<#webadvjs#>

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comments Thread For: How Fury-Wallin Was Influenced By ESPN's Intrusion

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #51
    Jake Donovan, let me explain to you what Joe Tessitore did.
    Weeks screwed up not reporting to Fury’s corner about the punch causing the cut. Bob Bennett from NSAC screwed up not reporting to Weeks about it. And Joe Tessitore was the only one who did not screw up. He did what any wise man should have done in that situation – he fixed the bug using the tools he had in his hands.
    You said Tessitore should have stayed in his lane. You said he should be forced to publicly explain his reasons. You are absolutely wrong. Instead he should be praised for what he did, because he turned the fight into the right direction, what the officials failed to do. I thank Joe for not letting the fight down because of lame officials’ actions.

    Comment


      #52
      Originally posted by Mooshashi View Post
      Would it be ok for ESPN to tell one corner what the other corner was telling their fighter? Where does it end?
      It ends where open information ends. And the cut caused by a punch is still an open information.

      Comment


        #53
        Originally posted by Floydushka View Post
        Jake Donovan, let me explain to you what Joe Tessitore did.
        Weeks screwed up not reporting to Fury抯 corner about the punch causing the cut. Bob Bennett from NSAC screwed up not reporting to Weeks about it. And Joe Tessitore was the only one who did not screw up. He did what any wise man should have done in that situation � he fixed the bug using the tools he had in his hands.
        You said Tessitore should have stayed in his lane. You said he should be forced to publicly explain his reasons. You are absolutely wrong. Instead he should be praised for what he did, because he turned the fight into the right direction, what the officials failed to do. I thank Joe for not letting the fight down because of lame officials� actions.
        Sorry to be late with this reply, just caught it as I was reviewing some of my stories from last year.

        I hear what you're saying, but I'd have felt much better if the approach was taken in letting both corners know about the ruling. No such on-air request ever came to notify Wallin of what was happening, just to Fury.

        I'm glad the commission came around after the fact and fell on its sword over the ordeal. I still disagree in the approach that was taken. As I wrote, the right move would have been to get the commission on record right then and there. Would've prompted Bennett to remind Weeks of the ruling and that both corners needed to know.

        Comment


          #54
          Originally posted by JakeNDaBox View Post
          Sorry to be late with this reply, just caught it as I was reviewing some of my stories from last year.

          I hear what you're saying, but I'd have felt much better if the approach was taken in letting both corners know about the ruling. No such on-air request ever came to notify Wallin of what was happening, just to Fury.

          I'm glad the commission came around after the fact and fell on its sword over the ordeal. I still disagree in the approach that was taken. As I wrote, the right move would have been to get the commission on record right then and there. Would've prompted Bennett to remind Weeks of the ruling and that both corners needed to know.
          Hey man.
          I see you have a lot of articles. Could you be interested in this topic?
          There is a problem in the way the rounds with knockdowns are scored. As soon as a boxer goes down, his foe gets 10-8 in his favor. According to the rules the one who was down is deducted a point. But the fact that a boxer was down providing that the other one was not nowadays means that the one who was down compulsory loses the round. This is where I see the error in the logic.
          I think the one who was down can still be a winner of the round. I saw many examples, when a boxer gets the guts out of his opponent but occasionally gets caught, falls, gets up and continues to destroy his opponent till the round ends. And according to how it is supposed to be scored, the one who was being destroyed all through the round but was lucky to score a knockdown gets 2 points in his favor. Or, rarely such rounds can be scored as 10-9, still in favor of the one who was not down. I have no idea whether it is regulated with some official documents or is it just a habit, but my common sense says it is absolutely lame.
          The correct logic is here. The winner of the round is the one who inflicted more detriment to his rival. And he gets 10 points. If the winner was down in the round, then he is deducted a point. The loser gets 9. So it is 9-9 round instead of 憂o matter what 10-8� or 10-9 in favor of the fighter who wasn抰 down as it is supposed to be nowadays.
          This is the idea. If you agree with me and you are interested I would be grateful to you if you wrote an article on this. I don抰 ask anything in return.


          May the Force be with you.

          Comment


            #55
            Originally posted by Floydushka View Post
            Hey man.
            I see you have a lot of articles. Could you be interested in this topic?
            There is a problem in the way the rounds with knockdowns are scored. As soon as a boxer goes down, his foe gets 10-8 in his favor. According to the rules the one who was down is deducted a point. But the fact that a boxer was down providing that the other one was not nowadays means that the one who was down compulsory loses the round. This is where I see the error in the logic.
            I think the one who was down can still be a winner of the round. I saw many examples, when a boxer gets the guts out of his opponent but occasionally gets caught, falls, gets up and continues to destroy his opponent till the round ends. And according to how it is supposed to be scored, the one who was being destroyed all through the round but was lucky to score a knockdown gets 2 points in his favor. Or, rarely such rounds can be scored as 10-9, still in favor of the one who was not down. I have no idea whether it is regulated with some official documents or is it just a habit, but my common sense says it is absolutely lame.
            The correct logic is here. The winner of the round is the one who inflicted more detriment to his rival. And he gets 10 points. If the winner was down in the round, then he is deducted a point. The loser gets 9. So it is 9-9 round instead of 憂o matter what 10-8� or 10-9 in favor of the fighter who wasn抰 down as it is supposed to be nowadays.
            This is the idea. If you agree with me and you are interested I would be grateful to you if you wrote an article on this. I don抰 ask anything in return.


            May the Force be with you.
            I've done stories in the past on the subjectivity of scoring and have touched on this particular aspect, but definitely worth deeper exploration. Appreciate the suggestion.

            Comment

            Working...
            TOP
            Krikya
            Live Casino 50% Welcome Bonus up to 唰�20,000
            18+ | Play Responsibly | gamblingtherapy.org | T&Cs Apply
            • Cashback Rewards VIP Program
            • Non Stop Rewards & Prizes
            • Unlimited 唰�1,200 and lifetime earning of 2% referral incentive
            Show More
            As Bangladesh's top online cricket betting destination, Krikya has built a strong reputation for its diverse offering and is a pioneer in offering generous bonuses, giving players extra funds to explore Wide selection of games. Krikya not only offers a welcome bonus, but also various options such as deposit bonuses, no deposit bonuses, and recharge bonuses to suit players of all tastes.