1) Russ Anber is one of the finest and most impartial analyst in Canada, as for example, when Margarito (who used to be his favorite boxer) got caught with loaded gloves, he didn't get into no bullshits using arguments like "it could have been hand cream and stuff) he just said: "he's guilty, it's unfortunate, I can't defend him. You can discredit him on the sole fact that he's canadian otherwise everytime, let's say an american defends or agree with an american boxer, it would be easy to pull the card of "well he american and americans defend their boys therefore we can take acount of it".
Bute is Canada's top boxer, of course they will defend him. The only country where they don't really do this is the US and that's more probably closely related to the sheer number of boxers they have, but don't ignore all the excuses made when its one of their favourite sons such as Pavlik or De La Hoya. They certainly do it here in Britain, and I'm not denying that.
2) I never said there was no controversy, I said that Bute won fair and square according to the rules, which doesn't change what kimball said and what I stated, get the fact straight, I just said Bute won fairly the fight, the end was dramatic but nowhere there has been "cheating".
Find where I said that Bute was cheating. He was going a little outside the rules, and that's fine, he's a fighter he's gotta do what he can to win the fight. What is not acceptable is Wright drastically favouring one fighter in his officiating of the fight.
3) Marlon just followed the rules according to most specialists, sure he did let Bute grab but once again, he never come close grab as much as Lewis used to do, Ruiz or Hatton, so where is the problem there? should he be solely blamed for something countless referee did let happen but in much worst and "exaggerate" way with likes of Hatton, Lewis et cie?
I can't stand Ruiz, and some of the stuff Hatton got away with against Tszyu was disgraceful and again exemplary of poor officiating. I've never said its just Canada. However, Marlon as you so affectionately call him did not follow the rules in much of what he did, typically in the inconsistency between the 2 counts seen in the 2nd video. Also lifting someone's leg off the canvas goes a bit beyond simple clinching, and a decent ref should take care of that.
4) On Guy Jutras, the guy is an international judge, do you think he minds to say that the guy lost? Absolutely not. Also, Bute is not canadian by the way, he trains in Montreal but he's Romanian (just like Andrade train in Montreal by the way and is over here too, almost much as Bute). I don't know why the link doesn't work but here' another link, in french
jminforme.ca - Guy Jutras explique les circonstances du 12e round Bute-Andrade | Par Marc Tougas, LA PRESSE CANADIENNE - Jminforme.ca
Bute is an honorary Canadian as you and I both know. Of course I don't think Jutras would say he thought that Bute lost if he thought so. What I don't think he would do is criticize the performance of a Canadian boxing official, who in all likelihood he is on some kind of terms with (unless you're going to tell me everyone becomes a boxing ref in Canada & its not actually a small circle).
5) As for Russ Anber, it seems like in the last 24 hours Tsn did wash up their video section as most have been voided, stupid coincidence. However , here's a link that quotes him as saying, in the text, that no matter what we could say about the referee (which, once again, didn't allow more grabbing than most of Lewis Ruiz or Hatton), Bute would have had time to stand up and make th count
Lucian Bute defeats Librado Andrade, but questions remain - ESPN
If you had actually bothered to read my previous point you would see that I said that I'm willing to accept the argument that Bute made it up in time, even if I disagree. If anything you should be angry at Wright because his antics meant that it could not be definitively proved that Bute made it up in time.
6) I'Ve seen these videos COUNTLESS times, sure Bute has difficulties in the last seconds but what the rule say is: "as long as the boxer is able to defend himself and act consciously, the fight's on". Bute has no more juice, sure, but he was conscious and was moving logically to avoid the shots and as far as I know the rules, to do such thing to survive is legal and accepted, what is not is if ou get in a corner (for example) get bombed without any defense/resistence REPEATEDELY and getting in danger for health. This was obviously not to that point as he could moved till he get cornered and went down... to went up on time.
For at least the last 18 seconds Bute is not moving logically, he is staggering everywhere, and is out on his fight. The fact he's conscious means nothing, if Andrade was in that position I would want the fight stopped. It doesn't matter if you're in the corner if you're getting hit repeatedly & not throwing back then the ref should stop the fight. If something had happened to Bute permanently it would have been unforgivable. The fact he pulled himself up with the ropes & was then helped to his corner post-fight shows you that it was not simply like he bounced back up like you implied.
7) It takes one second to make sure that the other fighter goes to the corner as stipulated to the rules, the way you describe falsily it it's like if the referee would have looked at Andrade for 30 seconds ignoring that he was on the floor.
Andrade was in the vicinity of the furthest corner, he was not going to be able to get across the ring to take Bute out in a couple of seconds even if the fight had been going on longer. Wright's actions robbed the fans of a definitive conclusion and left doubt on Bute's victory. There was also no need at all for Wright to turn a full 180 & charge across the ring.
Do you really think that everytime there is a fight and that a referee doesn't act "correctly" the president of the alphabetic organisation looks bad? If he would pick a brand new out of the school referee for an important match, sure, when he picks a guy that has around 20 years of service? I don't think so, in fact, no, he can't be responsible for the mistakes somebody normally competent makes, it's like if you say that a whole police service (for example) would be responsible if an agent with 20 years of service burst his bubbles once and beat for no reasons somebody or to blame a school if one of his teachers decide to go to his work one morning totally wasted.
Of course, the IBF will back him, they already had people asking why Wright had been allowed to referee Bute's previous five fights. That is unacceptable, as a fighter should not be allowed to build that kind of familiarity with a ref, they should have at least put Bolen in for some of those. Muhammad is not responsible for the mistakes but he would have faced some serious problems had he not stood behind Wright. Why do you think they didn't pick him for Bute's next fight?
9) If you want to take the bet, sure, I accept, there is no proofs that YOU will pay as I don't know you but it is absolutely not a proof to contest my good will or or my honesty solely based on what YOU would do. I could even foster this argument further in saying that no matter with who you bet you can't be 100% certain that he'll pay and even there there wouldn't much you could do. Also, such bet is kinda done publicly, on one hand, I do not want to lose my credibility infront of the whole community here and as you question my integrity, if I would win and that you wouldn't want to honor your bet, you can be sure that I would gladly use the "integrity and credibility" every time you would argue with somebody where you're defending a "controversial" point to show how we cannot give much credibility to your saying because you,re just not up to your words. 100 bucks which aren't lost but that should have been gained, that's not that much to nag at somebody for his inconsistency when he called somebody elses on that
What in the name of all that is holy does that mean? Did that make sense when you wrote it? All I have to say is that, most people on here could tell you if I'm a credible poster here, and that I will more than admit I'm wrong if I've been proved so. I've basically intimated that I wouldn't pay & any reasonable poster could tell that, because 100 euros is a lot of money, we don't all come from wealth. But, I'm not the one proposing bets. If you want to do a sig bet fine, but don't start talking about silly levels of money because no one will take you seriously whether you mean it or not.
10) I not see where my impartiality is scorched, Bute made the count, the referee did let him grab because it was legit and not exagerated, I find our reason to question my integrity on that shallow actually, I agree with you it was a dramatic end and that it would have been a lot better if it wouldn'thave happened for everybody but controversy and dramatic doesn't mean that the victory wasn't legit and legal.
If you think Bute made the count fine, but if you think lifting someone's leg off the canvas is legal you need to read up on the rules. I question your impartiality on the basis that you think one of the most controversial & criticized fights of last year was refereed to perfection. I'm willing to see your side on certain points such as Bute making the count & he certainly won the fight, but you refuse to see anything but a clear, well-refereed Bute victory 
Thanks: 
Likes: 
Dislikes: 
Re: Pavlik wants Froch..Popkins wants Froch... Froch wants Bute
Originally Posted by Nameless
I am impartial, I like Bute, sure, but I have always been impartial for these situations as it goes from the credibility of boxing.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks