Is It Time To Bring Back STANDING COUNTS To Reduce Early Stoppages?

[////]

I hate standing counts with a passion, it's always very awkward where one fighter is on the brink of a KO victory and the ref sticks his arm in the middle of it as if to say "I've decided it's too early for him to lose"

It makes corruption and fixing WAY easier since the ref can act as guardian angel for the "preferred" victor

[Mooshashi]

No. If Fighter A is unloading on a Fighter B, it is Fighter B's job to fight out or take a knee.

I find the notion that a Referee can break the fighters apart and give fighter B an 8 second breather utterly ridiculous and completely unfair on Fighter A.

I respectfully disagree. Fighter A will get credit for a knockdown and certainly a 10-8 round. The fans get to see the fight continue, and the sport doesn't get a controversial early stoppage.

[FlatLine]

I hate standing counts with a passion, it's always very awkward where one fighter is on the brink of a KO victory and the ref sticks his arm in the middle of it as if to say "I've decided it's too early for him to lose"

It makes corruption and fixing WAY easier since the ref can act as guardian angel for the "preferred" victor

If a fighter seems to be in trouble the referee can just stop the fight - as we've seen in quite a few fights recently - Berto vs Lopez, Degale vs Gonzales, Kovalev vs Pascal, just to name a few. So the corruption angle wouldn't be effected I think, it would probably reduce corruption if you reverse the scenario - fighter in trouble isn't the "house" fighter and ref stops the fight at first sign of trouble - with standing 8 count condition, ref must administer a count if fighter is in trouble before stopping it.

It just adds an extra condition before stopping a fight, which actually could reduce corruption.

[FlatLine]

No. If Fighter A is unloading on a Fighter B, it is Fighter B's job to fight out or take a knee.

I find the notion that a Referee can break the fighters apart and give fighter B an 8 second breather utterly ridiculous and completely unfair on Fighter A.

The problem is that Fighter B might not be experienced enough to take a knee, or might be too proud to do so because he's in a fight, or he might not think the situation deserves taking a knee and losing a point in the round, from his perspective. For a lot of fighters taking a knee isn't something they're taught to do, it's not part of training so in the heat of battle it doesn't occur to them a lot of the time. That's why a ref could effectively step in and make the fighter "take a knee", so to speak, by issuing a count - giving Fighter B a bit of recovery time and giving Fighter A an extra point for the round.

[SalimShady1212]

The problem is that Fighter B might not be experienced enough to take a knee, or might be too proud to do so because he's in a fight, or he might not think the situation deserves taking a knee and losing a point in the round, from his perspective. For a lot of fighters taking a knee isn't something they're taught to do, it's not part of training so in the heat of battle it doesn't occur to them a lot of the time. That's why a ref could effectively step in and make the fighter "take a knee", so to speak, by issuing a count - giving Fighter B a bit of recovery time and giving Fighter A an extra point for the round.

That is fighter B'a fault, fighter A might still get the knockdown but he may very well have got the KO instead

[////]

If a fighter seems to be in trouble the referee can just stop the fight - as we've seen in quite a few fights recently - Berto vs Lopez, Degale vs Gonzales, Kovalev vs Pascal, just to name a few. So the corruption angle wouldn't be effected I think, it would probably reduce corruption if you reverse the scenario - fighter in trouble isn't the "house" fighter and ref stops the fight at first sign of trouble - with standing 8 count condition, ref must administer a count if fighter is in trouble before stopping it.

It just adds an extra condition before stopping a fight, which actually could reduce corruption.

It allows the ref to rescue a fighter from being finished at his own unquestioned (and usually questionable) discretion.

All a biased or crappy ref can do right now is stop it a bit early if one fighter is already being beaten down. In a way it's a fighter's duty to not get beaten down in the first place.

With the standing count he can be a favored fighter's guardian angel and press a "reset" button when that fighter is about to be KO'd.

[FlatLine]

That is fighter B'a fault, fighter A might still get the knockdown but he may very well have got the KO instead

That's the whole point of the Standing Count - because Fighter B "might or might not be" in serious trouble - he's not taking a knee, but he might be taking a lot of shots without throwing much back - how does the ref know he isn't trying to set up a counter, or isn't trying to make Fighter A punch himself out etc.. instead of stopping a fight prematurely, ref should issue standing count to eliminate all doubt. When action continues, if Fighter B then still behaves same way only then should ref stop fight.

For example - there could be a standing count - then action resumes for only 10 seconds and Fighter B hasn't got the message he needs to do something different, he's still backing up taking shots - then the ref should stop fight.

It's an extra measure to make sure the stoppage isn't early.

[-MAKAVELLI-]

No. If Fighter A is unloading on a Fighter B, it is Fighter B's job to fight out or take a knee.

I find the notion that a Referee can break the fighters apart and give fighter B an 8 second breather utterly ridiculous and completely unfair on Fighter A.

and vice versa...what if fighter B has a hell of a beard and the ref jumps in there too early...fighter B automatically suffers a 10-8 round

[FlatLine]

It allows the ref to rescue a fighter from being finished at his own unquestioned (and usually questionable) discretion.

All a biased or crappy ref can do right now is stop it a bit early if one fighter is already being beaten down. In a way it's a fighter's duty to not get beaten down in the first place.

With the standing count he can be a favored fighter's guardian angel and press a "reset" button when that fighter is about to be KO'd.

Not if there are limitations in place with the standing count - I'm not saying ref should have unlimited use of the standing count.. see post above for what I mean.. ref should only be able to issue 1 or 2 standing counts max, after that the only option is stoppage

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Standing 8 count is ****** and usually delays a guy from being finished, and prolongs the beat down,,,

Should only be used if a guy is being held up by the ropes