Tonight's Action

First topic message reminder :

Disappointing from Buglioni, would have expected him to have had the guy out of there by now.

It's nearly Chisora time, final thoughts?

He is in the UK already doing some charity work. His slur is still there but less so. He actually looks a lot better than he has in the past. I wonder if they have brought his gonads down from his mid section.

azania wrote:So on your feet and squatting is fine under wbo rules. Can you point out where it says that please.

Once again you (deliberately) miss the obvious.

If the Referee determines that the contestant is on his feet and fit to continue the fight before he reaches the ten count,

A contestant shall be considered down when any part of his body, other than his feet, is on the floor,

Wbo rules state that a contestant is down when any part of his body apart from his feet is on the canvas. A fighter is not down when only his feet are on the canvas. Scott was not down because only his feet were touching the canvas.

The wbo do not mention having to be upright or have a straight back or be in a standing position etc

Like I said feel free to actually post some rules to back up your claim rather than just saying what you think the rules are.

I have posted the rules so I'm sure even you can manage

I'm using the rules you posted. Are there more rules to boxing. I understand perfectly well what it means in boxing to be up by 10. It's plainly obvious that either you don't or just don't want to understand hence the deliberate avoidance of my squatting example. Yes a boxer can squat during the count. But if he is still squatting he has both feet on the ground so in essence in that position the ref should not count (going by your reasoning of both feet being on the ground) and the boxer is ready to continue.

See the flaw in your argument.? I doubt it.

from boxrec
A floored boxer has up to ten seconds to get back up on his feet before losing the bout by knockout.

If you're squatting then by definition you are on your feet. The ref shouldn't count and the fight should be allowed to continue. You stated earlier that a boxer can take the count whilst squatting. Going by your rather tedious example, he cannot.

But the way the rules are applied across the globe, from Timbutu to Ian John Lewis via Mills Lane if a boxer is in a squat position you count until he is UPRIGHT.

Scott as on his way up. Ergo he was not upright.

The Chisora fight was terrible. I'd have been happy if the ref had counted to 1 and called it off. How anyone can argue about a stoppage in a fight that bad is beyond me.
Rules aye, Scott was taking the pee getting up at 9 after being on his knee for the count and he got what he deserved. Case closed.

azania wrote:from boxrec
A floored boxer has up to ten seconds to get back up on his feet before losing the bout by knockout.

If you're squatting then by definition you are on your feet. The ref shouldn't count and the fight should be allowed to continue. You stated earlier that a boxer can take the count whilst squatting. Going by your rather tedious example, he cannot.

But the way the rules are applied across the globe, from Timbutu to Ian John Lewis via Mills Lane if a boxer is in a squat position you count until he is UPRIGHT.

Scott as on his way up. Ergo he was not upright.

I never said he can take a standing count if squatting, I asked the question to emphasise my view.

You keep saying the ruules are this and that etc yet youc annot post any rules and the rules state that a boxer is up if he is not down and down means more than just your feet touching the floor.

Scott was up not upright but under the rules being up is all that counts.

The rules I read state that a boxer must be in a position to continue the fight BEFORE the 10 count.

He wasn't, case closed.

PPVxHOTTY wrote:The fact is the rule states you must be up before 10...therefore you can't use assumptions and say 'leaving the floor at 9 leaves you vulnerable to being counted out' the point is the ref was incompetent/suspect and Malik was on the wrong end of this.

In short. B#ll*cks. You should be up at 10 and ready to defend yourself. He was still rising at 10. He was not ready to defend himself. A golden rule of boxing. You should always defend yourself. Your view is simply biased and not the ref was incompetent/suspect.

I suggest you watch a lot more bouts and see when fighters who successfully take the knee choose to rise. I think you'll find its almost always on 8. So they avoid being counted out pointlessly.

Happytravelling wrote:

PPVxHOTTY wrote:The fact is the rule states you must be up before 10...therefore you can't use assumptions and say 'leaving the floor at 9 leaves you vulnerable to being counted out' the point is the ref was incompetent/suspect and Malik was on the wrong end of this.

In short. B#ll*cks. You should be up at 10 and ready to defend yourself. He was still rising at 10. He was not ready to defend himself. A golden rule of boxing. You should always defend yourself. Your view is simply biased and not the ref was incompetent/suspect.

I suggest you watch a lot more bouts and see when fighters who successfully take the knee choose to rise. I think you'll find its almost always on 8. So they avoid being counted out pointlessly.

Totally agree, but its going to be an endless argument, I can't recall a single fighter who hasn't risen before 8 if they are ready to continue.

BoxingFan88 wrote:The rules I read state that a boxer must be in a position to continue the fight BEFORE the 10 count.

He wasn't, case closed.

Post these rules, also remember this was a wbo fight so it must be wbo rules.

But putting the rules aside the ref should have used his discretion to not count him out. The boxer rose at 9 and it was 50/50 as to whether he was upright at 10 so the ref should use his judgement and just give him the benefit of the doubt.

I was supporting chisora as I am a fan of his but the ref was incredibly harsh and it smelt like a hometown ref.

Happytravelling wrote:

PPVxHOTTY wrote:The fact is the rule states you must be up before 10...therefore you can't use assumptions and say 'leaving the floor at 9 leaves you vulnerable to being counted out' the point is the ref was incompetent/suspect and Malik was on the wrong end of this.

In short. B#ll*cks. You should be up at 10 and ready to defend yourself. He was still rising at 10. He was not ready to defend himself. A golden rule of boxing. You should always defend yourself. Your view is simply biased and not the ref was incompetent/suspect.

I suggest you watch a lot more bouts and see when fighters who successfully take the knee choose to rise. I think you'll find its almost always on 8. So they avoid being counted out pointlessly.

I agree you should but where in the rules does it state you have to be up at the 8 count 'protection count aka standing 8 count' the count allows the referee to judge whether the boxer can get up and fight...imo Malik was able to continue..so the ref should'nt have stopped fight. Lookingg at it again Malik did in fct give the ref an excuse to end the bout but the heat of the moment it looked a blatant farce.

PPV, I'm sorry. You're not going to get away with peddling your bias on symantics and pedanticism.

I've seen fighters counted out because they simply wouldn't put their gloves up or together. That is, they were deemed unable to defend themselves, even when they had easily beaten the count and looked clear in the eyes.

Give it up! You obviously either are a Malik fan or a Del Boy hater because this is really a boring, pedantic argument. He did not demonstrate he was able to defend himself after 10.

A bit harsh for Malik but he is a professional. He must have seen enough fights and known enough fighters to know this.

Someone define "up". My god this is tedious.

We have C_S pontificating about the rules that say both feet must be on the ground. Well in a squatting position, both feet are on the ground. Is the boxer "up" and ready to continue?

The obvious answer is no, but in the world of C_S it becomes a point of contention.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

BoxingFan88 wrote:The rules I read state that a boxer must be in a position to continue the fight BEFORE the 10 count.

He wasn't, case closed.

Post these rules, also remember this was a wbo fight so it must be wbo rules.

But putting the rules aside the ref should have used his discretion to not count him out. The boxer rose at 9 and it was 50/50 as to whether he was upright at 10 so the ref should use his judgement and just give him the benefit of the doubt.

I was supporting chisora as I am a fan of his but the ref was incredibly harsh and it smelt like a hometown ref.

Wrong. He was RISING at 9 and not fully risen when the ref waved it off.

azania wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

BoxingFan88 wrote:The rules I read state that a boxer must be in a position to continue the fight BEFORE the 10 count.

He wasn't, case closed.

Post these rules, also remember this was a wbo fight so it must be wbo rules.

But putting the rules aside the ref should have used his discretion to not count him out. The boxer rose at 9 and it was 50/50 as to whether he was upright at 10 so the ref should use his judgement and just give him the benefit of the doubt.

I was supporting chisora as I am a fan of his but the ref was incredibly harsh and it smelt like a hometown ref.

Wrong. He was RISING at 9 and not fully risen when the ref waved it off.

Being fully risen or half risen is irrelevant under wbo rules which state that a boxer must be on their feet before 10.

But forgetting the rules and purely from an entertainment point of view or out of fairness even if malik rose fully just after 10 the ref should have used his discretion to let him continue. Malik would have been a fraction of a second out and the refs count is hardly accurate.

But as stated malik should not have been counted out under wbo rules.

Well if the WBO have separate rules, then they sound like stupid ones. Glad the ref followed the only rules I have ever seen.

BoxingFan88 wrote:Well if the WBO have separate rules, then they sound like stupid ones. Glad the ref followed the only rules I have ever seen.

It is all about refs discretion really. The ref could say the fighter was not in a position to continue because the fighter was not fully upright. Technically the fighter was not counted out but the ref may view a fighter squatting etc as a sign that the fighter is in pain or has substantial damage and cannot continue.

I thought Malik Scott looked decent especially against a dangerous fighter like chisora.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

azania wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

BoxingFan88 wrote:The rules I read state that a boxer must be in a position to continue the fight BEFORE the 10 count.

He wasn't, case closed.

Post these rules, also remember this was a wbo fight so it must be wbo rules.

But putting the rules aside the ref should have used his discretion to not count him out. The boxer rose at 9 and it was 50/50 as to whether he was upright at 10 so the ref should use his judgement and just give him the benefit of the doubt.

I was supporting chisora as I am a fan of his but the ref was incredibly harsh and it smelt like a hometown ref.

Wrong. He was RISING at 9 and not fully risen when the ref waved it off.

Being fully risen or half risen is irrelevant under wbo rules which state that a boxer must be on their feet before 10.

But forgetting the rules and purely from an entertainment point of view or out of fairness even if malik rose fully just after 10 the ref should have used his discretion to let him continue. Malik would have been a fraction of a second out and the refs count is hardly accurate.

But as stated malik should not have been counted out under wbo rules.

Irrelevant? A boxer is also on his feet when squatting. It's like debating a trained idiot. What planet are you on.

Now you talk of some entertainment point of view. The fight was dire. The ref did the paying audience a favour. Malik was not fully upright. The ref was practically waving him up from 6 yet he decided to stan on the knee. At 9 he started to rise. When the ref waved it off he was in the process of getting upright. He was NOT upright. Therefore the stoppage was fully justified.

If you are going to respond, then include the upright position in the context it is applied in my post.....not the way you hoped it is.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

BoxingFan88 wrote:Well if the WBO have separate rules, then they sound like stupid ones. Glad the ref followed the only rules I have ever seen.

It is all about refs discretion really. The ref could say the fighter was not in a position to continue because the fighter was not fully upright. Technically the fighter was not counted out but the ref may view a fighter squatting etc as a sign that the fighter is in pain or has substantial damage and cannot continue.

I thought Malik Scott looked decent especially against a dangerous fighter like chisora.

The ref doesn't have to say anything and hardly does in fights. At the point of 10 the ref waved it off. Not then then waving it off. Correct decision.

azania wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

BoxingFan88 wrote:Well if the WBO have separate rules, then they sound like stupid ones. Glad the ref followed the only rules I have ever seen.

It is all about refs discretion really. The ref could say the fighter was not in a position to continue because the fighter was not fully upright. Technically the fighter was not counted out but the ref may view a fighter squatting etc as a sign that the fighter is in pain or has substantial damage and cannot continue.

I thought Malik Scott looked decent especially against a dangerous fighter like chisora.

The ref doesn't have to say anything and hardly does in fights. At the point of 10 the ref waved it off. Not then then waving it off. Correct decision.

it was not correct under wbo rules if the ref waved it off due to reaching 10 because scott was up.

When i said the ref could say.... I am talking about in the refs mind he could think to himself that scott was not in a position to continue etc.

Happytravelling wrote:PPV, I'm sorry. You're not going to get away with peddling your bias on symantics and pedanticism.

I've seen fighters counted out because they simply wouldn't put their gloves up or together. That is, they were deemed unable to defend themselves, even when they had easily beaten the count and looked clear in the eyes.

Give it up! You obviously either are a Malik fan or a Del Boy hater because this is really a boring, pedantic argument. He did not demonstrate he was able to defend himself after 10.

A bit harsh for Malik but he is a professional. He must have seen enough fights and known enough fighters to know this.

Did the ref give Malik a chance to put his gloves up? NO and as for bias... im about as biased as the queen is male.

Also ask yourself 'why did Gene Tunney wait until the 9 count against Jack Dempsey?...Gene must be turning in his grave right now. The bottom line is you have the count of 10 to rise....thats a fact.

PPVxHOTTY wrote:Also ask yourself 'why did Gene Tunney wait until the 9 count against Jack Dempsey?...Gene must be turning in his grave right now. The bottom line is you have the count of 10 to rise....thats a fact.

Correct. He was rising when it was waved off.

azania wrote:

PPVxHOTTY wrote:Also ask yourself 'why did Gene Tunney wait until the 9 count against Jack Dempsey?...Gene must be turning in his grave right now. The bottom line is you have the count of 10 to rise....thats a fact.

Correct. He was rising when it was waved off.

But this happytravelling guy is adamant you have to raise your hands at around 8 count!! So the Tunney incident contradicts his logic then dosent it

azania wrote:You cant.

Fair stoppage. He was on his way up and therefore not up. Ergo correct stoppage according to the rules you posted.

So you think that the rules should be applied at all times?

Remind me what you thought about Khan pushing Peterson? From memory your comments were along the lines of "its against the rules but all fighters do it so its okay".

You talk absolute pony 99.9% of the time.

Are the mods taking turns to provoke az to get him a ban or something? I just watched it and it looks to me that Scott just didn't want it any more and surrendered this way to save a little face. He got up at 9 which was daft - once it gets to 9 and the guys on the floor it probably triggered something in the refs brain that its over - so perhaps the ref could have allowed it to continue (and ought to have really) its not an a travesty. Anyway - Scott would have got up earlier if he wanted it enough. As for your second point - Scott spent the entie fight pushing del off of him - much like the peterson fight for Khan - Az didn't scream for the ref to punish him

I agree Shah, to me it looked like he found it getting a little rough and a little tough and found himself starting to get a bit tired, which in 30 odd fights he had never had to face, due to them being patsies, once he found something hard he quit in my view. Hence why he didn't make a big song and dance about it in my view.

Kinda similar to Burns' last opponent.

Must be the 0.01% of the time Az could, at a stretch, have an argument.

Scott didn't look like he wanted it even though he was winning the fight. Weird behaviour.

I think it was the fourth round, he got one in the gut folded over a little and stopped looking interested.

Is this the most pointless debate to have ever taken place?

Having just watched the stoppage don't think there is any great conspiracy theory. Think Scott just misjudged it, very badly. Was almost certainly capable of continuing and on another night with a different ref he would almost certainly have been given a little leeway and the opportunity to continue would have been granted. However as others have said the ref had no obligation to do so, so Scott can have no real complaints as far as I can see.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Is this the most pointless debate to have ever taken place?

Of course not... Az is arguing it, it MUST be important...  

Adam D wrote:

azania wrote:You cant.

Fair stoppage. He was on his way up and therefore not up. Ergo correct stoppage according to the rules you posted.

So you think that the rules should be applied at all times?

Remind me what you thought about Khan pushing Peterson? From memory your comments were along the lines of "its against the rules but all fighters do it so its okay".

You talk absolute pony 99.9% of the time.

Why thank you. But I won't rise to this poor and childish attempt at baiting. Shah called it correctly...both points.

AlexHuckerby wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Is this the most pointless debate to have ever taken place?

Of course not... Az is arguing it, it MUST be important...  

Of course Alex. Must be my fault. All others arguing (unless the debate is with myself only) are totally blameless.

PPVxHOTTY wrote:

azania wrote:

PPVxHOTTY wrote:Also ask yourself 'why did Gene Tunney wait until the 9 count against Jack Dempsey?...Gene must be turning in his grave right now. The bottom line is you have the count of 10 to rise....thats a fact.

Correct. He was rising when it was waved off.

But this happytravelling guy is adamant you have to raise your hands at around 8 count!! So the Tunney incident contradicts his logic then dosent it

I'm only debating my points. HT can argue his point. Look at the Ali/Foreman and Benn/Watson fights. Both were on their feet but getting into an upright position when the ref waved it off. This is exactly the same at those.

azania wrote:

Adam D wrote:

azania wrote:You cant.

Fair stoppage. He was on his way up and therefore not up. Ergo correct stoppage according to the rules you posted.

So you think that the rules should be applied at all times?

Remind me what you thought about Khan pushing Peterson? From memory your comments were along the lines of "its against the rules but all fighters do it so its okay".

You talk absolute pony 99.9% of the time.

Why thank you. But I won't rise to this poor and childish attempt at baiting. Shah called it correctly...both points.

I don't think it is baiting at all. Adam is merely highlighting that your views towards the strict application of the rules changes depending on which boxer is on the receiving end.

I can't think of a fighter with a long winning streak who gave up his '0' as easily as Scott did.

32 and 0 and he doesn't stand up?

I still have suspicions around this.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

azania wrote:

Adam D wrote:

azania wrote:You cant.

Fair stoppage. He was on his way up and therefore not up. Ergo correct stoppage according to the rules you posted.

So you think that the rules should be applied at all times?

Remind me what you thought about Khan pushing Peterson? From memory your comments were along the lines of "its against the rules but all fighters do it so its okay".

You talk absolute pony 99.9% of the time.

Why thank you. But I won't rise to this poor and childish attempt at baiting. Shah called it correctly...both points.

I don't think it is baiting at all. Adam is merely highlighting that your views towards the strict application of the rules changes depending on which boxer is on the receiving end.

You should have stopped there. You were the one who brought the rules into it and applied a strict application of it even when you were proven wrong you continued. Once again missing the trumpeting elephant standing directly infront of you.

Jesus! Three pages out of this?! Think I'm on chris' page with this one. Scott only has himself to blame but the ref was a tad enthusiastic. But the letter of the law is as az says, fight over.

azania wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

azania wrote:

Adam D wrote:

azania wrote:You cant.

Fair stoppage. He was on his way up and therefore not up. Ergo correct stoppage according to the rules you posted.

So you think that the rules should be applied at all times?

Remind me what you thought about Khan pushing Peterson? From memory your comments were along the lines of "its against the rules but all fighters do it so its okay".

You talk absolute pony 99.9% of the time.

Why thank you. But I won't rise to this poor and childish attempt at baiting. Shah called it correctly...both points.

I don't think it is baiting at all. Adam is merely highlighting that your views towards the strict application of the rules changes depending on which boxer is on the receiving end.

You should have stopped there. You were the one who brought the rules into it and applied a strict application of it even when you were proven wrong you continued. Once again missing the trumpeting elephant standing directly infront of you.

I posted the wbo rules which proved I was right, you have still failed to post any rules whatsoever so I don't see how you can prove the set of rules I posted wrong.

After watching the KO on youtube, I have only one thing to say: Malik Scott is a complete idiot. Stand up at 8, not at 9.5. He threw that away completely.

Duty281 wrote:After watching the KO on youtube, I have only one thing to say: Malik Scott is a complete idiot. Stand up at 8, not at 9.5. He threw that away completely.

Do you think malik scott looked like the real deal or a hype job?

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:After watching the KO on youtube, I have only one thing to say: Malik Scott is a complete idiot. Stand up at 8, not at 9.5. He threw that away completely.

Do you think malik scott looked like the real deal or a hype job?

Only seen the knockout lad, not the full fight.  

I would just add that the ref only counted to 9 and called off the fight

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZO-DkW2VR0

go to 2:25

as soon as the ref says 9 he then calls off the fight.

Adam D wrote:

azania wrote:You cant.

Fair stoppage. He was on his way up and therefore not up. Ergo correct stoppage according to the rules you posted.

So you think that the rules should be applied at all times?

Remind me what you thought about Khan pushing Peterson? From memory your comments were along the lines of "its against the rules but all fighters do it so its okay".

You talk absolute pony 99.9% of the time.