Paret vs Griffith III

I'd be interested to know what people's views are on Griffith's actions in the 12th round.

I know his trainer was supposed to have told him to keep punching Paret until the referee intervenes if he had him in trouble but when an opponent is clearly beaten, unresponsive, leaning out of the ring and probably unconscious why continue punching???

I remember Griffith once said that if he knew Paret was hurt he would have stopped punching but for goodness' sake everything in the footage totally contradicts that.

I just don't believe him.

I'm not saying Griffith intended to cause Paret permanent damage but I can't help feeling that he wanted to punish Paret for the incidents that occurred before the fight and for that I believe that Griffith had to take some responsibility for what happened.

Stopping a fight is a decision made by the referee, the doctor or the cornermen but Griffith could and should have backed off.

I think he and Goldstein were both at fault.

 

I completely agree that it is the job of the referee or chief second to stop the fight but continuing to punch a helpless, unconscious opponent is no longer fighting in my opinion.

 

I agree totally. Goldstein should have stopped the fight sooner.

If there was one very minor thing that could be said in his defence (and I'm probably clutching at straws here) it would be that it is harder to step in when the fighters are in a corner.

But then again there was nothing stopping Goldstein putting his arms round Griffith to let him know he was stopping the fight.

 

A fighter's job is to win and that will involve moving in on an opponent who is hurt to seal victory but when that opponent is totally defenceless and only being held up by the ropes then victory is sealed and the job is done.

It's then time for the fighter to back off.

 

I'm not disputing that it is the referee's decision to stop the fight.

I'm saying the fighter should have backed off.

 

When you have thrown 25 punches without reply, your opponent is wide open and unable to even cover up, is leaning halfway out of the ring, being propped up by the ropes and is probably unconscious then it's pretty obvious that he's had enough.

 

Even if you are essentially trying to hurt your opponent every time you punch him (which actually I don't agree with) and are paid to do it I don't see how that clouds the issue of whether to back off when as you say the opponent is clearly done and unconscious.

It goes back to my earlier point that the job is done and it's time to back off and invite the referee to stop the fight.

If somehow the referee chooses not to then the fighter is blameless.