Mayweather vs. Ortiz September 17 (don't start new threads)

Status
Not open for further replies.
They're trying to hard to look like the good guys in the fight. Ortiz threw a blatant headbutt. Floyd never threw an elbow.
 
Or at least Ortiz given 5 minutes to recover.

NAC: CHAPTER 467 - UNARMED COMBAT

NAC 467.675 Acts constituting fouls in boxing. (NRS 467.030) The following acts constitute fouls in boxing:

14. Engaging in any unsportsmanlike trick or action which causes injury to an opponent.

Mayweather used an unsportsmanlike like act in tricking Ortiz that they were touching gloves, and then hurt him in the process. By rule that constitutes a foul.

 
I agree but the concept of "trickery" is very relative; Was Floyd pretending to touch gloves or trying to set up his next move?
 
I agree but the concept of "trickery" is very relative; Was Floyd pretending to touch gloves or trying to set up his next move?

I guess it's up to speculation, but the way I saw it Floyd knew what he was doing. Ortiz comes in hands down apologizing. Floyd comes in also hands down with a sly nod, and they touch then boom.

I don't see how it can be explained any other way then trickery.

And let it be known I don't mind if boxers don't touch gloves. If Floyd would have came straight out and swung (see Maidana vs Khan) then fine. It was the act of trickery which disgusts me.
 
also by rule and the ref even says this right before the match starts "Protect yourself at all times"
 
Yes, it's talking about fouls. This has more application for the Hopkins-Dawson result rather then Mayweather-Ortiz since there was no foul committed when Mayweather knocked out Ortiz.

No need to be clutching at straws.
 
also by rule and the ref even says this right before the match starts "Protect yourself at all times"
Doesn't matter if the opponent "Tricks you into keeping them down.

Yes, it's talking about fouls. This has more application for the Hopkins-Dawson result rather then Mayweather-Ortiz since there was no foul committed when Mayweather knocked out Ortiz.

No need to be clutching at straws.

What do you mean. You don't think Mayweather acted as if he wanted to touch gloves, then all of a sudden hit Ortiz?
 
Doesn't matter if the opponent "Tricks you into keeping them down.



What do you mean. You don't think Mayweather acted as if he wanted to touch gloves, then all of a sudden hit Ortiz?

they finished touching gloves and then mayweather hit him
ugh this has been gone over at least 1000 times since it's happened, but basically you're wrong and what mayweather did was completely 100000% legal
deal with it, you're grasping at straws now
 
they finished touching gloves and then mayweather hit him
ugh this has been gone over at least 1000 times since it's happened, but basically you're wrong and what mayweather did was completely 100000% legal
deal with it, you're grasping at straws now

How am I grasping at straws? I have an opinion and I backed it up by facts. (rules)

It was unsportsmanlike and trickery. If you disagree fine, but don't say I'm grasping at straws.
 
Except that any glove touching (which isn't technically required unless mandated by the referee) already occurred, so there was no 'unsportsmanlike trickery' going on since the fight was restarted by Cortez and Ortiz was dumb enough to think that he'd be 'protected' by trying to hug and touch gloves for perpetuity.
 
Rules are really meant to be interpreted by the ref.

For example "tricking" someone really depends on who the other person is. Just say you were fighting a noob and you go to the body and then high. But they are too noobish to realize that it's the oldest trick in the book where as a veteran wouldn't fall for that.

So it can be up to the expectation of the other fighter too or else you can just blame ignorance and say to the ref "I didn't know about the body shot and go high trick". In this instance the ref expects you know better and that shouldn't be a trick.

TBH rules are just meant as guidlines for interpretation just like in society and jaywalking.

Here at the 12:10 mark you can see Corrie Sanders breaking a rule by going down without being hit (by taking a knee). It doesn't have commentary but Jim Lampley went crazy at the time I think

 
It was unsportsmanlike and trickery. If you disagree fine, but don't say I'm grasping at straws.

I don't think you're grasping at straws, but that rule is rubbish.

They touched gloves, hugged, and Ortiz even kissed Mayweather. Then Cortez took a point away from Ortiz. Cortez pulls them back together and says "let's go". At this point the only thing left to do is fight. Ortiz puts his hands around Floyd's waist; Floyd posts his hands off of Ortiz's chest in offensive position (he wasn't hugging or otherwise embracing; he simply wasn't punching). Ortiz steps back, and doesn't return his hands to guard (no fault of Mayweather's), and Floyd pops him. That's exactly how it happened.

What Ortiz did was trickery too, a trick we've seen in recent bouts; embrace apologetically to slow the pace of the fight.

Boxing is trickery and conditioning. That's what it is. Feinting a jab is trickery. Feigning an injury is trickery. By definition to be a good boxer, you've gotta be tricky. So to say "tricking is okay, but tricking isn't" is a bit disingenuous. I'm curious where you draw the line exactly. Especially considering that Ortiz came in with his hands down willingly; Mayweather didn't do anything to signal to Ortiz it was time to embrace again.

I don't think the onus is on the fighter to actively interpret the rules in the middle of a fight, anyway. It's a game of acting and reacting. It's unfair and almost unsafe to place the burden of interpretation on a combatant during active fighting. "Will what I'm about to do possibly be interpreted as amoral?" shouldn't have to cross a fighters mind. For instance, a fighter doesn't need to decide if hitting below the belt is amoral or not; it's against the rules, and that's that. If the commission wants to enact a set of rules which clearly defines unsportsmanlike behavior, that's fine. But I'm a firm believer of getting expectations clear in the front.

If you have a rule that varies so widely in interpretation, it's probably an issue with the rule itself and not any particular interpretation of it.
 
Here at the 12:10 mark you can see Corrie Sanders breaking a rule by going down without being hit (by taking a knee). It doesn't have commentary but Jim Lampley went crazy at the time I think

I think it was Judah/Cotto when Judah had to take an intentional knee to save himself from being knocked on his ass (and probably out). If I recall correctly, Steward sided with Zab that it was the smart thing to do and no one else ringside said otherwise. But in fairness Judah had taken a lot of punishment in the seconds leading up to the knee.

Does anyone know what the official recourse is for someone taking an intentional knee? They're already going to lose a point; perhaps that's why it never becomes an issue.
 
I think it was Judah/Cotto when Judah had to take an intentional knee to save himself from being knocked on his ass (and probably out). If I recall correctly, Steward sided with Zab that it was the smart thing to do and no one else ringside said otherwise. But in fairness Judah had taken a lot of punishment in the seconds leading up to the knee.

Does anyone know what the official recourse is for someone taking an intentional knee? They're already going to lose a point; perhaps that's why it never becomes an issue.

It's not a thing you can take a knee, the only danger is a ref might take that as a sign of you giving up and call it, or not let you hang in there too much longer. Linares IMO should have taken a knee, he would afford it points wise at that time.
 
^ That makes sense to me. The inherent consequences of intentionally taking a knee is punishment enough, really no need for extra rules.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top