Standing 8 count??

**Spicoli** · 10-21-2007 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by DaxxKahn

I am against it for two reasons....

Reason 1--the guy who is winning could possible be cheated out of his KO if the standing 8 count does not result in the ref stopping the bout and the fighter gets that break to recover...he could go on to with the bout...sounds crazy but 8 seconds turn into 15 or 20 by time the ref steps in tells the other guy to go to a corner, starts his count and if he decides the fighter can continue before they get back to the center of the ring another 3 or so seconds went by before a punch is thrown...in boxing time 15-20 seconds in an eternity to recover

Reason 2- it almost contradicts reason 1.....again the 8 count is implemented and a guy seems clear enough to continue...Fight continues and the guy absorbs more punishment because during the 8 count he was able to clear up the few cobwebs he had allowing him to absorb more punishment.....it is better to be KO'd then have the chance to clear up then go in and absorb twice the punishment....

I guess the best way to explain the second part would be this...

Run a car with no oil in it.....Just as the car starts to make noises shut it off...wait an hour then repeat the process...Finally once the engine seizes not only do you have to replace the heads and pistons but everything else that was taking abuse from the constant on and off action...when in all actuality you should have just let it seize the first time and all you would of had to do is replace the pistons and heads....

Don't know if that made sense but best example i could think of with only 1 cup of coffee in me

auto analogy

Good stuff Daxx.Early morning blurry CC to ya.

**Trainer Monkey** · 10-21-2007 05:01 PM

There but for a standing 8 my girl might have a very different record

**DaxxKahn** · 10-21-2007 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by Jeff Spicoli Surfs In 'Nawlins

Originally Posted by DaxxKahn

I am against it for two reasons....

Reason 1--the guy who is winning could possible be cheated out of his KO if the standing 8 count does not result in the ref stopping the bout and the fighter gets that break to recover...he could go on to with the bout...sounds crazy but 8 seconds turn into 15 or 20 by time the ref steps in tells the other guy to go to a corner, starts his count and if he decides the fighter can continue before they get back to the center of the ring another 3 or so seconds went by before a punch is thrown...in boxing time 15-20 seconds in an eternity to recover

Reason 2- it almost contradicts reason 1.....again the 8 count is implemented and a guy seems clear enough to continue...Fight continues and the guy absorbs more punishment because during the 8 count he was able to clear up the few cobwebs he had allowing him to absorb more punishment.....it is better to be KO'd then have the chance to clear up then go in and absorb twice the punishment....

I guess the best way to explain the second part would be this...

Run a car with no oil in it.....Just as the car starts to make noises shut it off...wait an hour then repeat the process...Finally once the engine seizes not only do you have to replace the heads and pistons but everything else that was taking abuse from the constant on and off action...when in all actuality you should have just let it seize the first time and all you would of had to do is replace the pistons and heads....

Don't know if that made sense but best example i could think of with only 1 cup of coffee in me

auto analogy

Good stuff Daxx.Early morning blurry CC to ya.

CC back at ya....Between lack of coffee and the phone ringing i got lost in what I was saying so i winged it

**SEANIE** · 10-22-2007 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by frozensolid_702

How many of these garbage a** stoppages would have been avoided had the "Standing 8 Count," been implemented in the fight?

They should make the "Standing 8 Count," absolutely, 100%, mandatory in EVERY fight.

if a boxer is unable to defend themselves they should be stopped. they should not have standing 8 counts unless a boxer is knocked down. After all why should you have to stop the same opponent twice. Mark Breland got given a standing 8 count in the olympics against Shawn Osullivan when he should have been stopped.

**The Rookie Fan** · 10-22-2007 03:54 PM

I agree with DK

It is potentially too subjective and at the same time potentially too dangerous.

One of two things may happend. Eather refs get too much of a safety first mentality and start taking points from a fighter who given 1 or 2 more seconds might recover and start throwing back or the ref fails to recognize the degree of punishment the fighter has taken and allows him to continue taking more punishment than necessary. Similar to Daxx's seccond point.

If you are hurt (and still consious), take a knee. Otherwise, fight back before it's too late.

**frozensolid_702** · 10-23-2007 11:01 PM

Originally Posted by SEANIE

Originally Posted by frozensolid_702

How many of these garbage a** stoppages would have been avoided had the "Standing 8 Count," been implemented in the fight?

They should make the "Standing 8 Count," absolutely, 100%, mandatory in EVERY fight.

if a boxer is unable to defend themselves they should be stopped. they should not have standing 8 counts unless a boxer is knocked down. After all why should you have to stop the same opponent twice. Mark Breland got given a standing 8 count in the olympics against Shawn Osullivan when he should have been stopped.

What about the Calzaghe vs Manfredo fight??

Surely Manfredo wasn't on his way down, but the ref jumped in and waived it off. The standing 8 count that some people oppose would have saved that fight (and many others)

**The Rookie Fan** · 10-24-2007 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by frozensolid_702

Originally Posted by SEANIE

Originally Posted by frozensolid_702

How many of these garbage a** stoppages would have been avoided had the "Standing 8 Count," been implemented in the fight?

They should make the "Standing 8 Count," absolutely, 100%, mandatory in EVERY fight.

if a boxer is unable to defend themselves they should be stopped. they should not have standing 8 counts unless a boxer is knocked down. After all why should you have to stop the same opponent twice. Mark Breland got given a standing 8 count in the olympics against Shawn Osullivan when he should have been stopped.

What about the Calzaghe vs Manfredo fight??

Surely Manfredo wasn't on his way down, but the ref jumped in and waived it off. The standing 8 count that some people oppose would have saved that fight (and many others)

Actually, that situation called for nither. It was just bad refferieing.

**Rican** · 10-24-2007 08:21 PM

It's a great topic of debate, and each side of the argument has its merits. However, I side with those that believe there shouldn't be standing 8 counts. In a nut shell, the referees should be trained to pay close attention to the fight, specifcally the condition of the fighters, and call off the fight when it is truly evident that a fighter has had enough. Referees should also know who is fighting as well. Some guys can come back after being knocked down and hurt. Referees shouldn't have an itchy trigger finger in those cases. Bbasically, referees should be more on top of it so that controversies do not occur.