If you read the IBF rules, there is NO controversy. Bute won.

Dear Rodney, I think you're full of rage and that obviously affects your judgement. In fact, you don't think really. You already have an opinion and will find anything to justify it. So, no need to write anymore.

 

On this, the rule is clear...when the count is discontinued, it picks up from the point it's left off. When the count stops at six, it picks up at six, thus the repetition in the count.

 

I wrote an article outlining the main lines of argument and ESB was kind enough to publish it:

"Lucian Bute, Librado Andrade, Marlon B. Wright and the Incompetent Timekeeper – A Non-Controversy"

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=17659&more=1

Thank you.

 

The one issue I have with your article is that you're assuming that the time on the TV screen is in line with the official timekeepers.

Just because you see it on the TV screen, it does'nt mean thats the official time.

I've certainly seen rounds end a few seconds after the TV clock hits zero.

.....and one last thing.....the count is actually a 10 count, not neccesarily a 10 second count.

The fact that the timekeeper did not ring the bell when the TV clock said zero, tells us that there was a chance that had the ref counted from the very start without interruption to 10, it would have been very close whether Bute would have got up in time.
Its likely that Bute may have, but we'll never know for sure.

 

No. A ten (10) count can never be faster than eight seconds because each count should be around a seconds each. It is usually longer, but never shorter. Bute was up on his feet with his hands clear of the floor within eight seconds, so he would have beaten any ten (10) count out there.

And no, the reason the timekeeper did not ring the bell when the TV clock said zero was because he obeyed the rule that says: "You cannot be saved by the bell in any round". The timekeeper was only allowed to ring the bell after Bute had risen with his hands clear of the floor, as long as he had beaten the count in doing so (as long as the referee had not managed to count him out by then).

I timed the last round and the Showtime transmission clock is accurate to the second.

Any other points you are likely to have have most likely been answered in my article. I will not reply to any points I've replied to already in my article. Thanks.

 

You said it right there, a 10 count could actually be 8 seconds, depending on how fast the ref is counting.
If that had happened here, Bute it was determined got up within 8 or 9 seconds.....had the ref never interupted his count, it might have been bang bang with the ref reaching 10 and Bute getting up.
Not cut and dry imo.

 

No; please do not distort what I said, if you wish me to reply to you in future; my statement was very clear.

The ten (10) count should never be faster than eight seconds. Ideally, it should last 10 seconds. It usually last longer. The reason it should ideally last 10 seconds is this:

When a fighter is knocked down, the second timekeeper (the knockdown timekeeper) starts his stopwatch. The referee calls the knockdown (ruling it officially a knockdown, rather than a slip or a push), he sends the fighter who is still up on his feet to the neutral corner furthest away from the fighter who was knocked down, and then he looks at the knockdown timekeeper. The knockdown timekeeper calls out the number of seconds elapsed since the fighter hit the ground. The referee picks up the count from that number, not from a smaller number or greater number, but from that number. So, if five seconds had elapsed since the fighter had hit the floor, the referee picks up the count of five and starts out his count at 6.

The referee never counts faster than a number/second, afterwards. He doesn't need to. If he wanted to disadvantage the fighter by making it hard for him to beat the count, he needn't count faster; he could and would instead simply deem the fighter incapable of carrying on by ruling he was knocked out, waving his hands, before the fighter even had a chance to attempt to beat the count.

 

Dont get in a frenzy over nothing......I think I explained myself very clearly in my last post......it explains that the refs 10 count could have been 8 seconds, not that it should have.
I'd estimate that a refs count in reasonable terms fall somewhere between 8 and 12 seconds, every ref has a different rhythm to their count.
Who's to say that ref Wright could have reached his 10 count in 8 seconds or beyond that.......my point however is that there was a chance that the 10 count could have been reached in 8 seconds.....had that been the case here, Andrade getting up and the ref reaching the count of 10 in 8 seconds, would have been bang bang (very close)
....close enough that the ref could have ruled that Bute got up, or that he did'nt beat the count (refs discretion).....
.....but because the count was interrupted with ref Wright looking away from Bute and turning to Andrade, we'll never know.

After reviewing the tape of the fight, I find ref's Wright actions to be suspect, but I'm not being as harsh on him as others here are being.
The current way the rules are written gave ref Wright the option at his discretion to turn away from Bute, and to look at where Andrade was.

My assertions now are not so much against ref Wright, but against the rules the way they are written, that gave ref Wright the option of looking away in the middle of a count, from his #1 concern (Bute), and turning to look toward a lesser concern (Andrade) to see if he was still at the neutral corner.

 

Check out what Ring Magazine said about the judging.
Baaaaad !!!!!

 

Ring Magazine = Golden Boy Promotion (Andrade's Promoter)

Not exactly a non biased source of information. atsch

 

Watched the fight a few times.
Especially the last couple of rounds.
Bias or not.
I thought that the Ref was Butes' daddy.
I actually thought that he was going to help him up.