Should There Be 3 Knockdown's Rule ??

[donnydarkoIRL]

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.

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