Referee's count on Linares started at 7 . . .

I see where this is going, the "I didn't know the rule" route lmao, of course I stated in the first paragraph of the OP that I understand that it's common practice for the count to start the moment the fighter goes down. Of course we commonly see the ref look to the guy at ringside counting to pick up the count. Acting like I didn't know that's how it works is silly but I guess I didn't make it clear enough that I know there's a guy counting at ringside. However, that's not what this topic is about so trying to undermine my credibility as to the fact that there's a ringside counter is besides the point. This is about the problem that exists with this system of having the ringside counter (ref counting non verbally while he is busy telling the fighter to go to a neutral corner) and how it results in the downed fighter not knowing what the count is until it's already at 7. Further, it allows the fighter who scored the knockdown to have more incentive to not to go to the neutral corner because it will actually increase his chances of a knockdown with the ref starting the count late ! (which is counter - intuitive)

As you may know, throughout history rules change (in 1927 they made it a rule to wait until the fighter is in the neutral corner for the count to start). That's how it should be in my view, so just because it's become common practice for the count to start when the fighter goes down, and count non-verbally or rely on a ringside counter doesn't mean that's a good rule or it's fair to the downed fighter.

I personally don't like that rule and I prefer the 1927 rule OK. As to the idea that the fighter can hear the ringside counter counting to 10, or you could hear it on the telecast, again any Joe Schmo ringside could be counting to 10. I mean I've heard fights where the TV commentator (who's also at ringside) is counting to 10 loudly and the fighter may hear two separate counts, so it can be very confusing.

(take a look at Ali Foreman, as an example, by the way it appears that George was counted out despite being up at 8 or 9 depending on when you thought the count started)

At the end of the day, a fighters instinct is to listen to the referee at all times. (not someone from outside the ring) So expecting the fighter to know where the ringside counter is and rely on his count isn't right in my view. The referee in my opinion, like with respect to the 1927 rule, should wait until the fighter is in the netural corner then start the count, so the downed fighter has a full count to gather himself and get back up.

So if you want to try acting like I don't know how counts work in boxing, I may be a little insulted, but I'll get over it. I'm bringing up a very real and relevant issue as it relates to the Lomachenko Linares fight that requires brainpower and examining the current rule and if you agree with it. And as you know Linares mentioned the referee's counting being too fast in the post fight, he said he felt that he would have been able to get up but the count started too late. (he still got up at 9 even then) Had the referee utilized the 1927 rule OR had the ref startee counting before 7 it's very likely Linares would have gotten up and the fight would have countinued. That is what prompted this topic and what I'd like to discuss.

 

Not in 1927 it wasn't. They changed the rule to wait until a fighter is in a neutral corner for the count to start. Obviously there was a reason why that rule was implemented in 1927. I like that rule and I wish it was being applied today because it's the referee's responsibility to count a fighter out and no one else but him should be tasked with that.

You said something that highlights my overall point : "If the guy scoring the kd delays getting to the neutral corner the ref may delay the count until he does.". See this is where the problem lies. You say the ref "may" delay the count until he does, but he never actually does because he's told to look at the ringside counter.

This creates an "incentive" problem. There's currently no incentive with a ringside counter for the fighter who scores the knockdown to go to the neutral corner as he's supposed to. beacuse by not going to the neutral corner right away, it ends up increasing the likelihood that he will score a knockout because the downed figher will have less time to react to the count. It makes zero logical sense if you think about, and it's obviously why the 1927 rule was changed to eliminate this problem.

 

And when that no longer became the case, they required the fighter to go to the neutral corner before the count was started. (not while a non verbal count was being administered)

 

It's got nothing to with who I was supporting lol. Just as someone who was enjoying the fight it was annoying seeing it stopped how it was when it appeared that Linares would have been able to continue if it were not for how the referee handled the situation.

 

A modern-day example of the referee pausing the count to tell a fighter to get back into the neutral corner was in the first fight between Lucian Bute and Librado Andrade in the final moments of the 12th round.

Bute had actually struggled to his feet as the referee had reached the count of six, but at that point referee Wright abruptly wheeled and, noting that Andrade had ventured a few steps out of the neutral corner, abandoned his count. Wright admonished the Mexican-born American challenger, walking across the ring to chase him back. Several seconds elapsed before he resumed his count, and when he did, he picked up right back where he had left off -- at six.

Bute won that fight despite being given what amounted to a 20-second count and was obviously in much more serious danger than Linares was on Saturday night. Of course it was right at the final bell as opposed to in the middle of the 10th round but the fact remains that the referee in that fight (agree with it or not) had the authority to pause the count as he told the fighter to get back into the neutral corner.

So if a referee can do that and pause the count in the middle of the count to tell a fighter to get back into the neutral corner, then why shouldn't a ref pause the count at the beginning as well? After all, it's the fighter who scores the knockdown's job to immediately go to the neutral corner. If he doesn't do that, if he stands there celebrating, if he "takes the long way" to the neutral corner causing the ref to deal with him rather than giving the downed fighter the count, then why should the fighter who didn't go to the neutral corner when he should have be rewarded for it? (by giving the downed fighter less time to react to the count)

 

He was still hunched over "largely" because he didn't get the full count, and wasn't prepared to get up as quickly as he was forced to by the ref starting the count at 7. Had the ref started the count at 1, or 2, or 3, etc he would have had more time to prepare himself mentally to stand up straight and would have been allowed to continue.

 

Well Lomachenko did a little fist pump lol but he actually walked right past to the neutral corner near where Linares went down. However since Linares went down near that neutral corner, the ref told Lomachenko to go into the other neutral corner, which delayed the count.

Amazingly, there doesn't actually appear to be a single piece of video footage that shows Lomachenko after he did the fist pump after he walked past Linares. He walks off screen and you don't see whether he celebrated while in the first neutral corner before the ref told him to go to the other. (from the edge of the screen you kinda see Lomachenko kind of move right to go back into the first neutral corner, then realize the ref is telling him to go to the other neutral corner which cost Linares crucial seconds)

Whether or not Lomachenko is at fault for delaying going to the "farthest" neutral corner is unclear. But the fact is that his fist-pumping and doing a complete 360 around the downed Linares is what seemed to result in Linares getting stopped because the ref didn't start the count until 7 lmao.