Who's your favorite referee

[Manassa Jack]

I get where you're coming from, and I appreciate the referee's point of view.
But I have never been a referee.

The referee is the only one whose point of view is relevant to the subject of what a referee should have done in this situation, which was to enforce the rules he was paid to enforce.

I've always been a fighter, and as a fighter, I want my two seconds. I don't want the referee taking away my last 35 minutes and 58 seconds of dominance if I'm on my feet and the other guy is clear across the ring.

But there wasn't just one fighter in the ring, there were two fighters in the ring. And while one fighter may have survived taking shots for 35 min, 58 second ... the other fighter was busily after his ass trying to blast him for 35 min, 58 seconds ... and he finally got him and sent his foe to the canvas. Why should Chavez have his well-deserved payoff for all of his hard work taken from him by a referee?

I especially don't want it if it's going to take you at least one of those two seconds to get out of the way and say go, giving the other guy maybe one second to try and find me. Taylor, you might say, had the traditional Philadelphia fighter's heart. He fought long after that fight, and he fought long after he should have stopped. Obviously, he didn't have it in him to quit.

Taylor was no longer in a position to "want" anything. He was insensible and incoherent. Every fighter knows that after a knockdown you're supposed to put your gloves up and signal "yes" when you are asked to continue ... and Taylor no longer had the wherewithal to respond properly. And Richard Steele was obligated to do as he did, which was stop the fight at that point.

Steele was under no obligation to "cheat," to flagrantly give Taylor an undeserved chance to try to see if he could last the 2 seconds, while taking all of Chavez' hard work away from him.

And forgive me, but I believe that Taylor was of a high enough caliber with well-developed instincts to cover up for that last blistering second or so. That's something a guy with his kind of heart and courage should have been allowed.

I disagree. Taylor should not have been allowed, because Steele would basically have had to spin the rules he was paid to enforce in order to allow that to happen. Another point of consideration is, if Taylor didn't have the wherewithal to put his hands up and nod "yes," then who is to say he would have had the wherewithal to slip and avoid the HUGE punches Chavez was sure to fire at him if he did continue? Chavez was one of the hardest-hitting sharpshooters in the game, and Taylor was out on his feet. I know people who have died in the ring, and that is exactly how it happens.

You all may be right. Steele may have done the right thing by the fighter, and he was certainly within his rights and duty to stop the fight. But I see it from the fighter's point of view - not the referee's.

You see it from "one" fighter's point of view, Taylor's, and you see it based on the assumption he would not have taken permanent injury from the continuance. But there is another fighter's point of view to be taken into consideration, and that is Chavez', and Chavez deserved to win that fight because he had chopped down his foe within the time limits of their scheduled bout.

This is why the referee is called "the third man in the ring," because he is the impartial observer and enforcer of the rules. You are basically suggesting that Richard Steele should have ceased to be "im"partial, and made a partial and biased decision to give Meldrick Taylor an undeserved continuance of the fight, even though Steele was ethically-obligated to stop said fight, precisely because Taylor did not answer him when Steele asked if he was okay.

I see Taylor, left after that fight with the same brain damage he would have had if he'd been allowed to have his two seconds. And I see him being cheated out of 35:58 of pure ring genius to go home and enjoy his brain damage with an after-shot of loss. From a fighter's point of view - from the point of view of a guy who had the heart and balls to stand back up at the count of five, Steele was a thief that night.

Taylor was not cheated, he lost fair and square. It is your suggestion that Steele should have broken the rules on Taylor's behalf that would have been tantamount to cheating.

The fact is Taylor wasn't the only one who put on a great performance that night, and while he did box wonderfully and touched Chavez more than Chavez touched him, the fact remains Chavez' punches were far more deadly and far more telling to the ultimate outcome of the fight. It's pretty hard to say that a man who was counted out and had to go to the hospital for two weeks "beat" a man who went home to his family afterward. Meldrick Taylor put on the best fight he could possibly have put on, and he did a great job, but it just was not enough to beat Julio Cesar Chavez.

And while Chavez may not have scored as often as Taylor, his punches ultimately carried more weight, they did more damage, and they resulted in a broken Taylor lying flat on his back, who though he did manage to somehow get up, still wasn't responsive enough to answer the ref and so was rightfully deemed unable to continue the fight.

Pit Dog

[Caveman]

I'm trying to remember the name of that really annoying boxing ref that kept separating these two guys over and over again and drawing a blank.

Hah, was that pointed at me? or really, my post? :P

[treelizard]

Hah, was that pointed at me? or really, my post? :P

LOL, no. It just made me think of him! It was this really old guy who made them stop every three seconds... God I wanted to hit him.

[treelizard]

Joe Cortez.

[Caveman]

Ohhh haha ok. Cuz apparently Mazzagatti gets criticism sometimes over stopping the ground game fight and puttin' them back to their feet. I personally dont mind because im a better stand up fighter...hence, i love watching the stand up game. Though, they should only be put back on their feet if their hovering over eachother for rest. (which is good for the fighter, sort of like boxing holding, but makes for a slow fight for the fans out there.)

[DickHardman]

I have a crush on Herb Dean.

i know exactly why too, but i cant say it or else ill get banned.

[DickHardman]

mike tyson was my favorite ref, when he refereed stone cold vs hbk at wrestlemania. after hbk got out of line, tyson had to drop him.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ytXRopWGeE[/YOUTUBE]

[Tant01]

Ironic...Eh?

....... I gotta be honest here: I am a little surprised, Pit, that you would have such a hard time grasping the notion of me standing up for the guy who was showing the heart. Taylor was up at the count of five, knowing (or intuiting, maybe) that if he could make it out of the round, he was the champ. He got up, he looked to his corner for advice, and none of it mattered thanks to Steele. I think the kind of heart, guts, and determination Taylor showed should have been rewarded.

In fact, based on your staunch advocacy for fighters who show "heart," and your seemingly incongruent argument here, I'm almost willing to bet that the only reason you're arguing for Steele in the first place is because you want to be on the other side of anything and everything I say. On the one hand, you consider anyone willing to quit due to life or career threatening injuries a gutless wonder, and all of a sudden, the fighter with all the heart in the world needs a referee to save him from his two second finish? Yeah. More and more, it's looking like you just want to argue with me.

...

It's funny to me because it's so predictable. No disrespect intended but the dog is still just living up to his "name". You know a Pit dog can't let go once he sinks his teeth into something... If he should lose his grip on one leg you can count on him to lock on to the other one as soon as you turn your back.




"I'll ALLOW IT!"

Mills Lane...Celeberty Death Match.

[Manassa Jack]

But who our favorites are is the only thing relevant to the topic. The topic asked about our favorite referees - our opinions. It didn't ask if Richard Steele did what he should have done. I already said he was well within his duty to stop the fight. I also said that as a fighter, I don't care. It still sucks from the fighter's point of view, and since I've only been a fighter - never a referee - that's the point of view I identify with.

I actually don't like Richard Steele. I think he has done a lousy job in many other fights, but he made the right call on that one.

I have never been a referee either, but since the subject was referees, then we need to evaluate them at that capacity. Steele's decision did not suck from Chavez' point of view, and it did not suck from a referee's point of view.

Because he lost on every judge's scorecard up until the ref stopped the fight. It's not "taking away his hard work" if he was losing. The reward for a knockdown is an extra point's difference in scoring the round. Chavez would have gotten that, I'm sure. And he still would have lost.

But Chavez didn't just score a "knockdown" over Taylor, he scored a knockout ... this is the point you are failing to understand. When a man cannot respond to basic questions, he is KO'd on his feet.

Nonsense. Referees make these very same kinds of judgement calls all the time. You are presenting a judgement call by Steele as some kind of carved in stone law that all refs would have seen the same way, and that's just not accurate or honest. Referees know that certain fighters can take hard shots and keep going, so fighters like Vinny Pazienza, Arturo Gatti, Evander Holyfield and boxers like them get a lot more slack. That's just a fact.

It is not a fact, and again the point you keep missing is that fighters who are allowed to go on are still able to respond to the ref when asked if they want to continue.

When a fighter is no longer able to respond to a basic question, and is just standing there gape-mouthed with his hands at his side, the fight will be stopped. Period.

Look at the other video I posted of Chavez beating up Roger Mayweather. Mayweather was allowed to continue three separate times in a single round. There are other examples, and some that might even be better at making the point, but it really isn't relevant. The simple fact - and it is a fact - is that referees are allowed to use their own judgement in interpreting the rules.

Again, the point you are missing is that these people were still able to respond to the referee's question. There are many fighters who will say "yes," but the ref will still stop it, and there are many fighters who will say "yes," and the ref will agree to let it go ... but if a fighter is so fugged-up he can't even respond anymore then 100% of the refs are going to stop it.

Steele did not act under any obligation to stop the fight other than the obligation he felt due to his own interpretation of the rules. HE alone decided to stop the fight, and it wasn't based on anything other than his read of the situation. If someone else had been in there and interpreted the situation differently, it would have been just as valid.

I disagree, for reasons already stated several times now. It was no longer a judgment call when Taylor was unable to respond.

You're wrong. Taylor did suffer permanent injury from that fight. He has horrible chronic brain injury, and it began with Chavez' beating. I am just sorry that he didn't have the belt he so truly deserved to go along with it.

I am not wrong, Taylor could have been killed or injured worse had it gone on. The fact that Taylor was so desperately injured and battered only proves that you're wrong in feeling he was "ahead" in that fight. Maybe on the cards of the blind judges, but if anyone just thinks about it reasonably it was Taylor who got the living shit beaten out of him, not Chavez.

I gotta be honest here: I am a little surprised, Pit, that you would have such a hard time grasping the notion of me standing up for the guy who was showing the heart. Taylor was up at the count of five, knowing (or intuiting, maybe) that if he could make it out of the round, he was the champ. He got up, he looked to his corner for advice, and none of it mattered thanks to Steele. I think the kind of heart, guts, and determination Taylor showed should have been rewarded.

I am not oblivious to the fact Taylor showed great heart, but he was done and out on his feet. If he had his faculties with him his gloves would have been up and he would have answered the question Steele was screaming at him 2 inches from his face, but he did not. Instead, Taylor stared vacantly around with his hands down at his side, out on his feet.

I agree that Taylor showed tremendous courage, but he was a beaten and broken man within the 12 round time limit, thanks to the fabulous work and dogged determination of Julio Cesar Chavez.

In fact, based on your staunch advocacy for fighters who show "heart," and your seemingly incongruent argument here, I'm almost willing to bet that the only reason you're arguing for Steele in the first place is because you want to be on the other side of anything and everything I say.

Here you go again, getting personal Mike. My argument is not incongruent at all, you just have trouble understanding some basic concepts. I think Taylor showed the heart and courage of a true Champion and that HE should not have quit (which he didn't), but I also believe if a fighter is getting seriously fugged-up that it should be the corner or the referee stopping the fight, not the fighter himself.

Your paranoia about me taking issue with you is just that, paranoia. We seem to share similar interests in subjects, but we just take polar opposite opinions on them for some reason.

On the one hand, you consider anyone willing to quit due to life or career threatening injuries a gutless wonder, and all of a sudden, the fighter with all the heart in the world needs a referee to save him from his two second finish? Yeah. More and more, it's looking like you just want to argue with me.
That couldn't have anything to do with it, though...could it?

Once again Mike, here you go with all the personal BS. As a moderator I would think you'd have a little more maturity than that. I simply disagree with you on this subject, which was one of the best Chavez fights ever and one of the most dramatic comebacks in the history of boxing.

P.S.
Let's not forget the most important point here. You remember? The thread topic itself? It said something about "Who's your favorite referee?" Is there some reason that you need for me to like Richard Steele? I'm not allowed to have a different "favorite ref" than you?

Like I said, I do not like Richard Steele either, but he made a good call in that fight.

Jack

[Tant01]

Diplomacy...

Or...

"Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggie' until you can find a rock."

Will Rogers

[Manassa Jack]

Give it a rest, Puppy Dog. You've been nothing but personal and insulting despite multiple attempts by me at apologies and smoothing things over. I've been polite, both in e-mails and PMs, and I've made every reasonable attempt to be courteous.

You talk out of both sides of your mouth as usual. You do things like call me "Puppy Dog" out of one side of your mouth, and then you tell me how "polite" you are to me out of the other. You are just being the same hypocritical clown you were before, who doesn't know what the word courteous really means.

Courtesy means showing respect and consideration for another person, not calling them names and then saying how "polite" you are. I was showing respect in my posts, and you just don't want to extend the same courtesy for some reason.

As for the thread, here's the way it works.
The topic is "Who's your favorite referee." Steele isn't mine. I don't like his style, and I disagreed with a lot of calls he made. There's really no argument after that. All the talk around the Chavez / Taylor fight is interesting, but incidental. Another ref might not have stopped it, and no one (except Chavez) would have complained a bit. It's interpretive and subjective. The fact that you disagree with me is not only a given, but it's not really the point and it has no bearing on the topic. You like to argue in general, and you like ot argue with me in particular but you are missing the most basic and elementary point of all. If you need help grasping it, feel free to go back and read the title of the thread.

I actually agree with you about Steele in general. What I don't like about Steele is that he allows fighters to grab and hold. In the Hagler/Leonard fight, Steele said, "No holding Ray, no holding" over a hundred times ... but yet never deducted a point from Leonard. Holding is a foul, just like hitting low is a foul, and repeated transgressions should be penalized and enforced.

You're arguing an opinion - a judgement that is purely based on my own bias and preferences. The real problem is not what Steele did or didn't do. The real issue is that there is no argument. It's like trying to argue me out of the opinion that I like steak more than applesauce or something. You're spinning your wheels, and nothing you say about it matters in the least.

Actually, it is a fact that Richard Steele stopped the fight, and it is another fact that he did so because Taylor didn't respond to his questions. This means I am the one arguing the facts here, and it is you who are arguing your opinions ... and it is these opinions of yours that don't matter in the least ... as they won't change the factual outcome of the Chavez/Taylor fight.

So I thank you for pointing out that Richard Steele did the right thing in the Chavez / Taylor fight. Good points. In fact, as I said before, I agree, from the ref's point of view. Congratulations; you've stated the obvious.

You're welcome Mike, glad I could help, and glad we finally agree on a subject.

Now quit trying to pick fights with me and get over yourself. If you're going to take offense to every little comment, I think it shows a certain immaturity and weakness on your part.

I wasn't picking a fight, and I hardly call typing "fighting," but if you go re-read my original post I was very respectful to you and called you no names. You are the one who has been disrespectful to me all along, rolling your eyes, saying I am not arguing in earnest, and calling me names like "puppy dog." This means you are the one taking offense here, which again shows the immaturity on your part.

And if you insist on pushing and attempting to get all bullish with me, I'll keep on banning accounts and we can all giggle at how sad it is that someone would go to all the trouble of creating e-mail account after e-mail account just so they could come back and get banned all over again.

I haven't gone to the trouble to make up new email accounts, I have several dozen of them already. What is sad is that a grown man has to have a hissy-fit simply for disagreeing with him, because he doesn't have the strength of character to allow for a disparity of opinion on any subject. It is sad that a grown man has to resort to name-calling, but yet can't take it if this kind of behavior is returned to him.

I'm cutting you slack. Take the hint and become a constructive member of the boards again.

You're not cutting me slack, you're still being a jackass. I have been trying to be a constructive member here, but your infantile rants at me every time I post make this hard to do. Go re-read this thread and you will see you are the one who became personal with me first, once again. It really isn't necessary.

It's obvious by the fact that you have to create dozens of new e-mail accounts time and again that you really do want to be here, so just give it a rest and be thankful that I'm making it easier on you.

"Be thankful" to you? That's funny.

Like I said, I already have dozens of email accounts. And what is obvious is that you really do want me here, which is why you sent me almost a dozen emails trying to "give me another chance."

Why don't you just cut the personal BS and just discuss the issues? It's really not that hard to do and makes for a better discussion.

Jack

[Tant01]

Big ol' mean moderator....

hmmmmm.... brussel sprouts :P