[Chatty]

How do you feel on this matter. In many ways its no different to a touchdown where there has been a legit KD but the guy isn't really that hurt and can carry on. The difference is that they have used the ropes as an object to literally stop them from touching down and had the rope not been there they would have hit the canvas (most likely). It could be harsh on the boxers in some occasions but so is the touchdown rule on occasions as well.

Here's three examples of the referee letting it continue:

Roberto Duran v Ken Buchanan - Round 1: about 1:00 in

Duran had already scored a KD when Buchanan had touched down on the canvas earlier in the round quite similar, this time Roberto gets tagged and is kept up on the ropes.

Manny Pacquaio v Juan Manuel Marquez II - Round 2: 0:24

This time Marquez has been dropped,gets up with ten seconds of the round to go and gets tagged again. This time he is clearly holding the ropes for balance and could well have gone down again. It would be harsh to deduct another point but if it was in the middle of the ring then its likely that thats what would have happened.

Evander Holyfield v Riddick Bowe I - Round 10:

Evander gets hit with a ridiculous uppercut and a right hook sends him bouncing of the ropes, only to bounce back up in what would have definitely resulted in a KD otherwise.

Now the thing is, it can be argued that all these guys stayed on their feet and got on with the boxing, rallying back (other than Marquez who had no time) or staying well in fight after and thus the referee could be attributed to making a good call but in reality they should be called a knock-down or on the other-side of the coin then referees should be given more power to make judgement's on the tocuh-down ruling which the only difference is that its in the centre and not the sides. Thoughts?

 

[Danny]

It's a difficult one. I'm tempted to say I'd try and find a balance somewhere, like if you get knocked back in to the ropes, it would be different to literally holding on to the ropes with your hand to keep up.

 

[Lunny]

I think when they bounce back off the ropes like that and carry on then I don't really mind the referee giving them the benefit of the doubt. Though if the ref called it I wouldn't complain. From a ref's point of view it's tough though, if they've just touched the roped and carried on people will complain that they got given a soft KD and it changed the result of the fight etc.

Something like this though (at 19.50) the ref should have called a KD or split them straight away rather than allowing Skelton to get those extra shots in:

 

[Teeto]

hmm, good thread

for me unless they touch down in some way I wouldn't want it to be classed as a KD, there's no room for ambiguity then with the touch and go decisions. The ring is where it is, the ropes aren't gunna move, you know what it is, knock him down somewhere else.

 

[Chatty]

hmm, good thread

for me unless they touch down in some way I wouldn't want it to be classed as a KD, there's no room for ambiguity then with the touch and go decisions. The ring is where it is, the ropes aren't gunna move, you know what it is, knock him down somewhere else.

You see I wouldn't be too bothered about that if they got rid of the touch down rule as well. make KD a real thing, whereby the guy is put on the canvas properly and let them off with the little hands touching down for a second. Only real problem that could cause either way is that guys could get hurt a lot more when they can't defend themselves and they would have to let the fighting commence through to do it fairly.

 

[Teeto]

You see I wouldn't be too bothered about that if they got rid of the touch down rule as well. make KD a real thing, whereby the guy is put on the canvas properly and let them off with the little hands touching down for a second. Only real problem that could cause either way is that guys could get hurt a lot more when they can't defend themselves and they would have to let the fighting commence through to do it fairly.

Personally I'm a fan of it being ruled a KD if they touch down, just because it gets rid of room for ambiguity. What if I smash someone and he goes flying but manages to touch down with his hand and then jump back up? That should be a KD imo. Also, to me if we're gunna only credit KD's to situations where a guy is really hurt and or on his back etc then we're taking the sport further towards being all about aggression and slugging etc, which to me we're having too much of already with the shitty judges. Sometimes a KD can be about scoring a clever shot at the right time when you know a guy is off balance, like Rigo does when he punishes guys, or when Sweet Pea KD'd Oscar. If you make a guy touch down in a situation like that I reckon you should get your props on the scorecards personally.

 

[Chatty]

Personally I'm a fan of it being ruled a KD if they touch down, just because it gets rid of room for ambiguity. What if I smash someone and he goes flying but manages to touch down with his hand and then jump back up? That should be a KD imo. Also, to me if we're gunna only credit KD's to situations where a guy is really hurt and or on his back etc then we're taking the sport further towards being all about aggression and slugging etc, which to me we're having too much of already with the shitty judges. Sometimes a KD can be about scoring a clever shot at the right time when you know a guy is off balance, like Rigo does when he punishes guys, or when Sweet Pea KD'd Oscar. If you make a guy touch down in a situation like that I reckon you should get your props on the scorecards personally.

You can apply the exact same argument to the ropes though.

 

[GazOC]

I know its not in the rules but does anyone see a distinction between using the ropes to stay up and needing the ropes to stay up?

 

[Chatty]

I know its not in the rules but does anyone see a distinction between using the ropes to stay up and needing the ropes to stay up?

I see what you are saying but as I said to Teeto, you can apply that logic to the touch downs as well.

 

[GazOC]

KDs don't seem to get given when the boxer is under pressure and has got his arse on the middle rope and is using it to help support his crouch. If the rope wasn't there then he'd be on his backside for a KD but, then again, if the rope wasn't there he probably wouldn't have decided to adopt that tactic in the first place.

How many KDs would Foreman have scored in Zaire if refs had been strict on the interpretation of the ropes keeping a fighter up?

 

[Bajingo]

KDs don't seem to get given when the boxer is under pressure and has got his arse on the middle rope and is using it to help support his crouch. If the rope wasn't there then he'd be on his backside for a KD but, then again, if the rope wasn't there he probably wouldn't have decided to adopt that tactic in the first place.

How many KDs would Foreman have scored in Zaire if refs had been strict on the interpretation of the ropes keeping a fighter up?

Perfect example. Dude is sitting on the ropes just covering up and eating shots but won't touch down, could the ref have given a count here? :think

 

[Chatty]

KDs don't seem to get given when the boxer is under pressure and has got his arse on the middle rope and is using it to help support his crouch. If the rope wasn't there then he'd be on his backside for a KD but, then again, if the rope wasn't there he probably wouldn't have decided to adopt that tactic in the first place.

How many KDs would Foreman have scored in Zaire if refs had been strict on the interpretation of the ropes keeping a fighter up?

Ah I see what your talking about, I afree with this, the ropes are being used as part of a strategy there and that's coll. i was referring more to when someone is going down and literally bounces of them to spring themselves back up/hold themselves up or grabbing the rope to stop them going down, that should be a knockdown imo.

 

[Teeto]

Ah I see what your talking about, I afree with this, the ropes are being used as part of a strategy there and that's coll. i was referring more to when someone is going down and literally bounces of them to spring themselves back up/hold themselves up or grabbing the rope to stop them going down, that should be a knockdown imo.

oh ok, I see what you mean, it's a subjective one really. I agree with you in principle most probably, it's just that I think if we started introducing that as a rule it would be a case of where does it end and you'd have guys claiming KD's and other guys saying nah I wasn't going down. Could get a bit messy and shit. I feel you though defo.

 

[Wallet]

Ah I see what your talking about, I afree with this, the ropes are being used as part of a strategy there and that's coll. i was referring more to when someone is going down and literally bounces of them to spring themselves back up/hold themselves up or grabbing the rope to stop them going down, that should be a knockdown imo.

That's what the rule is.

:huh

 

[Chatty]

That's what the rule is.

:huh

I know, they just don't use it very often.

 

[Wallet]

I know, they just don't use it very often.

I see.
@Teeto was talking about "introducing" it as a rule.

 

[Chatty]

I see.
@Teeto was talking about "introducing" it as a rule.

I was trying to make comparisons with the touch down rule whereby officials seem to feel it must be scored as a knockdown everytime, even for example when Mayweather went down agaisnt Gonzalez despite it being because he landed the punch. On the otherhand they seem to play the rope rule on a whim and go with what they feel is best despite the official rulings. Imo they should be consistent with both rulings and either let the ref pick and choose which he feels right or just score all of them a KD.

 

[Chatty]

oh ok, I see what you mean, it's a subjective one really. I agree with you in principle most probably, it's just that I think if we started introducing that as a rule it would be a case of where does it end and you'd have guys claiming KD's and other guys saying nah I wasn't going down. Could get a bit messy and shit. I feel you though defo.

I see what your saying but if you watch the three examples I gave then you can see all the boxers we're definitely going down. Marquez is the most debatable but he had hold of the ropes with his gloves which would take the argument out of the equation. fair enough on ones we're they just bounce a bit but a lot of clear KD's are let off by the ref not scoring these.

 

[Teeto]

I see.
@Teeto was talking about "introducing" it as a rule.

oh sorry, my mistake

 

[Teeto]

I see what your saying but if you watch the three examples I gave then you can see all the boxers we're definitely going down. Marquez is the most debatable but he had hold of the ropes with his gloves which would take the argument out of the equation. fair enough on ones we're they just bounce a bit but a lot of clear KD's are let off by the ref not scoring these.

ah ok, the ref should score them then. I do think it leaves it open to ambiguity still though when you have situations where it's not very black and white.