Meldrick taylor vs julio cesar chavez

I always felt Steele made the right call. As for letting past fighters continue, like Lalonde against Leonard, Hearns against Barkley the first time, don't you also have to concede that perhaps the subsequent brutal stoppages mere moments later may have changed Steele's outlook?

I'm not really a fan of Chavez, but it's pretty awful that Lou Duva in particular has helped to paint Steele as a corrupt official just because he acted like a poor trainer in the corner on two occasions (yelling at Taylor to win the 12th and distracting Taylor during Steele's count) that are just as likely have cost Taylor the fight.

At the same time, I realize perception is going to play a big role in people's interpretation of the event.

Oh, and for the people who mentioned Legendary Nights, I also hated how they provided no evidence whatsoever for the supposed Steele-King connection but proceeded to act like it was 50-50, maybe-maybe not. Guilty til proven innocent makes for good drama, but it made for a poor way to address an already controversial fight.

 

I agree, For those people I say... Imagine if it went 15 rds.... (same ****!)

 

I've tried to find more fights with shows Steele having a pro-King bias. I haven't found any that shows him favoring King fighters BEFORE Chavez-Taylor 1. In Tyson-Bruno 1, he did let Tyson get away with hitting Bruno when he was down. Then again, most refs for some reason don't punish fighters enough for hitting downed fighters.

After Chavez-Taylor 1, I felt Steele stopped Tyson-Ruddock 1, favoring the King fighter Tyson. He did take away a couple points later on from King fighter Chavez against Randall, which cost Chavez his undefeated record, and prompted Chavez to say "tell Richard Steele that he is a **** you".

The worst though was Keith Holmes vs. Quincy Taylor...Holmes was a King fighter at the time I believe. I'm not saying that Steele was pro-King, it was just a bad call IMO.