The Mike Tyson vs Buster Douglas referee count myth busted.

[poet682006]

Originally Posted by Jim Jeffries

Am I missing something?

The guy says both counts were the same amount of time.

Douglas, who went down first, wasn't counted out. Tyson was.

So what point is he trying to make?

That Douglas' count wasn't any different than the one Tyson got.....namely it's a STFU to whinging Tyson KoolAid drinkers.

Poet

[BennyST]

Originally Posted by BatteredKessler

good post

it is like the people sayinf Hearns would have beaten Ray Leonard in a 12 round fight the first time around

these idiots don't realize that with less rounds to go, Leonard would have fought differently, with more urgency, so maybe he would have ko'ed Hearns in the 10th or 11th had it been a 12 rounder, we just don't know

but people don't take that into account, they take the short cut that fit their agenda

Douglas definitely looked like a man taking his time on the canvas before getting up, he would probably have beaten a good count

No, we don't. But Hearns would also have still had enough stamina to get through and keep fighting back. The reason it got stopped wasn't as much because Leonard was going to knock him out or had him really badly hurt, but was as much about Hearns being exhausted by then and not able to fight back or stay up.

I do know what you mean though.

[roxy]

Any controversy taking away from douglas's win was D.King made and only kept alive by extreme Tyson fans.

[Barnburner]

Originally Posted by BatteredKessler

???

yes, the referee first sends the opponent to a neutral corner, but the count starts when you touch the canvas, hence why a lot of the counts ''start'' at 4 when the ref gets back to the dropped fighter after taking care of the KD scorer and picking up the count ringside (isn't this obvious ?)

all good refs pick the count ringside, otherwise, you get some bullcrap counts like the ones we can observe in the Tyson-Douglas fight...

Europeans have a much better method, if I'm not mistaken, it is the time keeper who makes the count through a mic, and the ref just follows it

See the Gene Tunney long count. Dempsey did not go to a neutrel corner therefore the count did not start and Tunney was allowed down for approximately 14 seconds.

[SBleeder]

Originally Posted by Sugarj

Yes, Mike was tired, trailing on the scorecards

Actually, if the fight had gone to the judges after nine rounds, it would have been a draw. One of the two Japanese judges (the third was an American, who was the only one of the three actually watching the fight) had the fight even... the other had Tyson ahead by a point. If anyone had a legitimate complaint about the non-principals of the fight, it would have been Douglas.

[Barnburner]

Originally Posted by SBleeder

Actually, if the fight had gone to the judges after nine rounds, it would have been a draw. One of the two Japanese judges (the third was an American, who was the only one of the three actually watching the fight) had the fight even... the other had Tyson ahead by a point. If anyone had a legitimate complaint about the non-principals of the fight, it would have been Douglas.

I seriously had Douglas winning up 2-3 points. If I remember right.

[SBleeder]

Originally Posted by Barnburner

I seriously had Douglas winning up 2-3 points. If I remember right.

The only round Tyson won was the 8th, only because of the knockdown. I scored it 88-83 for Douglas.

[CarlosG815]

Originally Posted by Barnburner

I seriously had Douglas winning up 2-3 points. If I remember right.

It's been a while since I watched the fight but I had Douglas winning nearly every round, aside from the round he was knocked down.

[Anthony342]

Originally Posted by poet682006

The referee isn't obligated to pick up the timekeeper's count. The referee's, in fact, isn't supposed to start until the other fighter goes to the neutral corner. The rules are a fighter is considered KOed when the referee counts 10 NOT when 10 seconds elapse. The only thing the timekeeper does that's official is time the 3 minute rounds and 1 minute breaks.

Fighters are taught to pick up the referee's count NOT the timekeeper's. Why? Because the ref's count is the only one that counts.

Poet

With that being true, what was the deal with the second Ali/Liston fight? Jersey Joe Walcott never even started his count because he couldn't get Ali to a neutral corner. They said on Ringside that the rule is the ref is supposed to have the fighter leave the ring if he can't get the fighter still standing to a neutral corner? So then, the fight was stopped when Walcott was told by the timekeeper that Liston was down for more than 10 seconds, but the ref never really started his count, so what was the deal there?

Supposedly, Liston years later was in a diner talking about the fight saying he must have lost because Nat Fleischer (of Ring Magazine) said he lost, since it was Fleischer who pointed out that Liston had been down for more than 10 seconds. Was this fight some kind of exception then?

[Anthony342]

Originally Posted by BatteredKessler

???

yes, the referee first sends the opponent to a neutral corner, but the count starts when you touch the canvas, hence why a lot of the counts ''start'' at 4 when the ref gets back to the dropped fighter after taking care of the KD scorer and picking up the count ringside (isn't this obvious ?)

all good refs pick the count ringside, otherwise, you get some bullcrap counts like the ones we can observe in the Tyson-Douglas fight...

Europeans have a much better method, if I'm not mistaken, it is the time keeper who makes the count through a mic, and the ref just follows it

They do that in the US sometimes too. That was done in the Tyson/Spinks fight.