How to score a double knockdown?

The 11th round of Juan Laporte and Ruben Castillo would also fit that bill.

 

Scar, I actually have my round score and notes from that fight to hand:
“Round 1: Harada 10 Caraballo 9 (Caraballo was winning the round and landing some decent shots that appeared to hurt Harada before Harada dropped him at the end of the round so I made it 10-9, not 10-8)”

 

That's how I had it as well.

 

Rivers had to be unconscious to be lying on his back in the ring after a knockdown for Wolgast to have the momentum of the punch carry him down on top of Rivers, landing on his knee? The point was that Rivers didnt drop Wolgast so why should Wolgast have gotten a count and why should it have been considered a double knockdown??? Why is that hard to understand? A knee to the groin, whether delivered on purpose or by accident is not a scoring blow and has never resulted in a count over a fighter. In that era if a fighter couldnt continue because of a foul he would win on a DQ. If a fighter slips and falls its not unheard of for a referee or the other fighter to assist him up and wipe off his gloves? Why should Rivers getting knocked down suddenly alter the rules because Wolgast fell on top of him after dropping him and give Rivers some sort of advantage by now also considering Wolgast down despite no punch being landed on him? Dont be silly. The referee was absolutely correct in pulling Wolgast off of Rivers to allow Rivers the ability to get up, continuing the count, and then counting Rivers out. As stated before he could have even DQd Rivers for his cornerman jumping into the ring to assist him but instead continued to count. Some people just hate it when the stupid myths that have grown up around boxing get shattered. Theyd rather cling to them. Hate to break it to you but there was no controversial double KNOCKDOWN in Wolgast-Rivers, Pep didnt win a round without throwing a single punch, Papke never punched Ketchel before their second fight, Greb and Mickey Walker didnt fight in an alley after their MW championship. I could keep going but something tells me the fantasists wont care and the people with eyes who have actually seen this fight know what Im talking about.

 

Until youve actually seen the fight you want to argue so passionately about do us all a favor and shut the **** up.

 

I appreciate the reply but you cant start by asking me the exact question I'm asking you..

"Rivers had to be unconscious to be lying on his back in the ring after a knockdown for Wolgast to have the momentum of the punch carry him down on top of Rivers, landing on his knee? "

 

Im not sure how I can be more clear but given your inaccurate view of the rules on double knockdowns Im just going to go with the idea that reading comprehension isnt your strong suit. Go watch the Wolgast-Rivers fight and then tell me what you think happened during the final sequence then maybe we can discuss it intelligently.

 

Ok Sir, I will do this right now and get back to you. Standby...

 

Well, firstly, you should shut the **** up. Tit for tat. Try not to sook.

Secondly, who's "Us"? You mean YOU. Just be honest with yourself, you have no stomach for debate, particularly when you've been proven wrong. You couldn't go point by point, clearly overwhelmed by specific and solid refutations. so, you've reacted like a child throwing a tantrum.

You're displaying all the attributes of someone who has FAILED in their argument. I don't need to see the films to argue the points of contention involved - Lol, what are you NOT getting about this?

Exaggerated Example to make the point: -

K2 describes the film, stating: "Welch pulled a hammer out of his back pocket, hit Rivers over the head with it knocking him out. Welch counts 10 over Rivers then declares Wolgast the winner. Welch was well within his rights to act as he did, and he ultimately made the right call".

Me: "Well, that's not right, Welch can't do that. Obviously".

K2: What do you know? You haven't even seen the films. Lol, lol, lol.

Sinking in yet? I've remained with your description of events and STILL find your defense of Welch's actions and decisions wrong.

You don't even know what you're arguing about. I made a random post re the fight. You dropped in to refute. That was fine. But then it became quickly obvious as to who was arguing simply for the sake of arguing - certainly it wasn't I.

Anyway, waste of time discussing any of this with a clown like yourself.

Anybody ELSE interested in even handed treatment/discussion of this historical event in boxing history might be interested in the following contemporaneous articles re the fight.

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/...s=ad+wolgast+joe+rivers+Ad+wolgast+joe+rivers

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/15345659

https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SFC19120705.2.89&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN--------

 

Struth Pug, this is a mismatch. Genuinely not meant as a slight on Klompton, but rather an acknowledgement of what a formidable debator (not to be confused with mass debator ) you can be.

I've only just read this exchange and I've read all posts from beginning to end, just now.

I started with sympathy for Klompton's viewpoint, I.e. Rivers was legitimately KD'd and so the ref was right to administer a count, whilst Wolgast wasn't KD'd, so him falling was immaterial to the count Rivers was due.

However, with each exchange I've just read, I've found myself coming more and more around to your arguments.

Forcing myself to be balanced, focusing purely on the content of your respective arguments, ignoring the prowess with which they are presented (and based purely on Klompton's description of what occured, as I too have never seen the footage), I've concluded in my own mind whether the ref handled the situation correctly or not, boils down to one relevant factor, and one relevant factor only.

That single factor is whether Wolgast falling on Rivers may have in anyway impacted on Rivers ability to beat the count. If it did, and imo, i say "may have", as i believe it to be reasonable that the benefit of the doubt should have been given to Rivers (again, based solely on Klompton's description of events), then I don't think any count should have been administered to either fighter. If the ref was certain that Wolgast falling on Rivers did not impact the latters ability to beat the count, then imo helping "remove" Wolgast to administer the count to Rivers was the correct thing to do.

I'm not trying to take sides, just giving my 2-cents worth.

 

This is an old theme with Mr. Klompton.

He thinks seeing a film someone else hasn’t seen makes his conclusions ‘right’ and theirs ‘wrong.’ (Now on fact of what the film shows, he’d be correct, but he extrapolates far beyond that.)

Likewise, he’s convinced if he has researched something more than you then whatever conclusions he draws from the facts are therefore correct. And they often are WAY off base and provably so, but he absolutely cannot stand to admit it.

But he has such a charming personality we all just ignore it because we like his cheery disposition so much.

 

Cheers Greg and I appreciate your own take.

I won’t belabour any of my already stated points.

However, I will say there are certainly a number of features to the subject and discussion that are opinion based and arguable from either end.

Features that shouldn’t and can’t be played off as objective, irrefutable, fact by either side.

 

You know Pat, though it’s apparently been “pulled” since, I think I did see the film of the Wolgast-Rivers fight on YT a while back - but my recollection of same isn’t sufficient to make comment on the film.

However, I have seen one old film recently, pointed out to me by film expert @JohnThomas1.

Dated 1907, it is in quite amazing condition for its age and includes highly innovative (for its time) close ups also. Incredibly revealing.

Having now seen this film, it has actually enhanced my knowledge and perception of the era.

At the fundamental level, it provides for solid evidence that applied technical skills haven’t change much at all over the many years.

I like to share such things myself - and no written account can substitute for the “live” action that can be witnessed in this particular, historical footage.

Not apt to link directly I guess but I can tell you the film in question is easily located via google.

A real eye opener and a must inclusion to any “historian’s” library. The film is titled El Sartorio.

I’d be interested to read how you scored it after viewing.

 

With his talents perhaps he could mass debate against 3 or 4 people at the same time and still come up trumps such is his ability to get off early and maintain dominance. Not saying he's premature or anything, mind, his staying power was well established in some very early extremely drawn out one sided debates.

@swagdelfadeel and i have quietly decided that when we share the same opinion as Pug we will shout it from the clouds, but when not we will either be with Slim outta town or just pretending to be on the exact same page.

 

My gosh, for once, I am speechless.

Okay, I’m alright now. Phew.

When it comes to mass debate, I’m fine with two or more of only the opposite sex.

I’m a male in case anyone has missed that.

For maintaining rock solid and longer lasting arguments, I recommend Kegels.

You can do them anywhere without being noticed, even while you type out your posts.

This exercise is a must for all “members”.

In fact. I just pumped out a quick twenty in this very paragraph alone. I take care of little Pug and he, in turn, takes care of me.

In “straight” arguments, which is all I’m about, I try to keep it Mano a Mano, without appealing to the Mods or the masses.

Such appeals are desperate acts which often reflect the failing arguments of an increasingly flaccid “member”.

There are some, however, who often refer to their invisible and curiously quiet support team of “we” or “us”. Their unseen and apparently muted cheer squad.

JT, Swag, Greg and McVey are among my favourite posters (there are others too).

I don’t follow or post to them in blind loyalty. Also, we don’t necessarily agree all the time - acceptable shades of subjective view points are involved.

My “loyalty” to them, for want of a better word, is based on their knowledge and that they make damn good sense a lot of the time - and again, any shades of disagreement really boil down to mere personal opinion and subjectivity - points of opinion that can’t be played off as “facts” or framed as the only possible answers to a disagreement.

Sometimes monetary gratuities are involved in our “advertised” support of one another - but ultimately, we really mean what we say but a lil bit of cash encourages us to be more vocal in our public support.

Any payments exchanged below board are still very much above board. It’s the Art of the Deal.