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?