What do we want? Rahman to say he is perfectly fine and risk his health in doing so? The California Commission just penalized Rahman for telling the doctor he can't see. If it was true, which you have to assume it is, then they should all be ashamed of themselves. So what happens next time a fighter genuinely can't see?

"No doc, I'm fine"

Ridiculous. Toney was well on his way to winning the fight but that is no justification. That's my take on it anyways.

---

Your argument is ridiculous and it gives any fighter an "out" when getting beaten up...The fact is a medical expert examined the cut and ruled there was no physical danger due to the cut to Hasim Rahman...Hasim Rahman decided he did not want to fight any longer so he quit, pretty simple...

---

No, you're wrong. The medical expert was told by Rahman that he couldn't see, and that was the fight. There was NO examination of the cut. The doctor was on the post fight broadcast and clearly stated that. He did not rule that there was no physical danger because he didn't rule anything at all. He heard that and stopped it before ever examining the cut.

It doesn't matter if Rahman was using it as an "out" or not. Either way he wasn't fighting. Anyone who saw the fight knows who was winning and who was going to win, but it doesn't make this right. Commissions are supposed to have fighter safety first, unless they want to call Rahman an outright liar, this was a terrible ruling.

---

Your making my point, maybe Rahman couldn't see because of being knocked silly as he was during the round, didn't you see him staggered toward the end of the round? It was determined that the cut was not severe enough to stop the fight, hell the blood flow didn't even warrant the ref to stop the action. Hasim maintained that "blood flow" was the reason he could not see, watch the post fight interview...the Doctor determined that the cut did not present a danger to the fighter but it was Rahman that said he "couldn't see" for whatever reason maybe a detached retina, brain damage, or whatever, all valid reasons to quit....but the cut was not reason enough to stop the fight.

Fact is, that Rahman got a cut from an unintentional head but, the cut itself was not reason enough to stop the fight...much in the same manner if a fighter hurts their hand, shoulder, knee, etc...they cannot expect the fight to go to the scorecards because they want it that way...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amat

Rahman did not say "I can't continue", he said "I can't see".

---

When you are making this comment, unsolicited, to a ringside physician, there is no difference between to the two phrases. They both mean the same thing:"please stop this fight"