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.

Was trying to be more diplomatic Oxy but your 100% correct.

oxring wrote:You've got me on one point - I'm not certain they're allowed to go to the cards after a stoppage by a questionable foul in amateur boxing. I believe they are - but I'm not certain.

My point is to do with logical consistency, az - which is something (please don't take this as offensive - its not meant to be) that you have always lacked. You are mostly a tolerable fellow - and you try to judge each case on its merits. However - once you form your opinion, often on slightly shaky logical footing - you entrench yourself and will not shift.

Your positions are not logically consistent. Either you feel that people should be punished by the letter of the law for offences as observed by the referee - or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

BTW - its not necessarily a bad thing not to be logically consistent all the time. Utilitarians do it all the time, on the basis of consistency to the greater good. And no-one thinks ill of them (too often). They're meant to be very nice people.

In the amateurs the rules are applied in stricter terms. So the DQ was the only result the ref could render. In short he had no choice.

In the pro game, boxing is dirtier where fouls are often tolerated depending on its serverity. Hitting a downed opponent should not be tolerated but I've seen similar fouls which got RJJ DQ'd waved off when others have done the same. Foreman for one. Rocky also. But Khan did not deserve points deducted imo. My views on that have never wavered and will not. Call it entrenched if you wish. Its just that I'm correct and you are not. Ues by the letter of the law he deserved points deducted. But when that law is hardly ever applied. Tell me when others have had points deducted twice for pushing. I havent read many (outside of here) who claim he deserved the points deducted.

I'm totally impartial when it comes to Khan. I'm on record in saying that he's not all that good and reckon Peterson will win a rematch. My views on the points issue has nothing to do with favouring him or being a Khan bot.

I have never said apply the letter of the law. That will be ridiculous.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Wouldn't say it was a clear foul, not by any stretch of the imagination.

Who's to say that Khans pushing didn't change the course of the fight?

READ and stop being a point scoring pedant. I said to his advantage. And quit the hair splitting because you know exactly what is meant.

oxring wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Who's to say that Khans pushing didn't change the course of the fight?

As it happens - it clearly did - as it stopped Peterson getting close and unloading the overhand right/left hook with more frequency. I'm sure we can all agree that Khan would not have been helped by receiving more punches - and in fact, I would go one step further and say I am sure that we all agree Khan would have been quite hindered by receiving more punches.

Dear Yoda!!!! Point missed (deliberately).

You said Khan didn't change the course of the fight to his advantage by pushing but Oxy and I believe it may and probably did, debate the points raised not the poster.

Az, old bean - would you care to take a look at my above posting and respond to what I said, as opposed to what you think I said?

I'm not talking about rights, or wrongs, or necessities.

Cold hard logic old boy - and you're being inconsistent.

You could simply say you're aware that your position isn't the most logically consistent there is - but you stand by it out of moral compulsion - and I would back down and respect you for it.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You said Khan didn't change the course of the fight to his advantage by pushing but Oxy and I believe it may and probably did, debate the points raised not the poster.

In the same manner Holy did when he fouled out at the olympics.

Precisely.

Who's to say Khan 'wins' the fight without pushing so much?

oxring wrote:Az, old bean - would you care to take a look at my above posting and respond to what I said, as opposed to what you think I said?

I'm not talking about rights, or wrongs, or necessities.

Cold hard logic old boy - and you're being inconsistent.

You could simply say you're aware that your position isn't the most logically consistent there is - but you stand by it out of moral compulsion - and I would back down and respect you for it.

To me they are very logical. Not my fault 99.999% have not reached my level of logic yet. Some are in training.

But seriously, I'm amazed that you cant see the difference between pushing and KOing an opponent after a break has been called. You refer to them as similar is ridiculous.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Precisely.

Who's to say Khan 'wins' the fight without pushing so much?

Sweet Jesus

Did Khans pushing not affect the fight at all then?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Did Khans pushing not affect the fight at all then?

Look. I'm referring to the fact that Khan's pushing didnt result in Peterson being knocked out. The comparison is Khan and Holy's fouls and how they were dealt with.

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:Az, old bean - would you care to take a look at my above posting and respond to what I said, as opposed to what you think I said?

I'm not talking about rights, or wrongs, or necessities.

Cold hard logic old boy - and you're being inconsistent.

You could simply say you're aware that your position isn't the most logically consistent there is - but you stand by it out of moral compulsion - and I would back down and respect you for it.

To me they are very logical. Not my fault 99.999% have not reached my level of logic yet. Some are in training.

But seriously, I'm amazed that you cant see the difference between pushing and KOing an opponent after a break has been called. You refer to them as similar is ridiculous.

Step back matey, you're working yourself up into a tizzy again - and we both know that when you lose your cool calm demeanor you can be most difficult to talk to.

They are logically similar as they are both fouls that have prescribed penalties in the laws of the sport.

To say that the referee was right to harshly apply the letter of the law for one - and say the referee was wrong to harshly apply the letter of the law for the other IS inconsistent.

As it happens - Ghosty has a reasonable point. Pushing off was one of the only reasons that Khan stayed away from Peterson in some of those rounds. A point irrelevant to the topic of discussion - but a fair, well articulated and reasonable point nonetheless.

Now, with my mod hat on, you may have noticed that I am none-too-subtly trying to drag this unwilling beast of a discussion back on topic - I would be grateful if you chaps would assist me.

The topic was regarding the robbery of RJJ and the questionable decision against Holyfield in the Games.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Did Khans pushing not affect the fight at all then?

Look. I'm referring to the fact that Khan's pushing didnt result in Peterson being knocked out. The comparison is Khan and Holy's fouls and how they were dealt with.

But his pushing could have resulted in a different outcome could they not?

Will admit Oxy have no time for Jones so have no real ill feeling towards the robbery he received.

When a boxer in the pro game punches after the ref calls break he is given a severe talking to. Always. Right or wrong. When a boxer pushes the other guy, its generally ignored. Right or wrong.

Now when the ref calls break and the boxer continues and KO's the opponent, I dont believe the fight would go to the cards after that.

And no I never lose my cool

Plus Holy was involved in an amateur fight which is very different from the pro game. Right or wrong?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Will admit Oxy have no time for Jones so have no real ill feeling towards the robbery he received.

Really? I was just about to pen an RJJ piece on some of my musings on the fighter.

After all, now that coxy has kindly taken up his new position (somewhere) and so doesn't chat any more - I thought we might be able to have a serious discussion on the man. He is an enigma, RJJ.

Anyway - I'm going off topic (slapped wrist) - to go back ON topic - any further thoughts on the Holyfield robbery? Or shall we leave it at that?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Did Khans pushing not affect the fight at all then?

Look. I'm referring to the fact that Khan's pushing didnt result in Peterson being knocked out. The comparison is Khan and Holy's fouls and how they were dealt with.

But his pushing could have resulted in a different outcome could they not?

No. It did.

I'll steer clear of that thread then Oxy can't stand him as a boxer but comes across as a fairly decent guy.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Did Khans pushing not affect the fight at all then?

Look. I'm referring to the fact that Khan's pushing didnt result in Peterson being knocked out. The comparison is Khan and Holy's fouls and how they were dealt with.

But his pushing could have resulted in a different outcome could they not?

No. It did.

At which point the referee is fully justified however harsh it may seem to deduct points, the rounds he potentially stopped Peterson winning were taken away from him, evened it up somewhat.

Don't do that mate - your opinion would be worthwhile.

He's an odd one. Can't think of many other fighters who have done so many things wrong so well.

My views on Jones make Coxys look like heartfelt praise.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Did Khans pushing not affect the fight at all then?

Look. I'm referring to the fact that Khan's pushing didnt result in Peterson being knocked out. The comparison is Khan and Holy's fouls and how they were dealt with.

But his pushing could have resulted in a different outcome could they not?

No. It did.

At which point the referee is fully justified however harsh it may seem to deduct points, the rounds he potentially stopped Peterson winning were taken away from him, evened it up somewhat.

You believe he was justified. I dont.

I believe the ref was justified to DQ RJJ for hitting a downed opponent. You probably believe he was. But I can bet you anything that you will never believe thatthe ref should have DQ Rocky for hitting a downed JJW. Amd I get accused of inconsistency.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Did Khans pushing not affect the fight at all then?

Look. I'm referring to the fact that Khan's pushing didnt result in Peterson being knocked out. The comparison is Khan and Holy's fouls and how they were dealt with.

But his pushing could have resulted in a different outcome could they not?

No. It did.

At which point the referee is fully justified however harsh it may seem to deduct points, the rounds he potentially stopped Peterson winning were taken away from him, evened it up somewhat.

You believe he was justified. I dont.

I believe the ref was justified to DQ RJJ for hitting a downed opponent. You probably believe he was. But I can bet you anything that you will never believe thatthe ref should have DQ Rocky for hitting a downed JJW. Amd I get accused of inconsistency.

My own personal position, which is a bit utilitarian is as follows.

Khan, Rocky, RJJ, and Holy should all feel harshly done by.

Khan can't really complain - because he did receive SEVERAL warnings for his behaviour, which he chose to ignore.

Holy and RJJ never received warnings prior to their actions because of the nature of the DQ. Further - with both - the call of stop punching came late.

Holy's complaint is really that the call of "break" was handled improperly by the referee, who seemed to DQ holy with some indecent haste.

Logical inconsistency, az old bean.

Don't take it personally. I'm guilty of it myself sometimes.

The Jones and Marciano situations are different, firstly Jones hits Griffin twice when he clearly down while Marciano throws the left hook while Walcott is on his way down his knee is not yet on the canvas at this point but im sure your bias means you see them exactly the same.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:The Jones and Marciano situations are different, firstly Jones hits Griffin twice when he clearly down while Marciano throws the left hook while Walcott is on his way down his knee is not yet on the canvas at this point but im sure your bias means you see them exactly the same.

My bias? And you are the one who openly admits your bias against RJJ. My opinion is that they both deserved a DQ. Add Foreman to the list when he hit Frazier (I think) when he was clearly down. Regarding Rocky, JJW was clearly down and it is well known that Rocky was an extremely dirty fighter. No bias there, just plain cold facts.

oxring wrote:Logical inconsistency, az old bean.

Don't take it personally. I'm guilty of it myself sometimes.

I'm many things, but inconsistency is never one of them.....logical or otherwise. I dont fall for partisanship.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:My views on Jones make Coxys look like heartfelt praise.

Maybe pushing the wrong buttons here Ghosty, but what makes you dislike Jones Jr so much?

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Did Khans pushing not affect the fight at all then?

Look. I'm referring to the fact that Khan's pushing didnt result in Peterson being knocked out. The comparison is Khan and Holy's fouls and how they were dealt with.

But his pushing could have resulted in a different outcome could they not?

No. It did.

At which point the referee is fully justified however harsh it may seem to deduct points, the rounds he potentially stopped Peterson winning were taken away from him, evened it up somewhat.

You believe he was justified. I dont.

I believe the ref was justified to DQ RJJ for hitting a downed opponent. You probably believe he was. But I can bet you anything that you will never believe thatthe ref should have DQ Rocky for hitting a downed JJW. Amd I get accused of inconsistency.

My own personal position, which is a bit utilitarian is as follows.

Khan, Rocky, RJJ, and Holy should all feel harshly done by.

Khan can't really complain - because he did receive SEVERAL warnings for his behaviour, which he chose to ignore.

Holy and RJJ never received warnings prior to their actions because of the nature of the DQ. Further - with both - the call of stop punching came late.

Holy's complaint is really that the call of "break" was handled improperly by the referee, who seemed to DQ holy with some indecent haste.

Rocky got away with it.

All boxers push. By definition, they have to.

You can kind of push fighters off you when up close and they are leaning on you and youwant room to work but you can't push fighters as they are coming in.

The Galveston Giant wrote:You can kind of push fighters off you when up close and they are leaning on you and youwant room to work but you can't push fighters as they are coming in.

Khan pushed him when he was leaning on him.

azania wrote:

The Galveston Giant wrote:You can kind of push fighters off you when up close and they are leaning on you and youwant room to work but you can't push fighters as they are coming in.

Khan pushed him when he was leaning on him.

He was pushing to the point where he wasn't allowing Peterson to box, that's not allowed.

sodhat wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:My views on Jones make Coxys look like heartfelt praise.

Maybe pushing the wrong buttons here Ghosty, but what makes you dislike Jones Jr so much?

His skills challenges the mythical ATGs and for some that is sacriligious (spelling).

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:Logical inconsistency, az old bean.

Don't take it personally. I'm guilty of it myself sometimes.

I dont fall for partisanship.

My dear boy, you are the most partisan fellow I know! Or do I have to post a link to your "conversations" with happytravelling?

Kind of agree with Az on this one. I've not seen the holy fight so this comment isnt specific to that, but the consequence of the actions needs to be taken into consideration when looking at potential punishments, unfair to suggest otherwise.

If a fighter is rendered unconscious because of a late blow, even if accidental, the fight should not go to the cards, a NC (or DQ where a NC is not possible) can be the only outcome for me...

johnson2 wrote:Kind of agree with Az on this one. I've not seen the holy fight so this comment isnt specific to that, but the consequence of the actions needs to be taken into consideration when looking at potential punishments, unfair to suggest otherwise.

If a fighter is rendered unconscious because of a late blow, even if accidental, the fight should not go to the cards, a NC (or DQ where a NC is not possible) can be the only outcome for me...

Link's posted above.

Not a very goo dlink tophat. It doesn't say clearly when the ref shouted break and when the punch was thrown.

It doesn't matter though. The ref calling break made the NZ bloke to lower his guard. The ref was correct.

azania wrote:Not a very goo dlink tophat. It doesn't say clearly when the ref shouted break and when the punch was thrown.

It doesn't matter though. The ref calling break made the NZ bloke to lower his guard. The ref was correct.

As was the ref in Peterson-Khan.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:Not a very goo dlink tophat. It doesn't say clearly when the ref shouted break and when the punch was thrown.

It doesn't matter though. The ref calling break made the NZ bloke to lower his guard. The ref was correct.

As was the ref in Peterson-Khan.

Did Khan's pushing result in Peterson being KO'd? Plus in the amateur game, the rules are enforced more to the letter of the law than the pros. If you support the ref in Khan's fight, then you must argue that everytime a fighter breaks the rules, regardless of the severity, then points must be deducted.

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:Not a very goo dlink tophat. It doesn't say clearly when the ref shouted break and when the punch was thrown.

It doesn't matter though. The ref calling break made the NZ bloke to lower his guard. The ref was correct.

As was the ref in Peterson-Khan.

Did Khan's pushing result in Peterson being KO'd? Plus in the amateur game, the rules are enforced more to the letter of the law than the pros. If you support the ref in Khan's fight, then you must argue that everytime a fighter breaks the rules, regardless of the severity, then points must be deducted.

As must you if you support the ref in the Holyfield fight....

sodhat wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:My views on Jones make Coxys look like heartfelt praise.

Maybe pushing the wrong buttons here Ghosty, but what makes you dislike Jones Jr so much?

Have always felt he was very much style over substance, he is without doubt a great fighter but he was lauded far too much, had three very good wins over Hill, Hopkins and Toney but the rest leaves a lot to be desired. Don't buy into his heavyweight title win either, his feat may have only been achieved once before but for the life of me can't think of a weaker champion than Ruiz. After that win his aura is destroyed by Tarver and he suddenly becomes old and past it, over rated to the extreme.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:Not a very goo dlink tophat. It doesn't say clearly when the ref shouted break and when the punch was thrown.

It doesn't matter though. The ref calling break made the NZ bloke to lower his guard. The ref was correct.

As was the ref in Peterson-Khan.

Did Khan's pushing result in Peterson being KO'd? Plus in the amateur game, the rules are enforced more to the letter of the law than the pros. If you support the ref in Khan's fight, then you must argue that everytime a fighter breaks the rules, regardless of the severity, then points must be deducted.

As must you if you support the ref in the Holyfield fight....

Completely different scenario. For one it was an amateur bout. Rules are more strickly enforced. Also pushing a guy is different from knocking him out after the ref called break. If he hit the NZ guy and he could continue, then let them go. But he was out cold. Tell me, what option did the ref have?

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:Not a very goo dlink tophat. It doesn't say clearly when the ref shouted break and when the punch was thrown.

It doesn't matter though. The ref calling break made the NZ bloke to lower his guard. The ref was correct.

As was the ref in Peterson-Khan.

Did Khan's pushing result in Peterson being KO'd? Plus in the amateur game, the rules are enforced more to the letter of the law than the pros. If you support the ref in Khan's fight, then you must argue that everytime a fighter breaks the rules, regardless of the severity, then points must be deducted.

As must you if you support the ref in the Holyfield fight....

Completely different scenario. For one it was an amateur bout. Rules are more strickly enforced. Also pushing a guy is different from knocking him out after the ref called break. If he hit the NZ guy and he could continue, then let them go. But he was out cold. Tell me, what option did the ref have?

Oh. Good. Grief.

How are you not understanding this? It isn't that hard!

We're asking for logical consistency.

You write:

azania wrote:If you support the ref in Khan's fight, then you must argue that everytime a fighter breaks the rules, regardless of the severity, then points must be deducted.

And then you write

azania wrote:Completely different scenario.

Be consistent!

Don't make me bring the weaponised English on your behind - Cos once its brought - it can't be unbrought... [polite smack talk]

Good grief. You argue more than I do

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

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

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.

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

OK, no problem. So KOing a downed opponent or KOing an opponent when the ref calls break is not as severe as the infringement Khan did? Why is that not worthy of a DQ whereas a minor offence by Khan is worthy of 2 points deduction?

Also we are now being selective as to when the ref should call a foul and act on it? Why should Holy be allowed to progress from a clear foul which resulted in his opponent being unable to continue? Was his foul on the same level as Khan's? Was RJJ's foul on par with Khan's?

Tyson got a point when he bit Holy's ear and 2 points when he did it again.

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.

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.