MAB-Khan should have been No-Decision.

Yes, he took him to the doctor but he could have stop the fight. It is one of his main rights. The referee can stop the fight. It makes my statement completely true! The referee waited on purpose for the 5 round to come and then stop the fight. That's my believe. Nothing changed for the first 2 minutes of round 5. But the referee knew he should wait so that it goes to the scorecards.

 

He didn't wait for the fifth round though, as I just stated, he took MAB to the doctor in the fourth round.

Are you saying that the doctor said to stop it then and the referee ignored him? Why would he take him to the doctor and then ignore the doctor's advice? Where's your proof?

 

True. That fight should've been ruled a no-contest. The cut was terrible.

 

It is relevant beacuse it gave Khan unfair advantage over his bleeding opponent. Conditions were not equal for both sided. Teh cut affected MAB performance without any doubt. He would have done much better without the cut. Are you denying it?

 

The referee can stop the fight. It is his right. He does not need anyone else. Nothing changed in the 5 round. Nothing. Where is you proof that something changed?

 

Referee can stop the fight, but usual procedure whem dealing with cuts is top involve the ringside doctor. Have you watched any boxing before?

As has been pointed out repeatedly in the thread, it's not necessary for a cut to worsen for a fight to be stopped several rounds later than it occurs and, again, this is something that is seen over and over again. If a cut does not improve and the fighter is continuing to lose blood, then the blood loss becomes a factor at some point.

 

well, the fight should've been stopped right then and there in the 4th round when the doctor inspected barrera and declared a NC. but both british ref and doctor conveniently waited one more round to finally stop it so that the fight can be awarded to khan via a technical decision instead.

moral of the story is not to fight in the UK against a british fighter who has a british promoter when both a british ref and british doctor are also involved in the fight.

 

Love it how everyone is a ****ing medical expert all of a sudden. As has been patiently explained, the referee doesn't appear to have been in on your little conspiracy, as he sought medical advice in the 4th round where, if the advice had been to stop the fight, it would have been a NC. So, I guess it's just the doctor who, despite knowing nothing about him at all, you've decided was somehow responsible.

Of course he's only a qualified doctor at the scene and, as a guy sitting on his couch watching TV, you're far more qualified. So, in your considered medicial opinion, why should the fight have been stopped in the fourth round? Why not the third round? Or the second round? Or the first round? Or the fifth round?

 

I have watched boxing before but it looks like you have not because "Only the referee can stop the fight". There are so called "Unified Rules of Boxing". Yes, it involves a ringside physician but it is up to the referee to decide. By the way the ringside physician did a lousy job in this case. That's why the whole officiating of the fight was horrible. It was in favor of Khan on purpose.

It is not only the blood loss. If it hampers his vision, it should be stopped. If it gives the other fighter unfair and unjust advantage, it should be stopped. The referee had more than enough time to see the cut was not improving but was giving Khan unfair advantage. He was risking MAB health waiting for the 5 round so that it could go to the scorecards.

I am not a MAB fan. I have seen only one or two of his fights. I usually support European fighters (continental solidarity) so that I have no reason to call it against Khan. In this case it was unfair and unjust so that I do not see a reason to call it otherwise.

 

Spot on. MAB and his team only to blame.

 

Nothing had changed with the cut itself from the first to the fifth. However, Barrera had lost a lot of blood during that time, which had to become a factor at some point. The question then is who is more qualified to decide where that point is, a qualified doctor at the scene or a random numpty watching on TV.

With a cut that bad, the factor in timing of a stopage isn't down to 'is it getting worse' it is 'is it getting better'.

 

How many examples are there, to your knowledge, where the referee has sought the advice of the ringside doctor and then ignored his recomendation?

 

So, which round does Doctor Divac think the fight should have been stopped in?

The first, presumably, which is at least a logical argument, although it would be very unusual. You can't really say anything else without logically contradicting yourself though...

Which round should Klitschko v Lewis have been stopped in, given that you still have provided no justification for your view that there is some difference in a fighters ability to continue after a cut caused by a punch and exactly the same cut caused by a head clash?

Still waiting for Doctor Chert to get back to us on why his medical training leads him to believe the fight should have been stopped in the fourth and not the third or the fifth...