Chavez - Taylor stoppage

[mickey malone]

"Public stoning" is more than a little hyperbolic. Taylor wasn't taking a one way beating in that round. If Steele was "just doing his job" Chavez would have been standing in a neutral corner opposed to the center of the ring. You can't have it both ways by claiming Steele was just doing his job while ignoring what he wasn't doing correctly.

Not quite... Taylor goes down in his own corner, then Chavez without delay, turns and walks to the corner opposite (his own).. Why, i don't know, but within a few secs, he headed to the neutral corner on his right, but stood just outside of it, and not heading for the centre of the ring until after Steel had waved it off..
I'll give you, that Steel may have focused more on Taylor's injuries than what was behind him. Taylor's head was starting to look like a pumpkin, so it's easy to see how he got distracted.. Loads of sympathy for Taylor, but he was totally gassed, getting hurt, and incoherent.. Steel did that part of his job very well.

[rightsideup]

I voted that the fight was stopped prematurely but can understand the merits of other the other viewpoint. I happened to be at the Tyson Rudduck 1 fight when steele stopped it and the riot ensued. As I ran out ironically I was discussing the stoppage with another fan and Meldrick Taylor joined in our conversation and said that steele stopped the fight too soon and ripped off Ruddock like he had ripped off himself. This is the best pro card I have seen and meeting meldrick and terry/orlin Norris pre-fight is something I will alway's remember. The Taylor/chavez 1 stoppage will always remain one of the great debate's of the sport.

[Scott9945]

I voted that the fight was stopped prematurely but can understand the merits of other the other viewpoint. I happened to be at the Tyson Rudduck 1 fight when steele stopped it and the riot ensued. As I ran out ironically I was discussing the stoppage with another fan and Meldrick Taylor joined in our conversation and said that steele stopped the fight too soon and ripped off Ruddock like he had ripped off himself. This is the best pro card I have seen and meeting meldrick and terry/orlin Norris pre-fight is something I will alway's remember. The Taylor/chavez 1 stoppage will always remain one of the great debate's of the sport.

It has replaced the "Long Count" as boxings all time biggest controversy. The debates are still heated and the poll results here indicate how divided fans are about it.

[saintpat]

Steel asked him twice if he was good and Taylor never answered.

Doesn't matter if it was 1/10th of a second. The point is to incapacitate your opponent (or to outbox him to win a decision). Chavez achieved that -- Taylor was in no condition to continue and couldn't even nod his head or look the ref in he eye when his condition was being assessed. At that point, he's unable to continue -- fight over.

Otherwise, they should schedule fights for 11 rounds, 2 minutes and 50 seconds.

[Humean]

If the referee isn't responsible for keeping a fighter in a neutral corner, then who is?

I never said that that wasn't the referee's job. Steele did order Chavez to the neutral corner. If Chavez wasn't there then Steele cannot have eyes in the back of his head monitoring Chavez's exact positioning whilst counting over Taylor. Do you not realize how desperately absurd your point is on this issue? Anyway others have correctly pointed out Chavez's movement behind Steele's back.

That is a boxing rule, not a conspiracy

I never said that was a conspiracy. I said your general view of what happened in this fight was a conspiracy.

If you really believe in all this 'house fighter' stuff as explaining the results in boxing, then why do you bother to watch and indeed like the sport? If I thought like you on that then I would not have any interest in the sport whatsoever.

[Scott9945]

I never said that that wasn't the referee's job. Steele did order Chavez to the neutral corner. If Chavez wasn't there then Steele cannot have eyes in the back of his head monitoring Chavez's exact positioning whilst counting over Taylor. Do you not realize how desperately absurd your point is on this issue? Anyway others have correctly pointed out Chavez's movement behind Steele's back.


I never said that was a conspiracy. I said your general view of what happened in this fight was a conspiracy.

If you really believe in all this 'house fighter' stuff as explaining the results in boxing, then why do you bother to watch and indeed like the sport? If I thought like you on that then I would not have any interest in the sport whatsoever.

The referee can stand sideways. Ever hear of peripheral vision? The first Bute-Andrade fight (among others) shows an example of this.

If you don't believe the house fighter often gets preferential treatment in boxing, you are very naïve. I can spend all day listing examples of this. I love the sport of boxing , ***** and all. I can make the same comment about those who hate multiple champions, corrupt promoters, etc. You really shouldn't try to determine what someone else's standards and tolerance should be.

[Humean]

The referee can stand sideways. Ever hear of peripheral vision? The first Bute-Andrade fight (among others) shows an example of this.

Do you mean the end of the first fight? I do not consider that an example of good refereeing. The fighter if standing in an incorrect position can always be held back by the referee after a count anyway before letting him at his opponent. I really don't know why I am continuing to debate this point!

If you don't believe the house fighter often gets preferential treatment in boxing, you are very naïve. I can spend all day listing examples of this. I love the sport of boxing , ***** and all. I can make the same comment about those who hate multiple champions, corrupt promoters, etc. You really shouldn't try to determine what someone else's standards and tolerance should be.

I never actually argued against the idea that a 'house fighter' gets preferential treatment, your argument goes beyond that conclusion. Your argument ends with the conclusion of fraud not mere preferential treatment. I think the judges often display unconscious bias towards the better known fighter as well as often to the fighter who the crowd seems to support. The former I think is the more usual occurrence, especially when said fighter is so tight up with the whole promotion of the event.

Why shouldn't i try and determine what someone else's standards and tolerance should be? Your opinions/beliefs stand the test of consistency like everyone else's, such as my own. I genuinely wanted to understand how you would cohere your stated opinions/beliefs with your love for boxing.

[StarshipTrooper]

Do you mean the end of the first fight? I do not consider that an example of good refereeing. The fighter if standing in an incorrect position can always be held back by the referee after a count anyway before letting him at his opponent. I really don't know why I am continuing to debate this point!

I never actually argued against the idea that a 'house fighter' gets preferential treatment, your argument goes beyond that conclusion. Your argument ends with the conclusion of fraud not mere preferential treatment. I think the judges often display unconscious bias towards the better known fighter as well as often to the fighter who the crowd seems to support. The former I think is the more usual occurrence, especially when said fighter is so tight up with the whole promotion of the event.

Why shouldn't i try and determine what someone else's standards and tolerance should be? Your opinions/beliefs stand the test of consistency like everyone else's, such as my own. I genuinely wanted to understand how you would cohere your stated opinions/beliefs with your love for boxing.

Are you claiming there's never been fixed fights in boxing? Really?!?!

Poet

[Humean]

Are you claiming there's never been fixed fights in boxing? Really?!?!

where did I say that?

[StarshipTrooper]

where did I say that?

>>>>>

I never actually argued against the idea that a 'house fighter' gets preferential treatment, your argument goes beyond that conclusion. Your argument ends with the conclusion of fraud not mere preferential treatment. I think the judges often display unconscious bias towards the better known fighter as well as often to the fighter who the crowd seems to support. The former I think is the more usual occurrence, especially when said fighter is so tight up with the whole promotion of the event.

The implication is clear that you're rejecting the idea that fights are fixed (ie fraud, conspiracy) as opposed to mere "preferential treatment".

Poet