Tokyo Douglas KOd in round 8. Yes or no?

"Counting" seconds on a clock doesn't matter! What isn't penetrating?

 

It's a 10 count, not a 10 second count. Not sure why this is so hard for so many idiots to compute.

 

Including Nat Fleischer, Jersey Joe Walcott, and all the boxing writers who went along with that fateful May 1965 decision. (Now back to our regularly scheduled Douglas-Tyson discussion : - ) )

 

Of course not.

 

Definitely not.

 

Well, the poll is overwhelming.

 

Good thing about Mike is when he went down, by gawd he went down for the full 10. Never any controversy when he was KTFO.

I always thought he looked in this fight like a dog sniffing around for his bone whilst retrieving his mouthpiece and it hanging out sideways.

 

NO, Douglas was definitely NOT KO’d in rd 8 and there are myriad other excuses offered for Mike’s loss that I don’t subscribe to either.


Having said that, there seems to be a somewhat emotional reaction to even discussing the count AS IF to pre-emptively block it being used to argue for a KO, even when such an argument isn’t being made.


Yeah, everyone gets that it’s not necessarily 10 seconds, rather it’s the REF’s 10 count. It doesn’t preclude discussion of same.


So as far as 10 counts go, we’re left with “how long is a piece of string” answers given the variance in the tolling of the count from one ref to another or even possibly the one ref in the one fight when opposing KDs are scored.


Is the 10 count not at least meant to be 10 seconds at least in spirit, particularly since they do pick up counts from timekeepers who are deferring to literal seconds as per their stop watches?


I would think so but since refs don’t all count evenly or perfectly, therefore it has to default to the refs count which obviously is not always a perfect 10 seconds but also can be somewhat outside of same either side.


The ref is also the fighters only guide to how much time he has been down and how much time he has left so again the wisdom of deferring to the ref’s personal metering of the 10 count is upheld.


At any rate, like it or not, Douglas was down for about 14 seconds and while people might speculate, it can’t be proven that he couldn’t have arisen earlier if necessary and as per the ref’s clear count, ala Gene Tunney’s claim re The Long Count v Demspey.


Also, it’s NOT as if pundits don’t complain about other aspects of refereeing that ultimately come under the ref’s discretion: policing of fouls, excessive clinching, timely or untimely stoppages etc.


Would everyone be okay with a ref count of 8 that was actually stretched out to and equated to an actual 16 seconds plus? I don’t think so, as such , arbitrary lines will be drawn as to the perception of counts that do or don’t go beyond the pale.


It seems that Mike himself was availed of the same metering afforded to Douglas, viz: a metered count longer than actual seconds.


However, the result of this fight was recorded as a KO when it appeared that Mike had arisen at the same time as Douglas - just after 9 - as per the ref’s count - but the ref. immediately waved the fight off when Mike stood up - he was obviously in no condition to continue - but was that not technically a TKO? If not, then the ref def. fast tracked to “10”’barely after he tolled “9”.


And the count is no mean feature, obviously making the immediate difference between winning and losing - some fighters have barely but legitimately beaten counts to go and win - an ever so slightly faster count might’ve put paid to them right then and there - of course the judgment on fighters’ potential to come back from KDs is also arbitrary from one pundit to another.

Suffice to say, even if Mike arose at 8 in the exact same condition as he was when he did arise, he was still clearly in no condition to continue.

 

Just to throw a small wrench in the works: I think it's a custom that the count has to be pretty close to 10 seconds. If a 10 count took 30 seconds, or 3, people would rightly start yelling fix.

The count in this case was close enough to 10-ish, though.

 

They both got virtually identical 14 second counts from the time their ass actually hit the floor. He started up the count when he got to them basically. The main thing that matters here is that he was perfectly consistent in his count for both fighters.

 

I have this fight as a 1st round KO win for Tyson.

 

He wasn't, but boy oh boy he cut it very fine in beating Meyran's count, and watching it back I do wonder if Meyran just delayed his "ten" ever so slightly to give Douglas the benefit of the doubt. Had Meyran kept his count as consistently as he had done from 1-9 then I think it's debatable whether Douglas was fully upright and ready to continue beyond any reasonable doubt by the time he'd have reached 10...But it's way too marginal to make any accusations of skulduggery (we're talking maybe half a second at most) and if he had have been counted out, it would have been more down to him simply miscalculating the count than being too badly hurt, which would have been a shame.

I think Tyson being such a polarising figure makes it hard to have reasoned debates or find any grey area with him, and if you delve into the issue of Douglas' count even past a superficial level you're likely to be told you're a Tyson groupie or a casual, or that you're degrading Douglas' win, putting it down to nothing more than good luck or whatever. I think a victory can still be magnificent and well-deserved while still acknowledging that maybe the boxing Gods were with Douglas on the night.

On another day, with another ref, Douglas might have been counted out on his feet, but that would have been controversial as well and we might be talking now about how Tyson got away with one back in Tokyo in 1990. Douglas possibly got a break with Meyran maybe exercising some discretion right at the very end of his count, and definitely did in terms of the bell coming immediately after, but that doesn't detract from the fact that he performed tremendously on the night and deserved his victory.

 

All true.

Imagine being a ref. tolling the count and seeing that a fighter is looking likely to rise on the cusp of “10”.

IMO it would take steely discipline to ensure that you didn’t subconsciously speed up or slow your count.

Not to necessarily favour or disfavour a fighter but to ensure a clear distinction as to whether the fighter beat your count or not - if that makes sense.

Perhaps to better make the point - if I was a ref, I’d prefer a fighter to either clearly beat my count or clearly fail to do so. None of this “up at” 9 1/2 secs business - too close a shave and too stressful. . LOL.

But seriously, while dedicated fans might be used to and flex with some curious variations in ref’s counts, a casual observer with some justification, might see it as poor regulation and open to misuse and abuse.

As a fighter putting on the line, I’d be peed if the ref fast counted me or slow counted my opponent.

As to Tyson v Douglas, I highlighted that the ref applied the same slow meter to Tyson as he did Douglas.

But I also pointed out that, imo, Mike arose at the same point in the count as Douglas did (viz: just after “9” was tolled).

So technically there is the argument that it should’ve perhaps been a TKO not KO - some might say so what?

Again, if the sport is to be respected then the ruling should’ve been on point and some fighters would prefer a TKO as opposed to a 10 count KO on their resume.

So if the ref did “count”‘Mike out, it wasn’t consistent since the same metering would’ve seen Douglas counted out in the first instance since Buster arose just after “9” exactly as Mike did.

 

Guessing Don King, Tyson himself, and the Tyson diehards here.