Looking back on Hatton vs Kostya Tzysu

Pretty much sums it up, but you'll just get a "move on" reply in a few moments.

 

would have been a more interesting fight if it was the same ref as the tyszu fight instead of cortez. one of mayweather best tactics was to duck below the waist, i didn't think that was allowed, but cortez clearly reffed that fight to mayweathers agenda, just like the referee reffed the tyszu fight to hattons agenda. reminds me how all vlad klitchsko fights are always reffed to vlad's agenda where he is allowed to hold all night without so much as a warning.

 

so fighters have agendas when they come into the ring. fuking dumbass

 

the refs are the ones with the agenda on how to ref the fight for the home town fighter you gormless ****ing bell end nutatsch

 

BULL**** GUYS


Did you guys ever watch Kostya fight before ?


He was real dirty that hatton fight was right down his alley

he threw people around the ring and ****ed up Mitchells legs doing just that !!!

 

atsch

 

Watched it and I am convinced hugton is a more exciting version of Abril.If it had gone 12

rounds and Tszyu won.I would not have any complaints.I hate chronic clinchers.

 

did you not read your own post???? you said the fighters have an agenda. the fighters aren't stepping in to the ring to give a lecture to the audience.

 

some of cortez's refereeing that night was blatantly designed to favour floyd though, mayweather should have been warned about continually ducking below the waistline and there were times when cortez was calling clinch before the fighters were even in a clinch. now contrast that refereeing performance to just a few months later when cortez allowed hopkins to hold calzaghe all night long without warning, cortez had clearly changed his methods to favour the home fighter on both occasions.

 

the refs that i mentioned reffed the fight to the hometown fighters agenda - i.e, cortez would not allow hatton to hold and maul because that tactic was seen as favouring hatton, cortez took a point from a hatton and at times was calling a 'clinch' when the fighters hadn't even clinched.

a month later, cortez was prepared to let hopkins clinch and maul calzaghe all night without warning to suit the agenda of hopkins because it gave hopkins a better chance of winning.

every vlad ref allows vlad to jab and grab all night without warning to suit vlads agenda and give him a better chance of winning. a more neutral ref would have given vlad his final warning after 4 rounds, which would force vlad to change his style and fight to a style that doesn't suit his strengths.

 

i don't think he understands that the term "agenda" can be used to describe a persons plan or set of motives. he would just rather belittle and insult people, it's a common theme with him it seems.

 

I think there should be a seminar on this and a strict policy should be introduced against chronic clinching.Refs are very inconsistent.It should the same all across the board.Some refs penalizes boxers for holding whilst others let it go on and on.

Holding is a sign of semi survival and lack of fighting skills.You can hold and punch enough and stay safe to win.But do it too much that means you are trying to survive.Why hold if you are such a bad ass? Holding means there is something lacking in your fight game.

Like Hopkins is OLD he has to hold Hopkins at his late years has mastered this technique.Abril is just too much of a run and clinch dude must be the technique they teach in Cuba.Hatton can't fight mid range he has no skills so he has to get in the clinch and hit boxers behind the head etc.