Please note that I am NOT asking who is the best referee between Cortez and Bayless, nor am I asking which was the better overall refereeing performance between Cortez in the Khan-Maidana fight and Bayless in the Marquez-Katsidis fight, what I am asking is what was the better decision, and what is the right way for referees to approach the end of a fight: - Bayless stopping the fight between Marquez and Katsidis when Katsidis has not been dropped, is still relatively close on the cards, and is still standing up and fighting back despite obviously being hurt or - Cortez allowing Khan to be chased around the ring and take a lot of punches, but refusing to stop the fight in order to give Khan the maximum opportunity to fight through the bad patch ? There are pro's and con's for either side of course. You could argue that Bayless's approach is more considerate for fighter's safety. Or you could argue that Cortez's approach is more attuned to the nature of the sport (considering that Khan won the fight, and in fights like Corrales-Castillo 1 and Pavlik-Taylor 1, the hurt fighter can often produce stunning fightbacks). What side do you take in this? :bbb (I should say now without going into too much detail, that I firmly believe Cortez was right and Bayless was a bit hasty)
That stoppage of katsidis was correct, he could no longer really defend himself, I personally would have waited a bit more but Marquez was way up on the cards and it was knock out waiting to happen the way katsidis got beaten up. In the khan fight, Cortez completely disallowed maidana to fight inside, good golden boy pick I guess. There is a good chance maidana would have won if somebody else was the referee.
Bayless by miles. Cortez allowed way too much holding and got involved all the time. Bayless acted at the perfect time.
bayless did a better job. katsidis was bound to get hit with crisp solid shots. jmm was still throwing nasty combinations which were landing cleanly.
if that pile of **** Cortez wants ****in up the fight i think it would have been more exiting and we would have seen a few more Knock Downs
I think everyone so far has disregarded my opening post, and focused on who did the overall better refereeing job, which was not my question. My question related purely to the end of the either fight - Bayless's choice to stop the fight, Cortez's choice to not stop the fight in the 10th or at the end of the 10th. Kenny Bayless would've stopped Khan-Maidana for sure IMO.
Not even close. Katsidis was in horrible shape and barely, barely fighting back. He's a macho-mentality pressure fighter who was using rubber legs to bike. Something was very wrong and I didn't see him complain at all. Edit: Uh...Cortez trusted Khan's iron chin. (Yeah, **** you, I also didn't thoroughly read your post, okay? It happens. Edit:
Also, when he was hurt, Khan was managing to avoid a lot of Maidana's shots. He got hit, but he was still aware of where the majority of the punches were coming from. Katsidis got hit with everything as soon as he was in trouble.
If Khan had been badly knocked out cold at the end of the round, or went down and was clearly unable to continue(ala first knockdown in the prescott fight) then it would be a relevant question. Khan really should have took a knee.
Bayless. While watching the JMM-Kats fight, I saw the same thing as he did when the fight was stopped - Kats was done and was being hammered by the better fighter. Even though I was cheering for Maidana, I would have felt ripped off if Cortez would have called the fight when Khan was hurt in the 10th. I thought Khan deserved the chance to recover especially because he had fought a great fight until that point. If Khan would have been knocked down and then pummeled like that after the KD, the stoppage would have been warranted IMO.
cortez is an attention seeking ***git, he loves using catch phrases and going infron of the camera This content is protected