Can anyone explain this please?

You didnt answer the question. What would you have had him do differently? erm right... i would have him behave in a way that couldn't be seen as corrupt, that couldn't be seen as biased, couldn't be seen as behaving like a little ****, and that was neutral. if you can't understand that then so be it.

Cortez was hired because he tends to give certain fighters and advantage and bigger chance of winner with his "reffing style". Why else would the worst ref ever have been the most used ref in big fights? Put an actual ref in the Khan-Maidana fight and Khan would have been stopped

Typical Brit response. What would you of had Cortez do differently? me personally, i'd like to have seen him not be a corrupt biased little piece of **** and have display consistent neutrality. i think that's what a referee is meant to do if i'm not mistaken. he was definitely third man in the ring...

Two different type of fights. Look at Hagler Hearns and Hagler Leonard. Same referee but the fight was controlled differently. I hope your being sarcastic. If not then you're a properly think cunt.

He was biased. Easily explained. That's what frustrates me. I know Hatton would've lost either way cos Floyd is a beast, but did it really need Cortez applying extra bollocks? Especially as he allowed Hopkins to do to Calzaghe, what he so actively stopped Hatton from doing? Such a corrupt sport, makes me sick to the stomach.

there are 2 men kissing on your avy:chairshot I know, I uploaded pic obviously.

He was biased. Easily explained.

there are 2 men kissing on your avy:chairshot