Question for Phil Austin...or any refs out there

Phil gets a feel of the fighters in the dressing rooms before the contest.

 

While you've still got your head and hands in the stocks Phil:

Do you think recent times has seen more TKO stoppages (and therefore less KO stoppages) compared to years gone by?

Seems in the past, when it was obvious another shot would probably finish things, the ref would allow it to happen. Whereas these days the ref's more likely to step in and not allow the coup de gras - and probably a good thing for all concerned too.

 

pretty much spot on! :good

 

Psychologists call that transference Leon...

 

Yes I do, and a good thing it is too! You still see it happen occasionally where the guy gets up and staggers all over the place like Leon on the dancefloor and the ref is gunna let it go on and you just think "Oh-Oh" and sure enough SPLAT. Ref's primary concern is the welfare of the boxer and that should never be lost sight of IMO...

 

Did everybody notice there was no denial by Mr.Austin?

 

Denial being somthing you are big on (Not just a river in Egypt by the way), if it's Esther Schouten then yes, I would probably be guilty on all charges!

 

This content is protected

good form no doubt...

 

P4p #1

 

Out of interest how much does the occasion dictate the refs action e.g. world title shots. Commentators are always harping on about letting things go a little longer because its for a title etc

 

You would have to think they would let it go on a bit longer.....not risk an early stoppage..........however Phil will say it is all about the fighters safety first so the world title aspect wont have anything to do with it :yep

 

The Ward Gatti fight.......both had times when they were out on there feet,and provided plenty of moments when a Referee could have been justified in stopping the fight. But then we would have missed a hell of a fight,so only in hindsight was it a good idea not to stop the fight??

 

What we have to remember in these "Wars", is whether it's worth their careers.
They may plead with a referee to let it go, but they are not always the best judge of a bad situation.

A good example of this is the Katsidis V Earl fight.
Graham Earl is a smart young boxer with a bright if not stellar career.
In this fight, rocky was just too strong for him.
His corner acknowledged this by throwing in the towel.
Referee Mickey Vann kicked it back out again.
Katsidis went on to finish the fight inflicting further damage than what was necessary.
The question is not whether he is tough enough to come back, but how serious is the immediate damage.
Ten months later Graham was knocked out in the 1st round, then a further 10 months later, he was again starched in the 1st round.
8 months after that, he won a 6 round points decision over a journeyman.

IMO The corner knows their fighter better than the referee.
In hindsight, I suspect the corner man would have rolled under the rope to stop what the referee wouldn't, that is, extreme & unnessary punishment.

It's a fine line & referees need to consider if they can handle criticism before they make it their career.
It's not just over when the lights go out on the night. You may pass someone in the street that is not quite with it, It may well turn out to be the bloke who pleaded with you not to stop the fight that put him on his heels for the rest of his life.
As Phil said, Safety 1st,,,2nd,,,3rd. The Overall risk is too great.
JMO

 

great post. I discussed the Ward Gatti war with a fellow referee who stated he would have stopped the fight if he was in charge at several different stages.I would have had NO problem doing it earlier than he would of.

That was a war that was a throwback to the old days big time.

As a fan watching from the couch i simply overtaken by the strength of both guys determination. Those two were fighting till the death. Only the final bell stopped it from happening. So i want to ask this question again.....should this fight have been stopped???