That referee totally sucked

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Rui, Jan 17, 2009.

  1. elgrancampeon

    elgrancampeon Well-Known Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,413
    Likes Received:
    0

    The thing is we agree! Kinda.


    Holding is illegal when excessive. The problem is "excessive" is not defined and is up to the ref to make that call. This ref does not allow a lot of holding. What is the difference?

    Who is to say he is wrong and say bayless is right? Nothing! Why? Because excessive is not defined.
     
  2. J.R.

    J.R. No Mames Guey Full Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Messages:
    15,033
    Likes Received:
    5
    What the **** are you all talking about?! You guys have gotten so used to clinching that you don't even realize it anymore when it's excessive. Berto was grabbing on for dear life after getting hurt in that 1st round and he was severly warned before the point deduction actually took place. No complaints here, the ref did his job.
     
  3. Rui

    Rui Well-Known Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,755
    Likes Received:
    2
    I agree that the term "excessive" can be interpreted differently by different referees, but what Berto was doing was hardly excessive by my standards and by the standards of practically everyone who watched the fight. Did you really think what he was doing really deserved a point deduction? I was shocked that the referee did that so early in a fight because it sets the precedent for Berto being more worried about a potential 10-8 round rather than the actual opponent in front of him.

    You could see that most times after the referee would separate them following the deduction, Berto would be turning towards the referee with a "Are you going to deduct another point" look. I really do think that the threat of losing another point played a factor in the fight as VARG points out.
     
  4. elgrancampeon

    elgrancampeon Well-Known Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,413
    Likes Received:
    0

    Which is why you don't rely on holding as a strategy.
     
  5. Rui

    Rui Well-Known Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,755
    Likes Received:
    2
    It's a necessity to rely on holding as a strategy when hurt or stunned. At least if you want to keep on winning.
     
  6. elgrancampeon

    elgrancampeon Well-Known Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,413
    Likes Received:
    0

    Well if you are hurt and stunned why would you mind losing the point as opposed to being KOd?

    And for this case it does not apply. Berto was holding whenever they got close and not allowing any in fighting.

    I did not see people complaining as much for the Bute Andrade fight in which the holding rule was almost entirely ignored.
     
  7. Rui

    Rui Well-Known Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,755
    Likes Received:
    2
    Collazo was engaging in the clinches as well. It wasn't a one-partner dance. There were times when Berto initiated the clinches and there were times when Collazo did as well although Berto did it more often.
     
  8. elgrancampeon

    elgrancampeon Well-Known Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,413
    Likes Received:
    0

    That may be so but it was clear that Berto was the one interested in the holding. Collazo was the one doing the in-fighting. If you don't like in-fighting learn to BOX. Berto had his moments when he pumped that jab and kept Collazo at bay.