Why do boxing fans find it hard to accept that Tyson was victim of long count

Douglas picked up the count of the ref. The ref failed to pickup the count of the ringside time keeper which was about 2 seconds off, but really it made no difference because its not the fighters responsibility to watch the ringside timekeeper, he needs to watch the ref, which is exactly what Douglas did.

 

Tyson fell victim to fists on his face, imo.

 

Victim and Tyson in one sentence sounds wrong to me somehow.

 

Actually Don King fell victim to not getting future options on Douglas and lost entire control of the heavyweight title. Thats the only thing King cared about and why he was trying his best to get it overturned on a technicality like that. He could care less who won the fight, he watched a decades worth of work go down the drain in one night. :yep

 

Douglas was up before the referee got around to saying "ten", and that's that.
Boxing is full of slow counts, long counts, controversial time-outs.
Referees are human, and make errors.

All's fair in love and war.

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=tyson+victim

 

It's very hard to say that the longcount changed the fight -- I just youtubed it, I can't see saying 'Buster wouldn't have beat a good count'. I don't KNOW he would have made a good count, but I don't see any strong evidence he wouldn't have made it.

 

The length of the count is irrelevant.

A count is not ten seconds, it is however long it takes the reff to count to ten, whether that is seven seconds or fouteen seconds makes no difference. It would be virtualy impossible for the reff to ensure that his count was precisely ten seconds.

The count is ultimately a test of the fighters ability to respond to the reffs deadline and the fallen fighter is entitled to assume that ten menas ten.

If we started enforcing a rule that a count had to be ten seconds then every fight where a knockdown took place would have to be reviewed after the event with the result being up in the air for days afterwards.

so I honestly don't think that there is an issue to discuss.

 

Thats not really true. The ten count is supposed to be ten seconds. Its not however long its supposed to take for the ref to count to ten. Its supposed to be ten seconds, using the rule of 1, 1000, 2 1000, 3,1000. A ref cant count as fast or slow as he wants, and yes that could become a problem if it did happen unfairly.
The rule is when a fighter is knocked down, the ref is supposed to look at the ringside timekeeper who is responsible for knockdowns, and pickup his count, once he escorts the opposing fighter to the neutral corner. At that point he is suppose to continue the count to ten.
Where the grey area in this fight was that the ref did not pickup the count of the ringside timekeeper and counted on his own. That being said Douglas' sole responsibility is to follow the refs count and not the ringside timekeeper, which he did. It would be impossible to be completely in sync with the ringside timekeeper, but this was two or three seconds different and why King was argueing about it, trying to get the fight turned so that he would not lose control of the title, but really Douglas did nothing wrong it was the refs mistake, but not a big one, certainly not enough to command a change in the decision.

 

King did almost change the decision. I belive 2 of the 3 orgs were ready to say Tyson was still champ.

 

Quietly agree on this one.

 

:good

 

That's quality.

 

long count or not, he got dominated and shouldn't have a loss reversed on the basis of a mere technicality. I don't think that he showed up looking his very best that night, but its still irrelevant.