Tweet
After hearing the discussions about Kessler-Ward, and I do agree that Ward should have been warned about the head-butts, deliberate or not...although I don't think the clinching was all that bad considering the punch-out-put by Ward...as well as other fighters like Gene Tunney, Vitali Klitscho, Wladamir Klitschko, Jack Johnson, Ali, Lewis, etc. who used holding as a tactic.
But to the main point at hand: if the rule book states that certain actions are deemed "illegal," then Illegal tactics should be given a warning and if that warning is not obeyed, a point deduction followed by a disqualification is needed.
I remember Hatton holding and hitting; hitting behind the head which is extremely dangerous which actually may have caused the damage to Tszyu's brain. Hatton was given a warning, but he continued on.
We may be looking at a straight up robber here folks. A disgusting ref that was in Hatton's pocket.
Now, personally, I've been saying this:
Although I don't like excessive holding, I do understand it's use and if the ref allows you to get away with it, a fighter can take what is given to him. In the case with Hatton, he realized the best way to beat Tszyu, past prime and inactive, was to hold on and wear him down because when he tried to box, he was being schooled...so, it was an intelligent move by Hatton to do what he had to do in order to win based on what was given to him by the ref. And it is up to the fighter, the one that is on the defensive of such illegal tactics to adapt in order to win if nothing is being done to stop the illegal tactics.
Now do fighters have to do go this way?
NO. It's based on choice.
I remember seeing Joe Louis in a fight with an opponent, think Billy Conn, that slipped during their match and when others would have hit the opponent to take advantage, Joe Louis, a Great Champion, did not attack and allowed the opponent to gather himself in order to fight. Joe Louis is one of the few Champions that I can't recall if he ever bent the rules in a fight even though he had other challengers, even ones considered "ATG" use illegal tactics against him in order to win. Now maybe he did use illegal tactics deemed on purpose...maybe...I just don't know as of now.
But to the main point at hand: if the rule book states that certain actions are deemed "illegal," then Illegal tactics should be given a warning and if that warning is not obeyed, a point deduction followed by a disqualification is needed.
I remember Hatton holding and hitting; hitting behind the head which is extremely dangerous which actually may have caused the damage to Tszyu's brain. Hatton was given a warning, but he continued on.
We may be looking at a straight up robber here folks. A disgusting ref that was in Hatton's pocket.
Now, personally, I've been saying this:
Although I don't like excessive holding, I do understand it's use and if the ref allows you to get away with it, a fighter can take what is given to him. In the case with Hatton, he realized the best way to beat Tszyu, past prime and inactive, was to hold on and wear him down because when he tried to box, he was being schooled...so, it was an intelligent move by Hatton to do what he had to do in order to win based on what was given to him by the ref. And it is up to the fighter, the one that is on the defensive of such illegal tactics to adapt in order to win if nothing is being done to stop the illegal tactics.
Now do fighters have to do go this way?
NO. It's based on choice.
I remember seeing Joe Louis in a fight with an opponent, think Billy Conn, that slipped during their match and when others would have hit the opponent to take advantage, Joe Louis, a Great Champion, did not attack and allowed the opponent to gather himself in order to fight. Joe Louis is one of the few Champions that I can't recall if he ever bent the rules in a fight even though he had other challengers, even ones considered "ATG" use illegal tactics against him in order to win. Now maybe he did use illegal tactics deemed on purpose...maybe...I just don't know as of now.
Comment