A question....

If Amir Khan would of put Prescott down the way Prescott put him down, would Prescott of been allowed to go back at him after getting up, and keep in mind how prematurely British refs tend to stop fights in this country? Its just I watched it back today and thought...you know what, had that of been Prescott that fight would of been waved off right there and then, after the first KD. He wouldn't of got no benefit of the doubt to get up and go straight back at him. To me it just shows how biased refs are toward British fighters.

I remember Derry Mathews getting put down about 6 times against Choi, yet he was allowed to continue. I can remember thinking at the time, if that was Choi on the deck, no way would of he got the benefit of the doubt. If I recall Mathews was more of an upcoming prospect back then, where as Choi didn't seem to have the cult hero status he's got now. He was just another foreigner

British refs make me cringe! From Ian John Lewis's scorecards to John Keane parading around the fighters like he's down the park walking in his dog. You have Dave Parris who let Hatton commit GBH on Zoo, and was it Parris who allowed the Khan-Barrera fight to run into the 5th round so Khan would be virtually guaranteed the win?


At times its like you cant even afford to get hurt if your the away fighter, or if your not the favourite and are going up against a touted prospect, as the refs are looking for any opportunity to stop the fight.

If Calzaghe had done what Manfredo did, would he of been stopped?

 

Exactly. You only had to look at how he was stumbling when he got back on his feet to no that fight should of been stopped right there and then. Of coarse he was allowed to carry on because the ref is one of you know who's merry men.

 

Also, why dont these refs, you know, actually do their job? I'm sick of hearing them shout break! to the fighters. ****ing get in there and break them em up if they aint working inside. What, you think one of em is gonna to take a step back on your command only for the other guy to throw whilst he's pulling out, only for the other guy to look at you as though to say WTF? Then you just shrug your shoulders as if to say, what? Its protect yourself at all times. There is too much of a grey area to exploit for a fighter to step back on the refs command, as what if the other guy doesn't cooperate and throws a punch? You see it time and again where the fighters break and the other fighter doesn't cooperate and hits him, then the ref has the audacity to say **** like"protect yourself at all times" , mofo! you said break!


Man you aint there to take a leisurely stroll and act tough by grabbing them around the back of the head shouting at them like little school kids when they dont cooperate. Your there to give warnings, deduct points when they continue to break the rules, and to get in there and break them up when there is a lull in the action, as that is the best deterrent you can have for them to follow the rules.

 

Controversial but you could even question Alfred Asaro during the Benn fight to. Now maybe he was just an incompetent ref who gave Benn the benefit of the doubt, but who knows.

 

We are all sensitive to the injuries sustained to various British fighters over the years, but there is a definite biased toward British fighters.

 

22.57
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-BlNtC1DqU[/ame]

 

In theory it should probably be the way you said, but in practice I think there is too much of a grey area. I mean how many times are fighters in a clinch and the ref says break and they DONT break? So which command are they following, the first time he says break, the second, or what? It just creates too much confusion imo.