Did Saturday change anyones mind regarding standing 8 counts?

I know that we have debated this before, and that most of you seemed against them, but for me the Groves- Froch fight ending was the perfect illustration of why we need standing counts- it's the boxing refs equivalent of goal line technology as far as i'm concerned. Had the ref been able to start counting rather than waving the fight off he would have had the chance to make a proper assessment of Groves condition rather than the botched stoppage he made. The arguement that standing counts can rob a fighter of the chance of a knock out victory doesn't hold much cop with me- no fighter has the god given right to win by KO- it's in the coaching of boxing bible that if a fights scheduled for 12, you prepare to go 12, and if you want to win that need to win atleast 7 rounds. If a the KO comes it's a bonus, but if for example Groves had survived the round after taking an eight count , and then gone on to win on points Froch would have no right to complain of being robbed of victory- if he wanted to win he should made sure he won more rounds,end of. It also seems contradictory that if Groves had taken to his knees, he would have been afforded 8 an eight second assessment of his condition which he was denied by staying on his feet. It's all well and good for us to say he had that option, but when your inside thee ropes that just not how most boxers think- go down and it's automatically 10-8, so you don't go down unless you have no choice.

Without wishing to be flippant (but obviously doing just that) one can imagine Groves using his boxing brain and taking a knee to gain a bit of respite and finding the fight waved off anyway due to him "displaying obvious signs of distress"

I can see the argument mate but for me it potentially creates more problems than it solves. As we have seen on Saturday referees struggle to implement the existing rules correctly or even handedly and do seem to have a definite bias towards the name or house fighter.

Think the introduction of a fairly arbitrary and subjective thing as the standing 8 count is only going to exacerbate this problem. What happens if a fighter is a country mile behind but finds a decent shot and gets a guy in trouble, a standing eight count potentially denies him the chance of stopping his opponent and turning round a lost cause.

For me whilst we might not like to acknowledge it boxing is a dangerous sport, people will take risks with their health and will get hurt, referees leaping in and giving standing 8s every time someone is rocking or injured would remove much of the drama from fights.

Rowley wrote:

Think the introduction of a fairly arbitrary and subjective thing as the standing 8 count is only going to exacerbate this problem. What happens if a fighter is a country mile behind but finds a decent shot and gets a guy in trouble, a standing eight count potentially denies him the chance of stopping his opponent and turning round a lost cause.

Tough, if you want to win fights make sure you win enough rounds.

I hear what you are saying but I am very much of the opinion that refs on the whole are getting too squeamish now, have been saying for some time fights are stopped way too quickly for my tastes. For me a standing 8 count just gives refs the opportunity to be even more interfering and cautious. I am by no means a knuckle dragging, blood thirsty thug but ultimately boxing is a contact sport, sanitise and attempt to make it too safe and you will ruin the sport.

horizontalhero wrote:

Rowley wrote:

Think the introduction of a fairly arbitrary and subjective thing as the standing 8 count is only going to exacerbate this problem. What happens if a fighter is a country mile behind but finds a decent shot and gets a guy in trouble, a standing eight count potentially denies him the chance of stopping his opponent and turning round a lost cause.

Tough, if you want to win fights make sure you win enough rounds.

That isn't how boxing works. Winning by KO is just as good a way to win and winning on points. Giving fighters the chance to recover will spoil the fight.

I would go as far as to say it would be one of the worst things we could implement in pro boxing.

Are standing 8 counts always banned then?

What happened when Froch 'stopped' Bute?? Hearn made himself look silly by jumping into the ring when the ref seemed to wave it off but then changed his mind and looked like he was giving Bute an 8 count?

Think I'm on the side of saying they should be allowed. Boxing is brutal and refs are at risk of making genuine life or death decisions in seconds, an opportunity for the ref to take a breather as much as the fighter may improve decision making quality.

Also, agree Dave's point about how he should've taken a knee. BUT, esp seeing that mobile footage, did he have opportunity?

Looked like as soon as his head dipped the ref dived in for a cuddle, I don't think GG could've taken a knee if he wanted to.

Theres no point in having them if they are only going to be used in favour of one fighter or another which is a far bigger problem. I remember the ref gave one in the David Price fight against Thompson when Price was getting beaten up. There was no diving in to save Price at first instance even though he was far worse off than Groves was and basically quit even after the 8 count. Personally I think its obvious that refs primary concerns are not the fighters but more the promoters. The double standards are across the board and blatantly obvious. Foster barely a month before allowed a journeyman who had been flattened a split open on the eye to continue in a fight against Joshua with no regard to his well being. Another British ref let Vitali Klitschko beat the living hell out of Shannon Briggs for 12 rounds in a painful mismatch with no attempt to save him. Then he goes and stops another fight after one punch lands. Mistakes will happen but I think its naive to think these refs are merely incompetent all the time.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

horizontalhero wrote:

Rowley wrote:

Think the introduction of a fairly arbitrary and subjective thing as the standing 8 count is only going to exacerbate this problem. What happens if a fighter is a country mile behind but finds a decent shot and gets a guy in trouble, a standing eight count potentially denies him the chance of stopping his opponent and turning round a lost cause.

Tough, if you want to win fights make sure you win enough rounds.

That isn't how boxing works. Winning by KO is just as good a way to win and winning on points. Giving fighters the chance to recover will spoil the fight.

I would go as far as to say it would be one of the worst things we could implement in pro boxing.

Really- if Groves was given an eight count on Saturday rather than the fight just being waved off that would have spoiled the fight?

Still don’t see a need for it though, if Foster does not leap in on Saturday there are three potential things that happens, either Groves gets out of trouble and continues the fight, Froch puts him down and then Groves either beats the count or gets knocked out or Froch lands sufficient number of other punches to make Foster’s intervention understandable and correct. All of those provide us with a satisfactory ending without the need of a standing eight count, and all are achieved by Foster just hanging back for a few more seconds.

Warrior's fight.......They don't take knees as it too many it's alien to to their make up........besides when he was on the ropes he probably saw two of the judges reading Playboy.........

How else did they have it 4-4........I gave Froch three rounds and that included the close ones..

Let's not blame Groves who was under the cush on the ropes and probably not thinking straight for that moment and instead direct all our attention to the disgusting, smug, overweight moron that spoiled everybody's night...........Either through incompetence or by making sure he got plenty of work off Hearn in the future.......

Disgusting..

So you're pretty much on the fence about Saturday's fight then Truss?

I was gutted the kid didn't have a chance to ride the storm Rowley.......I believe Froch would have won that round..........But believing in something and it happening are two different things...

Just thought it reeked of Steele-King.......

Totally agree mate, far too many possible outcomes for me to stop it when he did. Was at one of those points where any outcome was still a realistic possibility and both fighters had put enough into the fight to have it reach a satisfactory and definitive conclusion.

Don't let British referees.........Referee world title fights with top British fighters in.......

Have no doubt they have vested interests............or know where their interests lie....

after all they work over here.

Rowley wrote:Still don’t see a need for it though, if Foster does not leap in on Saturday there are three potential things that happens, either Groves gets out of trouble and continues the fight, Froch puts him down and then Groves either beats the count or gets knocked out or Froch lands sufficient number of other punches to make Foster’s intervention understandable and correct. All of those provide us with a satisfactory ending without the need of a standing eight count, and all are achieved by Foster just hanging back for a few more seconds.

See your point, but it gives the ref an option- if he thinks he needs to stop the fight, rather than just stop it, start counting- if he's got it wrong and the guys ok- let him carry on, and if his initial thought right and the guy is clearly in trouble still, count him out. In Saturday's fight once the ref made the decision to stop the action, he has to stop the fight, and if he's got it wrong then we end up with an unsatisfactory ending- at least with a count there's still a way make amends.

I wrote an article citing Thomas-Mugabi and Frazier - Broad as reasons why the standing 8 count is useful......

Pretty much a 99-1 split against standing 8s back then.......Me being the 1........

Don't let one incompetent referee change your minds......

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Warrior's fight.......They don't take knees as it too many it's alien to to their make up........besides when he was on the ropes he probably saw two of the judges reading Playboy.........

How else did they have it 4-4........I gave Froch three rounds and that included the close ones..

Let's not blame Groves who was under the cush on the ropes and probably not thinking straight for that moment and instead direct all our attention to the disgusting, smug, overweight moron that spoiled everybody's night ...........Either through incompetence or by making sure he got plenty of work off Hearn in the future.......

Disgusting..

Can't speak for everyone else, but you didn't spoil my night beefster.  

On a more serious note, re standing 8's, like others have said, it's consistency of use I worry about. When do you leap in and give a standing 8 and when do you wave it off, how many standing 8's do you give before waving it off. Where do you get the consistency we all wish for. I think while the principle is ok, ultimately it just gives 1 more thing to create controversy than resolve it.

DAVE667 wrote:Without wishing to be flippant (but obviously doing just that) one can imagine Groves using his boxing brain and taking a knee to gain a bit of respite and finding the fight waved off anyway due to him "displaying obvious signs of distress"

pros can still take a knee if they want.

Standing 8 count might be bad if the ref decides to give one when there is blatantly no problem. Means the other fighter is losing the round by 2 points for no reason.

As the above have said, take a knee, Bradley had the sense to do it against Provodnikov.

I'm not convinced that George Groves needed to, but that's another story.....

OasisBFC wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:Without wishing to be flippant (but obviously doing just that) one can imagine Groves using his boxing brain and taking a knee to gain a bit of respite and finding the fight waved off anyway due to him "displaying obvious signs of distress"

pros can still take a knee if they want.

Only if they're Carl Froch and can earn extra Warrior points for "taking time to reflect and assess the ongoing situation"

I think its more of a British ref thing, I've seen many "stoppages" given to the benefit of house fighters where it is stopped too early and you know full well the opponent should be given the benefit of the doubt.

I know theres an enormous amount of sympathy towards Groves at the moment and rightly so, but it shouldn't be forgotten he has benefited from this type of refereeing.

Kenny Anderson, unbeaten at the time and fighting under a adam booth promo, was well in the fight with groves and had him in a world of trouble, yet when he was in trouble he was automatically stopped, no count no nothing.  Since that fight he has been largely under the radar yet hasn't been beaten since and managed to pick up the british title, but did he get the chance to avenge his defeat to Groves?  Nope.

I'm not saying 2 wrongs make a right, at the end of the day both fighters should have been given the benefit of doubt, but I do think a little perspective needs to be in order,  British refs favour house/favourite fighters the majority of the time, not right but true.

milkyboy wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Warrior's fight.......They don't take knees as it too many it's alien to to their make up........besides when he was on the ropes he probably saw two of the judges reading Playboy.........

How else did they have it 4-4........I gave Froch three rounds and that included the close ones..

Let's not blame Groves who was under the cush on the ropes and probably not thinking straight for that moment and instead direct all our attention to the disgusting, smug, overweight moron that spoiled everybody's night ...........Either through incompetence or by making sure he got plenty of work off Hearn in the future.......

Disgusting..

Can't speak for everyone else, but you didn't spoil my night beefster.  

On a more serious note, re standing 8's, like others have said, it's consistency of use I worry about. When do you leap in and give a standing 8 and when do you wave it off, how many standing 8's do you give before waving it off. Where do you get the consistency we all wish for. I think while the principle is ok, ultimately it just gives 1 more thing to create controversy than resolve it.

Very good Milky.........

We bring in Standing 8's and one Of Boxing's most celebrated assets........The startling upset becomes a lot less likely............

The upside is the best guy has more of a chance of winning..........which stops Warren types from jumping in when a top champion gets caught and offering the new-chump money to fight one of his guys....so he can get a cheap title...

Like Hide vs Bentt.............Hatton - Maussa !!!!