Roy Jones Jr cheated out of gold

First topic message reminder :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/feb/15/olympic-moments-roy-jones-jr

Just an interesting piece I picked up on the train on the way home yesterday and I thought I'd share it.

I'd only read snippets of the story of his Olympic silver before, but this piece made me watch the fight and see what a barefaced robbery it was, on (perhaps) the grandest stage, and one that trades off of it's 'fairness'.

I love the excuse of one of the judges interviewed though..."didn't want to embarrass the host nation!". Don't worry about actually doing your job. Some guys are all compassion.

The ref in Khan's fight applied the letter of the law. He was harsh. Khan has every right to feel hard done by. I cant recall a world title fight where the ref's ridiculous decision in deducting points for pushing caused the champ to lose his title. Benn suffered in the eubank rematch but that was for repeated low blows and he was rightfully deducted points for that.

I wouldn't go as far as saying he cheated, but can see Khan's pov in saying he was cheated. The ref wanted ot make a name for himself. The best ref's are out of sight. Mills Lane springs ot mind.

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:Good grief. You argue more than I do

I DO NOT! ;-)

azania wrote: OK, why not answer the question. Do you believe that every infringement should result in points being deducted?

Every infringement, if observed by the referee, can be punished according to the rules prescribed.

Which isn't the same as every rule should or must be punished according to the rules prescribed.

ERGO - as I've been saying for weeks now - Khan can't say the referee cheated him - because he did break the rules.

He can say it was harsh.

It wasn't, however, harsher than stealing Holy's gold medal.

The rules says you obey the ref. He called break, Holy punched and KO'd the guy. How on earth is a DQ harsh? The NA guy heard him and backed off. Holy continued. Was he hard of hearing? Not harsh, but fair. Ditto RJJ.

What was harsh was the ref in the rocky/JJW fight.

Don't be a tool az. It doesn't become you.

The rules do indeed say obey the ref - which is why it was within the rules to DQ holy.

The referee's are supposed to provide more than a nanosecond to obey their call - and they're not supposed to call break mid-flurry. As the aggressor will invariably end up worse.

Against JJW - the ref wasn't even watching Rocky's left hand - he was looking towards the corner where Rocky was being ushered. And, to be fair, in them thar' days, they were a little laxer about the rules.

Today - people are tight about rules. Khan broke a rule about 50 times - and was "harshly" penalised for it on 2 occasions.

However - Holy was given a fraction of a second to pull back a punch already on its way - and that was NOT harsh.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Not every single infringement but Khan was warned enough and persisted so the deductions whilst harsh were warranted.

Why is that not worthy of a DQ whereas a minor offence by Khan is worthy of 2 points deduction?

Because it was multiple.

There's footage online that shows Khan pushing off over 50 times during the course of the fight. 2 points was quite lenient, when viewed in that light.

Heavens above. The NZ guy was out cold. It didn't have to be a repeat offense.

For the sake of argument, I'll accept the ref was correct in Khan's fight. But why was he unfair to Holy? Please answer without delving into conspiracy theories or I'll get my tin fioil hat out also.

azania wrote:The ref in Khan's fight applied the letter of the law. He was harsh. Khan has every right to feel hard done by. I cant recall a world title fight where the ref's ridiculous decision in deducting points for pushing caused the champ to lose his title. Benn suffered in the eubank rematch but that was for repeated low blows and he was rightfully deducted points for that.

I wouldn't go as far as saying he cheated, but can see Khan's pov in saying he was cheated. The ref wanted ot make a name for himself. The best ref's are out of sight. Mills Lane springs ot mind.

You're not listening again Az.

We're asking for logical consistency and you're refusing or wilfully failing to provide it.

Simple question:

When a rule is broken and it is observed by the referee, do you believe it should be penalised according to the letter of the law?

How come thr NZ chap heard the ref and Holy didn't? Its the amateur game where rules are far stricter.

He could have pulled back? That's Holy's problem. He doesn;t know when to pull out. Look at the number of Jnr Holy's around.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:The ref in Khan's fight applied the letter of the law. He was harsh. Khan has every right to feel hard done by. I cant recall a world title fight where the ref's ridiculous decision in deducting points for pushing caused the champ to lose his title. Benn suffered in the eubank rematch but that was for repeated low blows and he was rightfully deducted points for that.

I wouldn't go as far as saying he cheated, but can see Khan's pov in saying he was cheated. The ref wanted ot make a name for himself. The best ref's are out of sight. Mills Lane springs ot mind.

You're not listening again Az.

We're asking for logical consistency and you're refusing or wilfully failing to provide it.

Simple question:

When a rule is broken and it is observed by the referee, do you believe it should be penalised according to the letter of the law?

If the chap is rendered unconscious and unable to continue due to a foul, then apply the letter of the law. I see no other way. If he hit him and didn't inflict any meaningful damage, then deduct a point. Horses for courses and donkeys for scenarious.

Not overly sure Barry heard either and his reaction afterwards would suggest he knew it was a screwjob, as Holyfield lands the left hook he still clearly has his right hand up trying to protect himself.

So:

1. You're wrong about the Holy scenario, as Ghosty mentioned.

2. You're admitting that your interpretation of the rules is inconsistent.

Cleared up then?

Was going from memory and almost had Az sway what I thought but having watched it again, is anything but a clear foul, in fact would go as far as saying it was a disgraceful decision from the referee.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Not overly sure Barry heard either and his reaction afterwards would suggest he knew it was a screwjob, as Holyfield lands the left hook he still clearly has his right hand up trying to protect himself.

Dont be swayed by Cossel's commentary. Barry heard the ref and was relaxing his guard. It was a foul. The issue is was it deliberate. I doubt that. Then again Holy has never been the cleanest fighter. I dont read too much into body language after the event. He could still be groggy or shocked that he won a silver.

oxring wrote:So:

1. You're wrong about the Holy scenario, as Ghosty mentioned.

2. You're admitting that your interpretation of the rules is inconsistent.

Cleared up then?

I'll give you credit. You are persistant. Persistantly wrong though.

Ghosty and I will argue about what constitute cold weather in the arctic.

In a sport like boxing, rules are applied with some lattitude. But when you clock a guy after the ref calls break, there's only one option left to the ref. A DQ. Especially in the amateurs.

Simple question; did the ref call break and was Barry KO'd after the ref called break? If the answer is yes, then the application of the rules are very obvious.

As for my consistency, you are asking for me to be consistant in comparing apples to a coconut.

Some people will just argue for the sake of it though.....

Gets very boring..

Go away Truss.

For three days???

Mate I was making an observation.......I agree with Oxy.....by the way!!!

Glad your back by the way.....Try and enjoy you while we can...

OK az.

We're back to that old position again - where 99% of people are marching left - and you're the only one marching right.

This isn't because the world isn't ready for your new brave ideas - its mostly because your opinions on boxing are insane.

Aw come on fellas cant we all just get along

oxring wrote:OK az.

We're back to that old position again - where 99% of people are marching left - and you're the only one marching right.

This isn't because the world isn't ready for your new brave ideas - its mostly because your opinions on boxing are insane.

Try answering my question Oxman.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:For three days???

Mate I was making an observation.......I agree with Oxy.....by the way!!!

Glad your back by the way.....Try and enjoy you while we can...

Awww, you soft centred overly sensitive soul.

In fairness ghosty..one shouldn't forget the LA games...

I have to admit China were screwed out of the Gymnastic Gold medal.......And Frank Tate's win was almost as bad as the korean's...He was decked twice off O'sullivan...

So we can't all moan

You asked a question?

Was that Barry nonsense a question?

I'll answer if you answer this:

Yes or no only to all three please.
1. Did Khan break the rules of boxing against Peterson
2. Did the referee warn Khan before he deducted points against Peterson
3. Is the penalty for repeated infringements the docking of points

Oxy... have you ever seen the film Groundhog day?????

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Oxy... have you ever seen the film Groundhog day?????

Seen it? I've lived it in almost every debate I've ever had with az...

From what I saw in the video with the commentary turned off, I did not see Barry relax his guard, he was hammered by a heavy right hand to the body where his guard lowered ever so slightly but not enough to make me think he was relaxing it because of the referee. Barry knew Holyfield was screwed hence his reaction afterwards not because of some half arsed excuse about being groggy.

oxring wrote:You asked a question?

Was that Barry nonsense a question?

I'll answer if you answer this:

Yes or no only to all three please.
1. Did Khan break the rules of boxing against Peterson
2. Did the referee warn Khan before he deducted points against Peterson
3. Is the penalty for repeated infringements the docking of points

Yes to all 3.

When was the last time any boxer got points deducted for pushing?

Each and every situation has to be judged on it's relative merits.

This thread was originally about 'Roy Jones Jr cheated out of gold'

Ya'll Must Have Forgot

Imperial Ghosty wrote:From what I saw in the video with the commentary turned off, I did not see Barry relax his guard, he was hammered by a heavy right hand to the body where his guard lowered ever so slightly but not enough to make me think he was relaxing it because of the referee. Barry knew Holyfield was screwed hence his reaction afterwards not because of some half arsed excuse about being groggy.

Barry was getting beaten up. He would have been knocked out anyway. But the bottom line is that he was hit by a shot after the ref called break. It doesn't matter how its spun, that is what ahppened. Its worthy of a dq. Likewise RJJ hitting Griffen when down was DQ worthy.

Dont read too much into facial expressions.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Each and every situation has to be judged on it's relative merits.

I bet you enjoyed throwing that one in there Ghosty. I certainly enjoyed reading it.

It makes not a jot of difference if no-one has ever been pinged for it - its a penalty and thus can be enforced.

Glad we're in agreement about Khan, at least. Not hard done by.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:From what I saw in the video with the commentary turned off, I did not see Barry relax his guard, he was hammered by a heavy right hand to the body where his guard lowered ever so slightly but not enough to make me think he was relaxing it because of the referee. Barry knew Holyfield was screwed hence his reaction afterwards not because of some half arsed excuse about being groggy.

Barry was getting beaten up. He would have been knocked out anyway. But the bottom line is that he was hit by a shot after the ref called break. It doesn't matter how its spun, that is what ahppened. Its worthy of a dq. Likewise RJJ hitting Griffen when down was DQ worthy.

Dont read too much into facial expressions.

The bottom line can also be that Holyfield was mid combo when the referee called break with his opponent showing no obvious signs of relaxing his guard, I think the disqualification was harsh and unwarranted, you think the opposite.

Of course you can read into facial expressions, Barry knew Holyfield had been screwed as did Josopovic.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Each and every situation has to be judged on it's relative merits.

Exactly. KO'ing someone after a foul punch deserves a DQ.

If you've heard of another boxer having points deducted for pushing, please tell me about. Foreman would have been DQ'd so often its frightening.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:From what I saw in the video with the commentary turned off, I did not see Barry relax his guard, he was hammered by a heavy right hand to the body where his guard lowered ever so slightly but not enough to make me think he was relaxing it because of the referee. Barry knew Holyfield was screwed hence his reaction afterwards not because of some half arsed excuse about being groggy.

Barry was getting beaten up. He would have been knocked out anyway. But the bottom line is that he was hit by a shot after the ref called break. It doesn't matter how its spun, that is what ahppened. Its worthy of a dq. Likewise RJJ hitting Griffen when down was DQ worthy.

Dont read too much into facial expressions.

The bottom line can also be that Holyfield was mid combo when the referee called break with his opponent showing no obvious signs of relaxing his guard, I think the disqualification was harsh and unwarranted, you think the opposite.

Of course you can read into facial expressions, Barry knew Holyfield had been screwed as did Josopovic.

They were close up when the ref called break. He was not in mid combo. He started the combo as the ref called break. Bottom line is that the hook landed after the ref called break and therefore a foul.

Was it a foul? Simple yes or no will do.

So you are now a facial language expert and know what the guy thinks just by looking at him. I hope you dont do jury service.

Like I said each and every situation has to be judged on it's own relative merits not those of others.

It wasn't a clear foul punch by Holyfield so the disqualification was unwarranted.

No it was not a foul.

Don't talk such garbage, are you honestly trying to say that you can't deduce anything from the reactions of both Barry and Josopovic?

Really should stop the petty insults, it was tiresome a long time ago and you seem unable to formulate any argument without them.

oxring wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Each and every situation has to be judged on it's relative merits.

I bet you enjoyed throwing that one in there Ghosty. I certainly enjoyed reading it.

It makes not a jot of difference if no-one has ever been pinged for it - its a penalty and thus can be enforced.

Glad we're in agreement about Khan, at least. Not hard done by.

Still not answered my question.

Whilst you're at it, was the punch Holy threw a foul or not?

Khan was harshly treated without doubt. You say I'm marching one way whilst 99% of the board march the other. Well 99% of the board are hardly rational when it comes to Khan. Most publications say that he was harshly treated.

Not a clear foul is still a foul. Its like claiming you nearly passed your driving test.

A foul where the opponent is KO'd warrants a DQ.

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Each and every situation has to be judged on it's relative merits.

I bet you enjoyed throwing that one in there Ghosty. I certainly enjoyed reading it.

It makes not a jot of difference if no-one has ever been pinged for it - its a penalty and thus can be enforced.

Glad we're in agreement about Khan, at least. Not hard done by.

Still not answered my question.

Whilst you're at it, was the punch Holy threw a foul or not?

Khan was harshly treated without doubt. You say I'm marching one way whilst 99% of the board march the other. Well 99% of the board are hardly rational when it comes to Khan. Most publications say that he was harshly treated.

99% of the world, not just the board, you eedjit.

Holy broke a rule and was punished.
Khan broke a rule and was therefore punished.

If Holy can't complain, nor can Khan.

Stating the tedious (it isn't normally punished) won't do.

Jaywalking isn't always punished in the states - the Oxford Professor who got jumped on by 5 armed NYPD officers and taken to the cells for the day discovered that the court wouldn't rule in his favour - he had broken the law after all.

In your opinion it warrants a DQ.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:In your opinion it warrants a DQ.

In boxing that is what happens. KO your opponent you generally get DQ when that ko comes via a foul however obvious or not. OPbviously sometimes the ref/board/commission screw the loser so the house fighter/money man still walks out with the win. eg Eubank/Cherry and Bowe. Both should have been DQd.

But yes it is my opinion.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:In your opinion it warrants a DQ.

In boxing that is what happens. KO your opponent you generally get DQ when that ko comes via a foul however obvious or not. OPbviously sometimes the ref/board/commission screw the loser so the house fighter/money man still walks out with the win. eg Eubank/Cherry and Bowe. Both should have been DQd.

But yes it is my opinion.

That's about as good as you'll ever give us. Night Az. I'm off to sample Montreal nightlife.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Each and every situation has to be judged on it's relative merits.

I bet you enjoyed throwing that one in there Ghosty. I certainly enjoyed reading it.

It makes not a jot of difference if no-one has ever been pinged for it - its a penalty and thus can be enforced.

Glad we're in agreement about Khan, at least. Not hard done by.

Still not answered my question.

Whilst you're at it, was the punch Holy threw a foul or not?

Khan was harshly treated without doubt. You say I'm marching one way whilst 99% of the board march the other. Well 99% of the board are hardly rational when it comes to Khan. Most publications say that he was harshly treated.

99% of the world, not just the board, you eedjit.

Holy broke a rule and was punished.
Khan broke a rule and was therefore punished.

If Holy can't complain, nor can Khan.

Stating the tedious (it isn't normally punished) won't do.

Jaywalking isn't always punished in the states - the Oxford Professor who got jumped on by 5 armed NYPD officers and taken to the cells for the day discovered that the court wouldn't rule in his favour - he had broken the law after all.

Most have the same opinion regarding the Khan fight....that the ref was ridiculous.

This is not about who is complaining. Jaysus man, let that go. Yes Khan made a big deal. Move on. Dont hold it against him and start talking nonsense about the ref being correct. Any objective boxing fan knows the ref was ridiculous.

Let it Go Oxy.

Still haven't answered my questions. Never mind.

So you can personally talk for every single boxing fan on their opinions of the Peterson fight then? If i'd known that I wouldn't bother making my own mind up.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:So you can personally talk for every single boxing fan on their opinions of the Peterson fight then? If i'd known that I wouldn't bother making my own mind up.

Where did I say or inssinuate that?

In your own words.

'Any objective boxing fan knows the ref was ridiculous'

Imperial Ghosty wrote:In your own words.

'Any objective boxing fan knows the ref was ridiculous'

Im speaking on behalf of objective boxing fans. This place is hardly objective when it comes to Khan.

Your the least objective on here but i'll remember in future to ask you for my objective views instead of making my own mind up.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Your the least objective on here but i'll remember in future to ask you for my objective views instead of making my own mind up.

More personal attacks. Cant help ypurself eh ghosty. And whilst we're at it, do you consider yourself to be objective?

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Each and every situation has to be judged on it's relative merits.

I bet you enjoyed throwing that one in there Ghosty. I certainly enjoyed reading it.

It makes not a jot of difference if no-one has ever been pinged for it - its a penalty and thus can be enforced.

Glad we're in agreement about Khan, at least. Not hard done by.

Still not answered my question.

Whilst you're at it, was the punch Holy threw a foul or not?

Khan was harshly treated without doubt. You say I'm marching one way whilst 99% of the board march the other. Well 99% of the board are hardly rational when it comes to Khan. Most publications say that he was harshly treated.

Whoops, forgot we're all racist bigots on here...

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Each and every situation has to be judged on it's relative merits.

I bet you enjoyed throwing that one in there Ghosty. I certainly enjoyed reading it.

It makes not a jot of difference if no-one has ever been pinged for it - its a penalty and thus can be enforced.

Glad we're in agreement about Khan, at least. Not hard done by.

Still not answered my question.

Whilst you're at it, was the punch Holy threw a foul or not?

Khan was harshly treated without doubt. You say I'm marching one way whilst 99% of the board march the other. Well 99% of the board are hardly rational when it comes to Khan. Most publications say that he was harshly treated.

Whoops, forgot we're all racist bigots on here...

Its true - I have an irrational dislike of Khan because he's from Bolton. I hate all northerners you know. Especially rowley.

The only reason anyone likes Marciano is because they're a racist bigot as well. Did you know that?

oxring wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Each and every situation has to be judged on it's relative merits.

I bet you enjoyed throwing that one in there Ghosty. I certainly enjoyed reading it.

It makes not a jot of difference if no-one has ever been pinged for it - its a penalty and thus can be enforced.

Glad we're in agreement about Khan, at least. Not hard done by.

Still not answered my question.

Whilst you're at it, was the punch Holy threw a foul or not?

Khan was harshly treated without doubt. You say I'm marching one way whilst 99% of the board march the other. Well 99% of the board are hardly rational when it comes to Khan. Most publications say that he was harshly treated.

Whoops, forgot we're all racist bigots on here...

Its true - I have an irrational dislike of Khan because he's from Bolton. I hate all northerners you know. Especially rowley.

The only reason anyone likes Marciano is because they're a racist bigot as well. Did you know that?

Thank god I thought I was the only one!

I like Khan. I am a rational guy mind