I rewatched Hatton vs Urango last night......

And you've deduced this from a sample size of 2 boxers, one of whom has grand total of 1 disqualification on his record and the other who has never even had a point docked for holding? atsch

Poor, very poor.....:-(

 

Barney has had more than a DQ, he's been warned and deducted points many times because he's a consistent holder. Rightly so.

He's far from the only example of fighters that are deducted points, or at least given a stern talking. It was just one example.

Yet Hatton has had nothing as far as I remember. Absolutely nothing, not even a warning I can remember off-hand. Considering his style I find that deplorable.

Just as you find this a completely acceptable and think its fine to let anything go, I find Cortez's general approach aside from where he jumped in too quick to be correct. It's all about opinions...I wish more refs were sterner on this (without the jumping in too early/inconsistent applying of rules fight to fight).

 

There is a body of evidence consisting of 47 fights with different referees and judges (and every decision he's gone to he's won) that proves the consensus amongst 'professionals' is that his methods are perfectly legal.

Maybe not to everybodies taste - but you aren't talking about taste, you are talking about the rules...

 

Apparently so.

I just wish there was a general trend towards being more strict regarding this. Just as referees have become more prone to stopping fights over the years I think they should clamp down on this hugging bull**** because men holding each other is WWE not boxing. Boxing is usuing the knuckle part of the glove and anything else should not be consistently prevelant.

If more refs were like Cortez, but a notch or two down, I'd welcome that.

The moaning was quite funny from fans and fighter alike when things didn't go all his own way, when a large section of boxing fans were frustrated with some of the treatment Hatton gets.

 

I don't think its fine to let anything go but professional boxing is a tough sport and I've seen enough fights over the years to know that Hatton isn't getting away with anything that 100s of boxers havn't done in the past.

I don't particulary care about Cortez, that was one refs interpretation of the rules on one night (although he had a completely different interpretation for JC-Hopkins a few months later).

I'm talking about what referees and commissions in general have considered illegal holding/ hugging for the last 100+ years, why Hatton has never even been docked a point for holding and yet why it still seems, according to some people, he should have been DQ'd against Urango???

Its about the rules of boxing, not whether you LIKE a fighters style. The question was "Should Ricky have been disqualified?" not "Would you have liked Ricky to have been disqualified?"

 

I've never said he should be DQ'd against Urango. I've only watched the fight live and I turned off towards the end it was so incredibly boring. It made the rest of his tedious fights pale in comparison. That is my everlasting memory and I doubt I'd have the patience to watch it again and conclude whether it was DQ worthy. Points worthy for sure, but that wouldn't have changed anything.

 

So you havn't voted in the poll??

 

No, I havn't been on topic. Unusual for me!! :good

 

I think any fair minded person would realise Cortez was poor in the Floyd fight.

At one point he broke them with 2 feet of daylight between them.

Some people disagree and that's fine - but my opinion is that a referee should judge the action he sees unfold before him. Cortez had 'done his homework' on Hatton that night.

Terrible display, and not the only shocker he's had in the last year or two.

 

So theres 10 other people who can't understand the question?

 

I think if the only way Hatton felt he could win the fight was by hugging his opponent into submission, then he didn't deserve to win, Cortez or no Cortez - that is not the question.

 

Not if you framed it incorrectly. Theres nothing that comes close to a DQ in that fight, Hatton wasn't warned or deducted a point IIRC which are the 2 steps prior to disqualification. So its not as if the ref considered the cliching anything close to being punishable and certainly not by DQ.

More generally I can't remember a top class fight where that sort of cliching (from Urango was well) resulted in one of the fighters being disqualified?

 

To be fair...thinking about it Cortez was kinda ****.

Only as **** as Dave Parris in the Tszyu fight mind.

Two performances on each end of the spectrum.

Cortez let nothing go, and Parris let everything go. I think the general trend amongst refs is to be more towards Parris than Cortez, which is something I'd like to see change and I may write a harshly worded letter and e-mail to the relevant authorities documenting my concerns.

 

I didn't mention anything about 'deserving to win'

Floyd proved himself the better man by a street

I feel Cortez made Hatton a lot less competitive though and threw him off his game

Point is, a ref going into the ring with a pre-ordained idea of how he will handle the fight is wrong, in my opinion

Anyway we've established that what Hatton does IS legal so your statement makes little sense - I repeat, he's won every single decision he's been involved in. So more qualified people than you obviously think it's an effective style

It's not about 'deserving to win' because he does/does not use a style that you like