PDA

View Full Version : Taylor/chavez



jyoungfan2
03-07-2006, 10:32 AM
I watched HBO show on meldrick taylor the other day. To see him interviewed in 1991 and then see him in 2003 makes you want to give up being a fan of boxing. I've met meldrick a few times, nice kid who boxing has chewed up and spit out. He has nothing left. I can only understand about every third word he says. I used to side with richard steele, stop the fight if theres 10 seconds or 10 minutes, to protect the fighter. But watching the replay, meldrick deserved those 2 seconds and his place in history. They interviewed lou duva who says he told meldrick to "move move move" the last round. Replay shows meldricks corner telling him he needed the round to win the fight. Steele twice asks meldrick if he's all right . Meldrick glances towards his corner because he was distracted by duva who had climbed up on the ring apron. Steele doesn't hesitate and stops the fight. Meldrick immediately protests. If chavez was in a neutral corner, he couldn't have reached meldrick in time to even throw a punch. Meldrick deserved an extra second to answer steeles question. They said if it went to the scorecards, meldrick would have won on a split decision. Does anyone know which judge gave the fight to chavez? meldrick was robbed by steele and lou duva.

KOKid
03-07-2006, 02:40 PM
Although I felt Steele robbed Taylor of a victory at the time, I no longer do.

A referee's job is to to protect the fighters and stop the fight if one of the fighter's health is at risk. This task remains the same throughout the fight, from the first second of round one to the final second of the final round. There is no gray area here.

Keeping track of time is not the referee's job. That task lies with the timekeeper. For the referee to take the time of the round/bout into consideration before acting is like the timekeeper stepping in and stopping a fight if he feels it should be done.
Who would accept that?

Steele did his job and if the stoppage had occurred two rounds earlier no one one have made a fuss of it.
The fact that he stopped the fight at 2:58 of the final round is just a case of hard luck for Taylor.

-KOKid-

kikibalt
03-07-2006, 02:45 PM
KoKid
I agree 100% with you.

Frank B.

timayres
03-07-2006, 03:58 PM
I too at the time felt like it was a very weird stoppage. But if you take away the clock, and see Taylor not responding when talked to by Steele, the punishment he had taken, I can't blame Richard any more for that one. I can blame Duva for distracting his fighter at the most important moment of the fight, and Meldrick for getting knocked down, before I'd blame Steele.

The only other fight I can think of where a similar situation happened between trainer and fighter was when Rafael Ruelas was told to stay on his knee to take the 8 following a knockdown against Mauro Guttierez, watching for Joe Goosen to tell him when to get up, and Joe got the count wrong and motioned for him to rise at 9 1/2. Ooops.

Tim

kikibalt
03-07-2006, 04:29 PM
Tim
I remember very well the Ruelas-Guttierez fight, that fight highlighted the inexperience of Joe Goosen at that point in time.

Frank B.

Roberto Aqui
03-07-2006, 04:44 PM
The fight was called correctly. Had Taylor a more competant corner I say he wins the fight because he moves and stays out of trouble or at least isn't being screamed at by his corner. Duva is an idiot and apparently likes to lie about his actions. Plus he's uglier than the worst sin imaginable!

walsh b
03-08-2006, 03:28 AM
Jyoung you baffle me. On the one hand you say that Taylor is pretty much incoherent and doddery and then you blame Steele for robbing him. Maybe Taylor wouldn't even be here, were it not for Steele stopping the fight.
Would you rather that??. How do you know that if Steele allowed Taylor to continue, that Julio would definitely not have landed another punch. That's not possible to say and Meldrick had already take a fierce amount of punishment, how much more did you want him to take before you would agree with Steele??

jyoungfan2
03-08-2006, 10:22 AM
If I thought Meldrick could have been injured, I would agree with richard steele 100%. In my opinion, meldrick had his wits about him, enough to immediately question steele why he stopped the fight. If Chavez was in a neutral corner, he could not have crossed the ring and landed another blow in 2 seconds. It is steeles job to know the round is close to being over, since a ref jumps in at the sound of the bell to protect the fighter at the end of a round, why else did they have a flashing light in the corner. To ask if I would rather see a fighter injured is assanine. Meldrick is doddery, but not from the Chavez fight. He is doddery from continueing to fight long after he should have retired. His life spiraled downhill after the second chavez loss. would have, could have, should have. I'd like to think if he beats chavez, he becomes a 3 time world champion, gets some nice paydays, retires, and is inducted into the hall of fame on the first ballot instead of being arrested for not having enough change to ride the bus. It is what it is. My opinion is he deserved to finish the fight and steele was too quick to stop it.

JLP 6
03-08-2006, 11:00 AM
If Steele had not have stopped the fight, and Chavez ran and caught Taylor with another shot, before or after the bell what do you think would have happened to Taylor?

I don't know if he was near death, but Steele said he fell down "like there was no more life left in him." That did not sound like Steele was not concerned. It sound convincing to me.

The way Taylor looked at the end of the previous round was scary. He had no idea where he was. I love boxing as much as the next guy, but some fights are meant to be stopped.

Taylor's problem was that he did not know when to stop and did not have anyone around him who cared enough to make him stop. You hear all the time, people saying nobody care about fighters, Steele that night. He should be rewarded for it.

Taylor fought the wrong fight. Even though he was winning rounds, you do not stay inside with JCC trading power shots.

gregbeyer
03-08-2006, 03:44 PM
had steele imediately bent over taylor and pulled his mouthpiece out or simply waived it off when he saw meldricks eyes swimming in his head i doubt there would have ever been much controversy.
steele, i think,
knew it was over when taylor was on his way down but gave meldrick the benefit of a look before he decided it was over and never gave the clock a thought. i could never really blame him for that. fate dealt a wicked hand that nite.
greg

walsh b
03-09-2006, 03:17 AM
Jyoung, the Chavez fight I would say has a whole lot to do with Meldrick's speech and slowness today. Meldrick did not respond to Steele when asked if he was OK and I don't care how many excuses there are (Duva on the apron, ref should know the time). Steele is not the timekeeper and he said this himself after the fight. Taylor was in real distress and if you think otherwise, I'm afriad you weren't paying attenton, lucky Steele was!!!

The shoemaker
03-14-2006, 07:17 AM
Richard Steele protecting Taylor ? More like protecting Chavez. Get real, Richard Steele's has made a career out of favoring the Promoter's fighter. Go watch Beneitez- Weston II, you tell me how Steele could have scored that fight 12-1-2 for Beneitez. The other two judges had Beneitez winning by a point. Remember the Rudduck- Tyson I farce ? Steele's stoppage created such a farce they had to have an imediate rematch (jeeze what a shock that steele didn't referee). How about Tyson-Orlin Norris ? Tyson hit him twice way after the bell, injuring Norris' knee. Steele first took two points away from Tyson, then when it appeared that they were going to deservadly DQ Tyson, Steele ruled it a No contest based on an "Accidentle Foul" (who ever heard of that one ?) How about Hollyfield-Ruiz ? Hollyfield nailed Ruiz with blatent head buts and Elbows throughout the fight, no deductions or anything. Another fight that the writers blasted the ref for.
Carr-Del-A Hoya ?Not saying that carr would have won but Steele took three points away from Carr on questionable low blows, forcing carr to go to the more powerful De La Hoya. It changed the complxion of the fight, which was close when it was stopped. In regards to Taylor-Chavez, Steele changed his story. First, he stated that it didn't matter how much time was left in the fight, Taylor wasn't in condition to continue. Then later on he was quoted as saying that he didn't know that there were two seconds left in the fight. Notice a pattern here ? You don't see the promoter's moneymaker getting shafted on these "questionable" calls. Hey, if it was a different ref in Taylor-Chavez, i might give him the benefit of the doubt, but Steele ? He definatly knows where the money is.

The shoemaker
03-14-2006, 07:42 AM
Jeeze, I just remembered. Remember when Chavez's contract with King was up, and Chavez after getting screwed by King was about to become a free Agent ? Chavez's last fight under king was against Frankie Randall, who beat Chavez on a split decision. it didn't help that Chavez got penalized two points for low blows by the Referee (I still had Randle winning). You'll never guess who the Referee was. The same "heroic' official that saved Meldrick Taylor with two seconds left in his fight. What a coincidence.

walsh b
03-14-2006, 02:09 PM
Shoemaker, you are the reason why so many fighters end up damaged and suffering to this day. Yo never want to see mercy, all you want to see is hurt and misery, no matter who is receiving it, you love to see barbarity.....Was it Steele's fault that Taylor was knocked down and seriously hurt in rd 12, was it Steele's fault that Taylor took heavy punishment throughout the fight and was it Steele's fault that Meldrick swallowed a lot of his own blood and was unable to respond when asked if he was OK???

The Shoemaker
03-15-2006, 11:51 PM
Walsh, who are you to make comments that all I want to see is misery and suffering and barbarity ? You don't know me. All i did was point out how gullible you were to Steele's corruption. I noticed that you didn't argue any of my facts and evidence on Steele, probably because a) you didn't know about them, b) they were true and c) it doesn't make you look to be viewing a corrupt officials actions with "stars in your eyes". Of coarse it's a referees job to protect the fighter, but that's such a gray area. Despite what you think
anyone could see that Taylor was coherent and WAS DISTRACTED BY DUVA BEING ON THE APRON. Go watch the fight again. Taylor worked his ass off to beat an undefeated great fighter and deserved to win that fight, only to have it stolen from him by a corrupt promoter (King) and a corrupt Referee. Yes, Duva and Taylor provided Steele the opportunaty to steal the fight from him (as did Chavez's pressure and determination to win) but with two seconds to go, that's a discrace. Whether Steele knew exactly how much time was left is debatable, but he had to know it was way late in the fight. Do you honestly think Steele would have done the same thing to Chavez ? And if he did stop a fight with two seconds to go with a King fighter leading, do you think he'd ever work another Don King fight ?
As far as protecting a fighter. It's easy to sit back and criticize a ref's actions. We could be like ferdie Paccequo (Spelling) was during the 80's screaming "stop the fight" as soon as the first good punch landed (I remember him screaming to stop a bobby chacon fight, a fight that chacon came back to KO his opponent). Like I said, Taylor was winning the fight, he was coherent, it was late in the fight, he deserved the chance. There are always going to be risks involved in boxing, Taylor realized that when he took up the sport. I thought the Ref in the castillio- Corrales fight did an excellant job of stopping it, because unlike Taylor, Castillio was defenseless, and getting pummled on the ropes. Yes, the Taylor-chavez fight was a brutal fight
and both took beatings, but Taylor's beating didn't compare to Joe Frazier's beatings from ANY of the three Ali fights (including the one he won). Remember Joe was being hit by a 220+ HEAVYWEIGHT, plus Joe absorbed Ali's blows comming forward, which magnified them (unless you are going to argue that Chavez hits harder than a heavyweight) Same thing with several of LaMotta's fights.
Now if you wish to argue with me try refuting my facts before you go into the labling bit. Was any of my information about Steele false ? #2 Knowing now what you know about Steele, don't you think that there was a tiny chance that he stopped that fight to protect a King fighter's title and undefeated record ? If you don't wish to refute a person's evidence, I suggest you go to the ESB forums with the Tyson and roy Jones idiots. That way you can just ignore someone's evidence and resort to name-calling or labling people, who have different views than you do. Especially when they come up with evidence that blows your "Richard Steele humanitarian theory" out of the water.

theironbar
03-16-2006, 12:27 AM
OK, here's how I saw the ending of Taylor-Chavez I go down... 12th round, VERY late, Taylor hits the canvass... Steele counts... Taylor rises... Steele asks if he's OK a couple of times... no reply... no response... By this time more than 10 seconds have passed... The fight is waved over...

The ref has a limited window to assess a fighter who's been knocked down... you don't ask 10 times, "Are you OK?" without a reply! A fighter has a limited time to reply and/or toe the line to demonstrate he can fight... if he can't, the fight is over... And that's why this fight was stopped... or should have been stopped... and the time remaining is irrelevant... You've got to "toe the line" and show you're ready to fight, and if you don't, and Taylor didn't, it doesn't matter if there's 2 seconds or two minutes left... you're out!

walshb
03-16-2006, 01:35 PM
Shoemaker, I understand there is a 'gray' area when deciding whether or not to stop a fight but when Steele asked the guy twice if he was OK, Taylor plain and simple did not respond and for you to say he did is a complete mistruth. He gave him the chance twice and he could not respond, so that blows your theory on Steele being corrupt. If he really wanted to save Chavez from defeat he would have not even asked the guy if he was OK, he would have just stopped the fight. I don't give a shit if Duva was on the apron or not, Steele's job is to assess the fighter, he did and made a great call, but unfortunately there are people like you who will criticise him for it because you enjoy the blood and hurt aspect of the fight game a little too much

Regards

hawk5ins
03-16-2006, 01:38 PM
I take a little bit from many of the opinons given on this.

I thought Steele made the wrong call. I don't think he was conspiring agianst Taylor. I think he truly thought he was protecting Mel. That said, Steele's inconsistent call in the past have me wondering why he made the call in this bout when he made it.

Taylor's face WAS swelled up (any worse than Gomez's was agianst Pintor?). And he was bleeding. But he also was competitive late in this bout and was NOT taking a one sided beating. I thought Mel lost the fantastic, highly competitive 10th round and I thought he lost the 11th as well. That said, these were the only two rounds I had given to Chavez upt to that point (I had him winning the 12th up to the point of the stoppage.).

Look at Steeles calls in the past: He let Bobby Chacon bleed like a stuck pig agianst Boza in their return when Bobby was getting dominated in the middle of the bout (bad duke at the end btw). Called the doctor in twice to examine him and let it go on. He let Leon Spinks get up from a thrid round knockdown agianst Larry Holmes and let Holmes TEE off on Leon for a good 40 seconds when after a towel thrown in by Micheal and HIS desperate screams for Steele to stop the fight (as well as a look or two by Holmes to Steele), before he stepped in. And yet, he stopped the Chacon Mancini bout in the thrid after an insignificant cut and becuase Steele didn't think he could win becuase Mancini wone both the 1st and 2nd and was winning the thrid. Inconsistent.

Let's really look at what was happening at the time of the knockdown in the taylor Chavez fight. Did anyone look at the 12th round AS IT WAS unfolding and say to themselves: Mel is getting whitewashed? Battered around? DOMINATED? And that Steele should Seriously consider stopping the fight? Be honest.

Because if that WAS what you were all thinking and THEN Mel goes down, I can see your point. He was getting abused, NOW he's been knocked down, time to stop it.

But that's not what was happening.

Taylor went down and was up with 5 seconds he braced his arms in the corner ropes and this has happened with several fighters who have been knocked down. So i don't buy that he was supporting himself on the ropes and that if he let go, he falls down. Nonsense.

He didn't answer Steele's question? Well I thought he did give a slight nod just as Steele was asking him if he was ok. But that aside, is answering a question what NEEDS to happen? As Steele said himself in the post fight interview, he was looking to see how he was (helaso contradicted himself in saying he didn't ask him a question, but then said he DID hask him if he was alright). Larry Holmes when he was knocked down by both Shavers and Snipes got up and actually WALKED away from the ref's and never answered thier questions. Why did he walk away? Becuase he didn't want them to see his eyes whihc might give them a reason to stop the fight.

All this said, lou Duva did an injustice to Mel by jumping on the ring apron during the count. That clearly distracted Mel and probably led directly to Steele's decision.

But I DO think a ref needs to be aware of how the fight is going. To say that he doesn't need to be concerned with who was winning the fight at the time of the knockdown or how much time is left in the round or what round it is in the bout I don't buy. It IS the ref's job to know this. When making a call to stop a fight after a knockdown, should the ref consider that a fighter has been dominated all fight long and has been taking a onesided beating in the round that he was knocked down in? Absolutely. So conversely, he needs to consider how WELL a fighter has been doing in the fight at the point he was knocked down. And late in the 12th round of a fight Taylor was doing exceptionally well in, he owed it to Tyalor to give him a seond chance. I simply think Steele made a wrong but well intenioned call that night.

I had money on Chavez in this fight. And I ultimately won money on Steele's call. I also thought it was an incorrect one.

I do NOT consider myself to be some violent hungry monger simply becuse I wanted to see the bout continue for what did turn out to be another two seconds. And While I agree, that mentally I think that bout ruined Taylor, I don't think it PHYSICALLY ruined him. I do think it did have a mental/confidence impact on him. His physical downgrade was the result of him NOT fighting in is best weight classs which was 140 or 135. His weight fluctuated like Toney's did/does. And he wasn't as dedicated to training as much as he needed to be.

The fight that I think RUINED Taylor PHISICALLY was the Terry Norris bludgeoning. And that bout absolutely destroyed his his confidence as well. After the Norris bout, there was Nothing left. The Norris fight took place two years later and Mel, who was Not as good or effective at 147 as he was at 140, was an absolute shell after that bout. Espana, who was nothing special showed that.

Steele made a bad call imo. Well intentioned, but the wrong call none the less. Had Chavez jumped on Mel and Taylor does not defend himself, step in and call it. Taylor deserved AT LEAST that.

Hawk

walshb
03-16-2006, 02:54 PM
Good post Hawkins. You aren't criticising Steele, merely you disagree with the call. I didn't. As for that fight having an effect on Taylor, sure it had to. Taylor the tough guy he was took a hell of an amount of punishment. Body attack alone was horrendous and it has to take its toll on his well being. With all respect to Steele, we are not discussing his past fights or any other past fights that may have warranted a stoppage by the ref. I would certainly criticise him if I felt he was guilty of allowing a fighter take unnecessary punishment, the same way I would commend him for preventing a fighter from taking unnecessary punishment. It works both ways.

In the case of the Spinks fight or any others, which I didn't see, but I'll take your word for it, he was wrong to allow Spinks to take more than he should.
That's the trouble in boxing and why there are so many calls for it to be banned. I like a good ding dong as much as the next guy but I'd like to think I could comprehend when a fighter is or is not taking a bad and unjustified beating. There have been far too many bad calls made from refs and to outright criticise a ref and accuse him of conspiring to rob a very damaged unresponsive and hurt fighter is wrong. Chavez caused Meldricks defeat, he caused Taylor's hurt and Steele prevented it from going on 2, 3 ,4 or 100 secs longer.

I recently watched Hatton V Tsyzu and to me Tsyzu didn't take a beating close on Taylor's level, yet his corner pulled him in the final rd. I am certainly not going to say they deliberately did this to rob him of a chance of victory. They made a judgement based on his physical state and to them he had taken enough and was too exhausted to take any more. The last guy in the world to quit is the fighter himself, that's well known. Look at Futch and Frazier in Manilla. Is anyone slagging Futch for the call he made. Fair play to Steele for his call and I hope other refs learned from it.

Southpaw1982
03-16-2006, 03:06 PM
When i was watching the fight live i thought the stoppage was premature,but with time i have come to see it was the right call.A lot of people forget that Steele stopped the fight with 5 or 6 seconds left in the round,but that the timekeeper let the clock wind down to 2 seconds after the the fight had already been waived off.Taylor has no one but himself to blame for losing,the fight was in the bag and instead of keeping his distance he decided to stand his ground and trade with a desperate Chavez.Anyone remember that right cross he got nailed with on the chin in mid-ring moments before getting dropped?Even though he was clearly buzzed from the punch,instead of backing away he actually came right at Chavez on wobbly legs!This allowed Julio to land that follow-up smashing right hand that dropped him against the ropes.That was an incredibly stupid decision on Taylor`s part to come right at him the way he did,and that crucial decision is what cost him the fight.

walshb
03-16-2006, 03:15 PM
I do remember the right hand he got nailed with. It was a fast one-two and the right landed heavily, however, I thought Taylor more fell towards him from the effects of the punch, rather than he knowingly went towards Julio. Amazing how different people see different versions of an event. That combo was the real finisher as it was dynamite and Taylor was clearly finished, all credit to his amazing courage in trying to continue

hawk5ins
03-16-2006, 03:17 PM
My point on my criticism of Steele's call is that I don't think Taylor took a "beating". Face Swelled up (see my Gomez point) and bleeding (see my Chacon point), but I had Mel ONLY losing two rounds in that bout.

If a ref is going to take into consideration how badly a fighter has been doing in a fight after a fighter has been knocked down, he has to take into consideration how well he was doing also. Now I have heard Steele make his "pound pound pound" comments about what he thought was happening to Taylor, but that just wasn't the case.

I'll ask agian, prior to the knockdown, did anyone here feel as if Taylor were getting dominated or punched around the ring to the point where you were screaming at your screen for Steele to stop the bout? YES he took a Solid combination shortly before he was knocked down. But it was also the only time in the entire fight that he took such a combo and showed any visible effects. I hate to use Arturo Gatti as a measuring stick here, but can we at least consider some of the many times he was visibly hurt and came back? In the 12th round of a fight that you are clearly winning, you fianlly are wobbled and get dropped from an excellent combo and that's it? No more chances? That seems a bit strong for me.

Taylor was JUST as aggressive as Chavez was. And as far as the body work by Julio? Heck I thought Taylor actually outworked him and was VERY effective and IMO was more impressive to the body than was Chavez. Julio turned into a bit of a head hunter in that bout as well.

I see where you were going with the Tzsyu point, but IMO, that was a "guts" thing. I hate to discredit Kostya like that, but you can't get around it. It has never sat well with me. And Mel was WINNING his bout with Chavez where as Tzsyu was probably down by 2 or 3 (max) points. So thee is another difference.

And as far as a comparison to Futch, Frazier, Ali and Manilla, to Chavez Taylor, agian, Joe was getting brutalized and dominated by Ali. At the end of the 14th, you WERE saying to yourself, how much longer can Joe Take this? it was THAT one sided.

The 10th was NOT one sided. But Chavez won it. The 11th was another round I gave to Julio. But again it was not a one sided bludgeoning. It was a COmpetitive round. And in the 12th....Look at what Ali was doing to Joe in the 12th, 13th and 14th. The consecutive unanswered shots, FLUSH. This does not at all resemble what was happening in the final three rounds of Chavez Taylor.

Sorry, I just find this comparble at all.

Hawk

kikibalt
03-16-2006, 03:36 PM
Hawk

If you don't think Taylor was taking a beating by the 10 and 11's round you must have fallen asleep, just maybe?

Frank B.

walshb
03-16-2006, 03:38 PM
I think Taylor was ahead and he gave Julio a terrible beating too. But Meldrick took the 'heavier' beating, heavier more damaging shots and a lot to the body which people tend to forget. He had broken ribs, swallowed close on 2 pints blood. Steele was the man closest to the action, he saw this right up close and saw in Taylor's eyes which were terribly puffed that he had taken enough.

I just don't see how anyone can say he got it wrong. Just because in the past he allowed others to take more of a beating, that doesn't mean he should have allowed Meldrick to. Different fight, all that went before, totally irrelevant. Another factor I noticed was despite the fact Meldrick rose at 4, did you notice the desperation, he didn't clean get up, like Ali in 1971 or even Foreman in Zaire. The guy was all over the place and was trembling on his feet. I actually felt so sorry for the guy.

hawk5ins
03-16-2006, 03:41 PM
Yes. He was certainly taking more shots than he had been in the previous 9 rounds.

Was he taking a "beating"? One sided, brutal and or otherwise?

Absolutely not.

And if I did fall asleep, I was lucky enough to have taped the bout so I've been able to view multtiple times since.

And c'mon, what are the chances that I fall asleep every single time the 10th, 11th and 12th come around?

Hawk

TKO11
03-16-2006, 03:47 PM
Since the fight was a couple of years before your kids were born, I'll say there was little chance of you falling asleep. But if you're like me these days, sitting through Dora the fucking Explorer half the day, you could fall asleep at any moment. Some call it narcolepsy. I call it fatherhood.

hawk5ins
03-16-2006, 03:51 PM
And it only get's worse for me in July. Girl #3 on her way. One more step down for this cowboy.

Back when Hearns took on Micheal Olajide, I ordered Showtime for a month just so I could tape it.

But I fell asleep roughly 15 mins before the show started. And it was not Replayed.

Alcohol had EVERYTHING to do with that one.

Hawk

TKO11
03-16-2006, 04:25 PM
That's funny. And congrats on the impending arrival. But now you'll be sharing the house with FOUR gals. Pretty soon you'll have your own vagina. At least at my house we're only outnumbered 3 to 2.....

hawk5ins
03-16-2006, 04:33 PM
And then the ladder drops down.

Who'm I kidding? I'm as happy as can be. Besides, after six years of knowing only little girls, if i had a boy now, i'd probably make a sissy out of him.

But the buck is stopping at 3.

As far as that Hearns bout goes... Woke up at 3:00 am on the couch, shoes still on, full (warm) beer on the coffee table and softcore late night SHowtime porn on the tube.

Man I was p*ssed. I stopped drinking for at least 3 days.

Hawk

theironbar
03-16-2006, 05:58 PM
Hawk -- you make good points -- and congrats on the impending arrival... my wife and I are trying like crazy for our first and... well you get the picture -- and too much info probably!

For years I questioned that stoppage but on my 20th viewing, I concluded that Taylor's lack of response just left the ref with no choice -- how many "Are you OK's?" do you ask? Like I said -- you gotta toe the line in a limited time and Taylor didn't...

I respect everyone's opinion on this thread but I would really like to hear what Ron Lipton has to say on this topic... there's obviously discretion a referee has in assessing a fighter's ability to continue, but what exactly are the parameters of that discretion? How much time do you have? Is it 10 seconds?

hawk5ins
03-16-2006, 06:22 PM
I still think Mel did give a quick slight nod to Steele. And I think he deserved the right to go on. There are countless examples of fighters getting up in far worse shape than Taylor who were allowed to continue. Some were stopped shortly there after and some have gone onto win.

Another inconsistancy example from Steele that I could point to would be Hearns Barkley. Hearns was caught by a WICKED right hand, and then a "thank you very much shot" on the way down. recieved an EXTRODINARILY long count and JUST beat even THAT count. NEVER responded to Steele's questions and Looked COMPLETELY out of it (his eyeballs were friggen slot machines). ANd Steele let THAT one go on.

I don't beleive foul play was involved in Taylor Chavez. I think Steele's intentions were in the right place. I just think he made a bad call.

This was NOT three rounds of late in Ali Frazier III, before the knockdown. Taylor was giving as good as he was getting. His face was swollen and he was bleeding. He did have an orbital bone fracture and a bad cut inside the mouth (He did NOT have any broken ribs by the way. That is incorrect.).

But he was putting on a winning performance and he should have been allotted a another shot that Steele has routinely given so many others.

And remember, I won money form this bout (I was awake enough to realize some cash-ola was coming my way.). And I wanted Chavez to win. And I was Thrilled as HELL, when Steele stopped the bout. But It was a mistake IMO. But certianly not the WORST stoppage I've ever seen.

Hawk

wildhawke11
03-16-2006, 08:19 PM
We could discuss this one for another six months and still maybe get a 50%-50% vote on it. I have the greatest respect for our own Ron Lipton and am sure most of us feels the same about our Ron. The bottom line is though it was not Ron or any of us up in the ring that day having to make a quick decision. It was Steel's right as the ref to make a decision right or wrong, and he did it. Wonder how we would feel now and would we be still criticising the ref it he had let even one more punch land on Tayler and real damage had been done to the fighter. In all honesty i bet 100% of us would be saying it was obvious that the fight should have been stopped. Easy with hindsight aint it. Unlike us and a lot of the media Steele did not have the luxury of studying video films for hours. So i guess the answer is if in doubt stop it and live with your decision.

hawk5ins
03-17-2006, 08:51 AM
I hear what you are saying.

And beleive me, had the circumstances been that Taylor was getting dominated and abused or even simply losing round after round after round leading up the knockdown, I would be 100% in the corner of Steele making the right call.

Thing is, I went and watched the last 4 rounds agian last night (limiting the number of rounds so I didn't fall asleep agian) and a few things stood out.

1-Round 9 was a lot closer than I remember it being. Possibly an even round and an argument can be made for it being Julio's round.

2-Round 10 may very well have been Taylor's round. This was easily the best round of the bout and Chavez lands very well early. But every time he landed a good shot or combo, Mel came back with Blistering 7 or 8 punch combos that at LEAST 50% of those punches landed every time. Mel closed very strongly in that round and I have No argument giving it to Taylor. As it stands, I did not alter my scorecard for either the 9th or the 10th.

3-At least reviewing the last 4 rounds, Chavez's body work was even more anemic than I recall. It was roughly 85% head 15% body.

4-Jim Lampley was just as bad in 1990 as he is today. I got half way through the 9th and had to go to mute.

5-The 11th round was the first CLEAR round Chavez won the whole bout. Solid round and he landed some very good shots. Mel's output decreased form the 10th, but he still was landing several of his combinations.

6-The 12th round. The first two mins of this round I defy anyone to watch this round and not only tell me Chavez was dominating or beating on Taylor. I defy anyone to watch those two mins and tell me that Chavez was WINNING those two mins! Mel is doing a wonderful job with his jab and is keeping the action on the outside (not reatreating or running) and when Chavez closes the gap he lands wicked combos. He loses his footing at about the 30 sec mark at the center of the canvas (does not fall) and againg at the one min mark, in the same spot, Taylor throws a combo that misses and he slips to the canvas. He gets up and the two exchange shots intermitently over the next Min up to the 2 min mark. From the 2 min mark to about 2:30, Chavez and Taylor go at it. Chavez lands the seemingly heavier shots but Taylor's volume keeps him right there.

Note: Here is the a description of the exact same timeframe that I just broke down that is on HBO's website:

"Toward the end of the fight, Chavez’s power began to take its toll. Taylor’s blazing speed had slowed, his face was swollen, he was swallowing blood. But still, Taylor was ahead on all scorecards heading into the 12th and final round. All Meldrick Taylor would have to do is keep his distance and remain standing, and he would have delivered the Mexican warrior his first career loss.

But Taylor decided instead to wage war. In the middle of the round, Chavez caught Taylor with a right that almost floored him. Meldrick returned with a flurry, missing with a wild left that left him sprawled on the canvas. Taylor’s legs weren’t under him anymore. Now, for the first time in the fight, Taylor was backing up. Chavez moved in—left uppercut, right, and a final devastating right cross that sent Taylor down with 15 seconds left."

I honestlybeleive that THIS is what viewers think they remember happening. There are multiple innacuracies with that breakdown by HBO. If you watch the 12th round, you can see where Taylor is bothered by a wet spot at ring center and when he slips about 30 seconds later it IS the result of the wet spot and Chavez did NOT land any meaningful OR hurtful punches prior to the slip. The Stagger they refer to actually happened JUST before the knockdown. But reading it here, you get the impression that the 12th round was INDEED a one sided battering by Chavez. Go to the video tape as Warner Wolf would say.

7-The Knockdown-At the 30 second mark, Chavez begins to force the action much more so than any point in the round. At around the 20 second mark, he land a solid one two that we all see has hurt Mel who comes forward throwing shots, a bit off balance, but also showing the gameness he had all night (in game ness I mean he fought on the inside and TOOK it to Chavez). Beautiful combo puts Mel down at the HBO clock of 17 secs. Mel tries to break his fall which only makes his tumble into the corner that much more awkward.

He is up on his feet at the count of 5. Steele is in his face counting 6, 7, Mel looks down briefly as if to adjust his trunks and looks right back at Steele as he's about to say 8 and gives a VERY VERY slight nod, Steele says 8, And then he counts 9, and then says "you Ok". As he's saying this, Mel looks past Steele towards his corner where OBVIOUSLY Mel sees Duva up on the apron. Steele then says (and all of this is within seconds Not long, not drawn out, between 1 and 2 secs tops) "you ok" agian, but before he can even FINISH saying "ok" he's already waving it off. The hand was waiving between O and K.

Steele did not even give Mel the opportunity to answer the second question. Mel not looking at him and essentially TURNING away after he counted 9, I beleive palyed a great role in this.

But regardless. The "pound pound pound" comments that Steele said was happening in the post fight interview, was not all that true. YES Mel was taking punishment. ANd he was also dishing it out. It was not onesided. It was not a situation where you were thinking to yourself, this fight has to be stopped, before the final salvo happened. It simply was NOT the case.

SO yes, I beleive Mel SHOULD have been afforded the opportunity to continue. I also beleive Duva Screwed up and VERY likely cost his fighter that opportunity, through his actions of jumping up on the apron.

But Given Steele's Some what inconsistant history of letting fights continue with fighters in Much worse shape (Hearns Barkely, I need to go no further than that eggregious action) and the fact that I feel it is the ref's duty to KNOW how a fighter is doing through out a fight, wether that acertaining if a fighter has been losing and losing badly or winning and performing very well (as Taylor clearly was) so that when a Knockdown DOES happen, he takes those factors into consideration when making the decsion to stop a fight after a knockdown.

Steele isn't Satan for stopping the bout. But he was Wrong.

Hawk

PeteLeo
03-17-2006, 08:45 PM
Taylor was a physical wreck after that fight. Someone somewhere was hitting him during the bout. I have no problem at all with the stoppage. PeteLeo.

walshb
03-18-2006, 03:21 AM
Hawk, you say Taylor nodded at Steele when asked if he was alright. Bottom line is he could not respond with a 'yes' or 'no' answer!!! Not once but twice he was asked. He had his chance, but the physical accumulation of punishment robbed him of victory, not Steele.......

hawk5ins
03-18-2006, 09:02 AM
As I just pointed out, Steele never allowed him a chance to answer his question the second time as he was waiving it off between O and K. And the two questions came at Mel in rapid fire succession.

It was not as if it Played out as such:

Tyalor is up at 5

Steele says 6 and Asks Mel if he was Ok (no Response)

Steele counts 7 (still no answer)

8 (Still No answer)

9 Steele asks him agian and then looks at Mel to see if he is coherent and there is no response.

So Steele waives it off.

The above did not happen.

At the count of 9 Steele says "you ok" and then a split second after "you o..." And he begins waiving it off.

So no Mel did not verbally say "I'm ok". But as I point out in several other examples, Steele never got a verbal acknowledgement form Tommy Hearns aginast Iran (see previous description on how that one went) and let that go on.

Larry Holmes was down agianst Shavers and Snipes and NEVER answered questions that were asked of him and instead actually ignored the two refs (Pearl and Ortega) and walked away form them.

Pete,

Mel was a Physical wreck immediately after the bout. The same is true about Joe Frazier after the First ALi fight. As for Long term Physical affects, agian, I don't think Mel began showing them until after Norris annihilated him. Was he a bit slower at 147 than at 140? Yes. But that's a move up in weight issue not a Chavez wrecked him cause.

I hate sounding like a broken record and repeating things agian and again so I think I'll rest on this one as there isn't a whole heck of a lot left to say.

Hawk

pendleton23
03-18-2006, 01:41 PM
The fact of the matter is that Taylor's corner lost that bout.All Taylor had to do is survive the 12th round and he wins.And yet ther is Lou Duva telling Taylor that he has to win the 12th round.And then there is Duva jumping on the ring apron distracting Taylor as Steele asks him if he is alright.What was Steele suppose to do? He asked a boxer if he was alright and got no answer.
Chavez should thank Duva for his win.

walshb
03-20-2006, 03:21 AM
I wouldn't be a big Duva fan, but surely he was only trying to make certain of the result and seeing as it was such a tough fight against what most POSTERS are saying was a biased fighter, he really believed Taylor to secure a win needed a big 12th rd. The last rd in championships is usually the most important in so many ways and the judges are usually swayed. Hawk you keep bringing up Steele's previous fights. Like I've said, it's not relative and if he was allowing guys to take too much, then I criticise him for it...it's wrong. But here he refused to allow Meldrick to take anymore shots....credit Mr Steele.

hawk5ins
03-20-2006, 09:28 AM
You've ignored just about every point I brought up here (those prior to the fight and those DURING the fight, all which I have repeated.). I don't see the need to keep trying to dismiss on one over the others, as all are relevant.

But regardless, my position is clear here. I'm moving on.

Hawk

Sharkey
03-20-2006, 11:01 AM
Taylor may have been a product of the 'flame out' theory as well. He never paid much attention to defense, and fought at a high energy rate. The Chavez fight took something out of him, but moving to 147 didn't help matters for a guy who fought pseudo-kamikaze without the necessary pop (or size) to overwhelm welterweights.

That said, I disagree that he began looking haggard after Norris. I thought he looked fairly ordinary throughout his welterweight title run, without the steam and energy he had at 140. Glenwood Brown was a good, tough fighter. Garcia as well, but they hurt Taylor numerous times and Taylor's penchant for getting hit against guys who were good, but not THAT good showed me at least that this dog, while not old, had no tricks to learn.

And still, we had another product in Taylor (who by the way was one of many with the one of the 5 worst mass-used nicknames in boxing) of fight mags and wags reporting how he struggled, and yet still rated him in the top 4or 5 p4p in the world. After the Garcia fight, perhaps it was the new weight and an energetic and rangy foe. The Brown fight was the case of engaging a tough scrapper with better-than average skills and strength...but was this the work of a transcendant talent?? It seemed Taylor was really just a good welterweight, a bit better than his foes.

Chavez' blows were destructive if not aplenty, and Taylor's method of fighting, Philly style in your face, saw him grab a lead and saw him also play into the hands of Chavez who himself was 'right-there' to dish out a steady, debilitating attack. Amateur boxing notwithstanding, it was apparent throughout the fight (maybe preconceived brainwashing of how formidable Chavez was) that JC was doing more hurtin' but that Taylor was still going..and flurrying and blizzarding blows.

By round 10 Taylor did look run-down. It wasn't so much "I wonder if Taylor can keep it up"..or "Man are those shots hurting him?" By round 11 he was showing the clear signs of being damaged. Steele certainly stopped a fight that conceivably could have been continued were it round 3, round 15, round 6...whenever. Still, as I get further away from this, I don't see it so much as Taylor was robbed (without motivation by those denying him the chance to win:aka Steele, Duva etc) as it just sorta happened that way. I don't think Taylor responded in any fashion to the questions, but SO OFTEN as Hawk points out, that doesn't a fight-ending make.

Ted Spoon
03-20-2006, 11:21 AM
Taylor's lip injury from sparring was re-opened early on and throughout the bout he was shooting his bolt whilst copping hurtful body shots, followed by the occasional hook upstairs.

As Steele later said he had no idea where they were in the round and that his sole concern was focused on Taylor's condition. Look back at those last few moments; a badly cut lip, a fractured cheek bone and other blood welts + exhaustion.

Looking to his corner was a sign of helplessness, and any fighter should realize the importance of making their stand to continue in such a delicate situation. Meldrick shoudl have had his glovves to his chin "I'm fine, I'm fine" instead he looks around like a boy lost in the woods.

At that point all the fight was beaten out of him. Whether it was two seconds or a minute, Taylor was in a dangerous position.

As has been mentioned he was not the same fighter again.

hawk5ins
03-20-2006, 11:35 AM
Did he look helpless agianst Aaron Davis at 147 when he won his second belt? My god what did he lose two rounds tops?

He looked like he didn't have a whole lot of power at Welterweight and was a tad slower, but that was becuase he was fighting at a higher weight. The man is a natural Lightweight.

Somebody show me where this shell of a fighter existed PRIOR to the Terry Norris Shellacking. He was dropped by Glenwood Brown becuase he was in with a huge puncher and becuase he wasn't a flipping Welterweight.

Aw what am I doing? I'd ask that posters go and watch the Davis bout I just mentioned but heck, no one seems willing to go and look at the 12th round of the Chavez fight.

Sigh.

The towel has been officiallly thown in.

Edit: Sharks, missed your post there. We disagree on a few points here, if only slightly. I saw a perciptous drop in quality from Mel after the Norris bout. After the Chavez fight, I didn't see the same Taylor as prior or during that bout, but I credit much of that drop to him not being a true Wleterweight. ANd to your point, his deficiencies that he had on defense that really exisited all along.

I don't deny that Mel's wear and tear throughout the Chavez bout wasn't building. ANd certainly it was to the point where I saw that wear and damage coming through in the 10th and 11th, both of whihc I gave to Chavez. Agian, I maintain that if you view the first two mins of the 12th, you will see that Mel actually was winning that round up to that point. But YES, rounds are not only 2 mins and over the next 58 secs, Chavez clearly turned the round back into his favor, especially with the damge done over the final 30 secs of that round (staggered Mel and then knocked him down.)

Agian, I am not saying Steele made the worst call in history. I simply disagree with it. And I also disagree with the defense that I see mounted to back Steele's decision: Mel was being one sidely battered for 3 rounds prior to the stoppage (not the case), Taylor was a shell following the bout (agian, rise in weight and defensive issues surfacing or was he a shell? To Claim that the Meldrick Taylor we all saw in the SECOND Chavez bout, what nearly 5 years later, was the Taylor that existed all along after the first Chavez fight is utter nonsense.), and EVERY fighter in Taylor's condition SHOULD have the bout stopped. I think I've provided enough examples to show that that is not necessarily the case.

Hawk

Sharkey
03-20-2006, 03:16 PM
I agree with you on almost all points.

Shot and diminished meet somewhere. I think by the Espana fight. Crisanto was a frightening welterweight of sorts....and the beating hastened the erosion of Taylor that was already there. Especially, as Hawk says, on the heels of the Norris bout.

None of observations should be viewed to support the hyperbole either way...Steele's call was probably 'wrong' in that Taylor was not in worse shape then other fighters that are allowed to continue (Larry v. Snipes? Hello turnbuckle). It was probably viewed as correct in that Meldrick didn't converse with him nor show he was a-ok. What happened afterwards would have happened had he survived two more seconds. I don't think losing ruined him, I think fighting the way he did at the weight he did against the guys he did didn't help.

Taylor winning the Chavez fight doesn't see him develop a great defense, nor does it keep other fighters from being brave, or Taylor standing right in their wheelhouse. Right?

hawk5ins
03-20-2006, 04:33 PM
If Taylor ends up WINNING the Chavez fight and STILL moves up to 147 (essentially becuase he never met a donut he didn't like), then his career goes in the absolute same direction it ended up going in.

His offensive speed was his defense. And moving up in weight (lack of training and discipline) is NOT going to accentuate that gift. It will retard it.

He got away with the aggressive speed style because of that speed. Take that speed away or at the very least, diminish it, and he's not the same fighter. Which, I also agree on, was a very good fighter at 140. Very good. Not necessarily great. At 147, he was simply good. Nothing more.

Hawk

GorDoom
03-22-2006, 05:02 PM
TWO SECONDS TO ETERNITY
(The Ring, August 1990)

By Steve Farhood

Never call me a boxing apologist, you know, the type of ringsider who claims he’s never seen a punch-drunk fighter, and that if you examine the statistics, boxing is no more dangerous than bocce. Violence is a major part of both boxing and its appeal, and if you deny it, you’re either lying to yourself, or you’re a Michael Nunn fan.

Like any other observer who loves the sport, I encourage uniformed rules and medical improvements. But they can only reduce—and not eliminate—head injuries and fatalities.

Which brings me to Richard Steele’s stoppage of the Julio Cesar Chavez-Meldrick Taylor title fight. Because there were two seconds left in the last round and Taylor was comfortably ahead on two of the three cards, Steele’s intervention will be debated long into the next century. But I’m not going to wait that long to tell you why he did the right thing.

First of all, it must be understood that Steele’s call was a subjective one. It’s possible that had he allowed the bout to continue, the bell would have rung before any more punches were thrown, and Taylor would have triumphed by well-deserved split decision. It’s also possible that upon receiving a signal from Steele, Chavez, his adrenaline racing, could have rushed across the ring and fired one last straight—and potentially tragic—right.

If you believe that Steele should have recognized the flashing l0-second warning lights and considered the time remaining before making his decision, you’re missing the point. Given the situation, Steele’s sole responsibility was to determine Taylor’s condition and his ability to defend himself. It was long ago that in most states, referees were wisely relieved of scoring fights so they could concentrate on their primary duties. By having them act as in-the-ring timekeepers, boxing would be taking a giant backward step.

Never mind that Steele received no response after twice asking Taylor if he was okay. Why do referees demand verbal communication? Most fighters answer “I’m okay” by instinct, just as most instinctively rise from knockdowns. A fighter who tells a referee he’s all right is not necessarily a fighter who should be waved back into battle. That aside, Steele took a look at Taylor’s eyes and, realizing how the brutal pace—and Chavez’ brutal fists—had weakened him, decided to stop the bout. Taylor and his camp might have objected, but in retrospect, Steele’s judgment seemed solid. After the bout, Taylor was hospitalized. He had swallowed two pints of blood, was suffering from dehydration, was bleeding in his kidneys, and had a fracture of the orbital bone surrounding his left eye. Other than that, he could have boxed another 10 or 12 rounds.

Those who call for a referee to stop a fight as soon as one of the boxers is hurt are failing to acknowledge the nature of the beast. But given the circumstances of the Chavez-Taylor fight and the track record of Steele, those who question the timing of his stoppage are failing to acknowledge that the beast can kill.

Mr E
03-22-2006, 05:43 PM
IMO, it was a good stoppage. All Taylor had to do was tell Steele that he was okay and wanted to continue, but he didn't. So, the stoppage was Taylor's fault and nobody else's. Not that I blame him, though -- Chavez was kicking the living daylights out of him in that last round.

To be honest, I always thought Taylor didn't want to keep fighting and only pretended later that he did want to continue after he woke up (and somebody told hiim he had only had 2 seconds left to go). A little post-fight revisionism, as it were, similar to George Foreman's telling us he was in great shape in the 8th against Ali and only stayed down 'cause his corner didn't tell him to get up. LOL.

hawk5ins
03-22-2006, 05:50 PM
I read that same article when it came out. I am a huge Farhood fan and I agree with most of his points. We differ on this one. And I think his Hyperbole is unecessary. When one tends to dramatize thigs in the manner Farhood did here, to disagree with him, makes the one not seeing eye to eye, seem like some sort of churlish brute who has no compassion or feeling.

I say Nonsense to that and any insinuation of such. I personally see that as a weak way out of continuing an easily debatable point. Once you make one side out to be blood thirsty and unfeeling, you can ride that horse to "death".

And re the laundry list of physical issues that Taylor was suffering from, I bring back up Joe Frazier's condition that he was in following the first Ali bout. You almost could switch the names there.

I do not question Steele's intent and have never called for his hide becuse of the decision. I simply disagreed with it and maintain that Taylor should have been afforded another chance considering how the bout was going, which I repeat, was not the final three rounds of Manila (in a last attempt to squash more hyperbole.)

Hawk

GorDoom
03-22-2006, 06:22 PM
I just posted an article by Farhood - it doesn't mean I agree with every word he wrote.

For me the bottom line was that it was good & correct stoppage. & the person to blame is Lou Duva. First he tells him to go out & fight Chavez that round when all he had to do was dance & stay on his feet to get the victory.

Then after he's knocked down Duva creates a huge commotion in the corner to get Taylor's attention. Taylor looked at him & didn't respond to Steele.

End of story. Fight's over it doesn't matter if there was just a nanosecond left you don't respond & the ref will ALWAYS stop the fight.

As a side note I think it was incredibly unfair the abuse Steele had to take for that fight & Tyson-Ruddock I. For over 15 years people have booed him everytime he's introduced. What ticks me off is I'm willing to bet 4/5's of the audience doesn't even know why they are booing him. They just do it out of habit.

GorDoom

The Shoemaker
03-22-2006, 11:39 PM
as far as Mr. Steele: OK, you want to give him the benefit of the doubt when he bailed out two King fighters (Chavez, Tyson). How about Benetiez-Weston II ? Did you ever see it ? Plenty of dealers have it on video. Steele refereed it and scored it 12-1-2 Benetiez. Tyson-Orin Norris ? How blatent of a foul was that ? Blatent enough for Steele himself to deduct two points from Tyson. Of coarse when Norris can't continue, Steele changes it to a NC, by claiming "accidentle foul". Chavez-Randell ? a little different story since King no longer owned options on Chavez, as Steele deducted two points from Chavez costing him the bout. (I could go on and on) And you think this guy's on the level ? He's like Joey Curtis (was) and Duane Ford is. they know where the money is and who the money fighter's are (De LeHoya-Carr). The trainers and managers may not want him refereeing fights, but the promoters and the rip off sanctioning bodies sure do and that's where the money is. Debate any of those fights. And you can't see a pattern ?

hawk5ins
03-23-2006, 09:10 AM
I paologize if my last response seemed directed at you. It was not intended to be. That was more a general beef I have with the excess hyperbole that I see applied to this fight.

In this sport, which remember folks is a hurt game, hyperbole such as that used by Farhood (agian, who I have the utmost respect for. Heck he's on my epitaph over at another site I no longer frequent), can be used in far too many examples as far as I'm concerned. Simply look at the last 15 seconds of round nine in the first Ward Gatti bout. The ref COULD have stepped in at any time there and had anyone argued that Arturo could have continued, isn't it logical that based on the brutality of that round and the fact that Gatti was dropped and in obvious pain from a body shot earlier in that round that one could argue "well if the ref didn't stop it, what happens if Ward lands one more hook? Gatti could have died!"

That's just one scenario I could use out of hundreds of examples. But hopefully my point is clear here.

Gordoom, I do agree with you re Duva. And hopefully my past posts on this subject have shown that. You know it's funny, after the bout, Alexis Arguello made this comment about Taylor looking at his corner (not that I endorse it 100%, but it is interesting hearing this from a fighters perspective): "Richard Steele made a mistake. He shouldve realized that Meldrick was looking at his corner after he got up. That's the number one reaction EVERY fighter has, and it showed he had a clear mind. I think he could have made it." Arguello also added: "After all the bell can save you." But I think we all agree that that point is irrelevant. Even if Steele did see the flashing light, he doesn't know if it is 2 or 10 seconds left. I don't lay awhole lot on the red light issue.

Hawk

Todd
03-23-2006, 09:35 AM
Anyone remember Norris-Blocker? Steele sure didn't stop that early. I wish people would boo him for that inept job.

walshb
12-02-2008, 03:28 PM
On watching this bout recently, I just decided to check the official cards and was absolutely astounded to see that Judge Chuck Giampa actually had JCC ahead by one point (105-104)

This may be old news to some; but generally I don't really check the judges scores, or I simply assumed; in this case anyway, that all three had Taylor ahead!


Was he ever investigated for this?

PD99
12-02-2008, 09:07 PM
In Hearns v Barkley I, Steele also gave Hearns every benefit of the doubt after Tommy was flattened by Barkley's Hail Mary right hand.

Not only did it appear that Steele afforded Tommy a long count but he also appeared to be steadying the still waivering Hearns when he waved the fight back on. Imo, there was NO doubt that Hearns, after barely rising from the deck, was still well and truly fooked and would be cleaned up shortly thereafter. Hearns barely responded, if at all, to Steele's enquiry but Steele's decision to allow Hearns to continue to not appear to factor Hearns condition whatsoever.

Michael Frank
12-02-2008, 09:20 PM
For me the bottom line was that it was good & correct stoppage. & the person to blame is Lou Duva. First he tells him to go out & fight Chavez that round when all he had to do was dance & stay on his feet to get the victory.

Then after he's knocked down Duva creates a huge commotion in the corner to get Taylor's attention. Taylor looked at him & didn't respond to Steele.

End of story. Fight's over it doesn't matter if there was just a nanosecond left you don't respond & the ref will ALWAYS stop the fight.

As a side note I think it was incredibly unfair the abuse Steele had to take for that fight & Tyson-Ruddock I. For over 15 years people have booed him everytime he's introduced. What ticks me off is I'm willing to bet 4/5's of the audience doesn't even know why they are booing him. They just do it out of habit.

GorDoom
This thread has been revived and I just read your post, GorDoom. Never have I agreed so with every word in a post.

Steele was a GREAT referee whose talents were beyond question, hence he got assignments like Hagler-Hearns and Leonard-Hagler... and eventually Chavez-Taylor I. His stoppage of that fight was absolutely correct if one doesn't consider the time remaining--and that is NOT a factor. Taylor was badly hurt and didn't reply to Steele's questions, anyone can see that. Case closed for me (and I was rooting for Meldrick).

Same for Tyson-Ruddock I. Steele didn't stop a fight whose result here was in doubt. Everybody seems to think they know more about refereeing than does Steele, and they're wrong.

Pacheco and Albert fanned the flames for YEARS, CONSTANTLY mentioning before later fights that Richard Steele was refereeing, so "you never know." That was both despicable and stupid.

Steele's resume of great championship fights refereed, nearly all without controversy, I feel is impeccable.

GorDoom, I'm with you also as to the dumb fans who have booed Steele since 1990 or 1991. It seems crazy to me, and for sure, absolutely unfounded and wrong.

walshb
12-03-2008, 09:18 AM
Correct stoppage I thought.

Steele said it all when he said, "I'm not the timekeeper, my JOB is to protect the fighter"

Spot on and IMO; he possibly may have saved Taylor's life!

Far too may blood thirsty fans out there who aren't ever happy until a man is really suffering!

I didn't realise Pacheco was saying that. I assume it was in direct relation to
Ferdie disagreeing with the Taylor stoppage?

If so, I expected better from a DOCTOR and a man who for years was always
on Ali's case to quit before he really got hurt!

BTW, any news or INFO on Chuck Giampa having JCC ahead in the fight????????

hawk5ins
12-03-2008, 09:41 AM
With the notion that disagreeing with Steele's call automatically makes you a bloodthirsty fan.

I disagreed with the call. I had Money on Chavez. I wanted Chavez to win. Still beleive Steele made a well intentioned, but nonetheless, Inccorect call on the stoppage.

I would never harass Steele if in the crowd. That said, he has been wholly inconsistant throughout his career as to what he lets go on and what he stops.

Richard Steele let Hearns continue after Barkley knocked him down, with 2 brutal shots and Tommy barely made it to his feet after the longest count I can remember in recent years, never answered Steele's questions and with glazed glassy eyeballs, never made eye contact with Steele either. Yet Richard let THAT one go on.

Hearns was in far worse shape rising from that knockdown than was Taylor. Taylor had the visible swelling and blood, but he was not in La La Land in the manner that Hearns was.

That is but one example I've noted from Steele's all over the map decisions he's made in the past.

My previous posts in this thread on this subject, I would hope that anyone reading them does not interperate them as though I'm craving carnage or have a fight to the death mentality here.

I simply disagreed with the call and gave very specific reasons as to why and have put a great amount of detail and effort in to explaining my position on this.

Hawk

walshb
12-03-2008, 09:50 AM
I don't think you are ONE of these fans. You have detailed your reasons as to why
you thought it was incorrect and they seem genuine.

I know well the issue is very contentious and maybe if I had cash on TAYLOR, I would
have been one of those blood thirsty fans screaming; but looking back with time to reflect, I just don't see how folks can still see it as a BAD call. I think it was a correct call.

Steele's inconsistency is IMO a separate issue. On this ONE instance, to me, he made a GOOD call!

And Taylor was in real bad shape. His injuries were detailed. He swallowed a lot of his own blood, had broken ribs, took a lot of shots for 35+ mins. Had two puffed and swollen eyes. And that's not even mentioning the internal damage he suffered.

The Hearns comparison is well off. Steele had to take into account all that went on for the whole fight, not JUST the instance JCC knocked Meldrick down.

So, to say Hearns was in worse shape is NOT accurate. Hearns was KO'd by a few shots. Hearns may well have been less responsive, as he was knocked OUT, but worse shape, is IMO misleading! Heck, Barkley barely landed a shot until the hail mary!

Taylor was beat DOWN for almost 12 full rds.

walshb
12-03-2008, 09:56 AM
BTW, I think the Hearns call was bad too; I just disagree on the STATE of both fighters when Steele
called off both bouts. They were two polar opposites, both hurt, but in very very different ways; and BOTH deserved to be halted! Steele was just a TAD late saving Herans.

Paulie W
12-03-2008, 10:14 AM
I'm not saying it was necessarily a "bad" call to stop the fight but I dont imagine anyone would now, several years down the line, be castigating Steele had he allowed the fight to continue. We'd be talking about what a great last round it was and probably how the brutality of the first fight sowed the seeds for JCC's victory in the subsequent rematch. No-one would be saying Steele should have stopped it.

walshb
12-03-2008, 10:23 AM
Paulie, It certainly is one of those 'WHAT IF' moments. What would have happened if Steele allows the fight to go on. Man, it IMO would have been very very risky.

Could JCC have got to Taylor and landed a KILLER blow. Remember, the official clock said 2 secs; but that does NOT mean the bell automatically sounds after two secs.

That bell is human operated and that's a hell of a risk I feel!

hawk5ins
12-03-2008, 10:36 AM
re the states of Hearns and Taylor.

Hearns had not taken many if ANY shots prior to getting knocked down, but when he got up BARELY after nearly 14 or 15 seconds (man that count was long.), but WHEN he was up, he was totally out of it. He was this side of John Tate, but standing. Hearns' was BARELY conscious and rose only on instinct. He had NO IDEA where he was. None. THAT is a dangerous situation to be in.

Taylor was up at 5. His face as mess. But given his cheek bone structure, similar to Wilfredo Gomez's, he puffed and swelled up like crazy. And he was bleeding. He LOOKED worse than Hearns. But I don't beleive he WAS worse than Hearns.

Now a comment you made about Steele needing to know what went on previously in a fight as to making a decision to stop a fighter who has been dropped, I agree, I think Steele DOES Need to take that into consideration.

However Steele refuted that beleif.

Let me quote myself here:

"But I DO think a ref needs to be aware of how the fight is going. To say that he doesn't need to be concerned with who was winning the fight at the time of the knockdown or how much time is left in the round or what round it is in the bout I don't buy. It IS the ref's job to know this. When making a call to stop a fight after a knockdown, should the ref consider that a fighter has been dominated all fight long and has been taking a onesided beating in the round that he was knocked down in? Absolutely. So conversely, he needs to consider how WELL a fighter has been doing in the fight at the point he was knocked down. And late in the 12th round of a fight Taylor was doing exceptionally well in, he owed it to Tyalor to give him a seond chance."

I didn't give Chavez any rounds prior to the 10th round, although the 9th was very close. Taylor was winning clearly and cleanly IMO. Your point Walsh about Giampa's scorecard Is spot on. THat card was atrocious. Chavez ahead? Absurd. That card did not reflect what was going on in the fight. Chavez winning rounds, did NOT come into play until the final three rounds of the fight.

Now let me quote myself agian re how the final three rounds played out (Please by all means, if someone saw something different with how these rounds played out, dissect the rounds similarly so we can discuss.):

"1-Round 9 was a lot closer than I remember it being. Possibly an even round and an argument can be made for it being Julio's round.

2-Round 10 may very well have been Taylor's round. This was easily the best round of the bout and Chavez lands very well early. But every time he landed a good shot or combo, Mel came back with Blistering 7 or 8 punch combos that at LEAST 50% of those punches landed every time. Mel closed very strongly in that round and I have No argument giving it to Taylor. As it stands, I did not alter my scorecard for either the 9th or the 10th.

3-At least reviewing the last 4 rounds, Chavez's body work was even more anemic than I recall. It was roughly 85% head 15% body.

4-Jim Lampley was just as bad in 1990 as he is today. I got half way through the 9th and had to go to mute.

5-The 11th round was the first CLEAR round Chavez won the whole bout. Solid round and he landed some very good shots. Mel's output decreased from the 10th, but he still was landing several of his combinations.

6-The 12th round. The first two mins of this round I defy anyone to watch this round and not only tell me Chavez was dominating or beating on Taylor. I defy anyone to watch those two mins and tell me that Chavez was WINNING those two mins! Mel is doing a wonderful job with his jab and is keeping the action on the outside (not reatreating or running) and when Chavez closes the gap he (Taylor) lands wicked combos. Mel loses his footing at about the 30 sec mark at the center of the canvas (does not fall) and again at the one min mark, in the same spot, Taylor throws a combo that misses and he slips to the canvas. He gets up and the two exchange shots intermitently over the next Min up to the 2 min mark. From the 2 min mark to about 2:30, Chavez and Taylor go at it. Chavez lands the seemingly heavier shots but Taylor's volume keeps him right there.

Note: Here is the a description of the exact same timeframe that I just broke down that is on HBO's website:

"Toward the end of the fight, Chavez’s power began to take its toll. Taylor’s blazing speed had slowed, his face was swollen, he was swallowing blood. But still, Taylor was ahead on all scorecards heading into the 12th and final round. All Meldrick Taylor would have to do is keep his distance and remain standing, and he would have delivered the Mexican warrior his first career loss.

But Taylor decided instead to wage war. In the middle of the round, Chavez caught Taylor with a right that almost floored him. Meldrick returned with a flurry, missing with a wild left that left him sprawled on the canvas. Taylor’s legs weren’t under him anymore. Now, for the first time in the fight, Taylor was backing up. Chavez moved in—left uppercut, right, and a final devastating right cross that sent Taylor down with 15 seconds left."

I honestlybeleive that THIS is what viewers think they remember happening. There are multiple innacuracies with that breakdown by HBO. If you watch the 12th round, you can see where Taylor is bothered by a wet spot at ring center and when he slips about 30 seconds later it IS the result of the wet spot and Chavez did NOT land any meaningful OR hurtful punches prior to the slip. The Stagger they refer to actually happened JUST before the knockdown. But reading it here, you get the impression that the 12th round was INDEED a one sided battering by Chavez. Go to the video tape as Warner Wolf would say.

7-The Knockdown-At the 30 second mark, Chavez begins to force the action much more so than any point in the round. At around the 20 second mark, he lands a solid one two that we all see has hurt Mel who comes forward throwing shots, a bit off balance, but also showing the gameness he had all night (in game ness I mean he fought on the inside and TOOK it to Chavez). Beautiful combo puts Mel down at the HBO clock of 17 secs. Mel tries to break his fall which only makes his tumble into the corner that much more awkward.

He is up on his feet at the count of 5. Steele is in his face counting 6, 7, Mel looks down briefly as if to adjust his trunks and looks right back at Steele as he's about to say 8 and gives a VERY VERY slight nod, Steele says 8, And then he counts 9, and then says "you Ok". As he's saying this, Mel looks past Steele towards his corner where OBVIOUSLY Mel sees Duva up on the apron. Steele then says (and all of this is within seconds Not long, not drawn out, between 1 and 2 secs tops) "you ok" agian, but before he can even FINISH saying "ok" he's already waving it off. The hand was waiving between O and K.

Steele did not even give Mel the opportunity to answer the second question. Mel not looking at him and essentially TURNING away after he counted 9, I beleive palyed a great role in this.

But regardless. The "pound pound pound" comments that Steele said was happening in the post fight interview, was not all that true. YES Mel was taking punishment. ANd he was also dishing it out. It was not onesided. It was not a situation where you were thinking to yourself, this fight has to be stopped, before the final salvo happened. It simply was NOT the case.

SO yes, I beleive Mel SHOULD have been afforded the opportunity to continue. I also beleive Duva Screwed up and VERY likely cost his fighter that opportunity, through his actions of jumping up on the apron."

Hate to repeat myself, but I don't think I could break this down any better than I already did.

Hawk

Paulie W
12-03-2008, 10:46 AM
Walsh, maybe you're right but the landing of the 'killer' blow is something of a doomsday scenario; far more likely that Steele says box on, JCC moves forward, maybe throws to the body because Taylor has his hands held high and the bell rings; Steele jumps in and its over.

This is one of those debates which for me is about whether the Steele stoppage was theoretically the 'right' call. In practical terms not stopping the fight probably doesnt lead to Taylor taking any further punishment - timekeeper forgetting to ring the bell apart! - because there wasnt time for Chavez to inflict it. Taylor wins and no-one ever suggests that Steele put Meldrick's life in danger by not stopping it.

hawk5ins
12-03-2008, 10:53 AM
I am totally with you.

I honestly beleive that No one would have said a thing had it continued. "Man, Steele Should have stopped that fight." I don't buy it.

I honestly do not beleive there were any viewers who were watching the bout that said anytime during the 12th round, that Steele needs to stop the fight.

And I also Absolutely beleive that at the time of the knockdown, when Mel arose, no one was saying "Steele HAS to stop this fight."

I beleive the reaction TO Steele stopping the fight, was the first time anyone took into consideration whether or not it SHOULD have been stopped.

Hawk

walshb
12-03-2008, 10:53 AM
Put simply, even the rds Chavez MAY have won were damn close and an argument could be made that Taylor deserved a slice of those rds. 11th was JCC's in my BOOK!

Hawk, where we disagree is on the STATE of Hearns and Taylor. I simply think both situations were completely different. One case was a man who took a couple of heavy shots and was OUT. The other is a case of a man who took a steady and precise beating over 12 hard rds, despite him dishing out a beating too and winning comfortably.

I don't see how we can really compare. I have agreed with YOU that Steele should have stopped the Hearns bout earlier. But, overall, Taylor was in WORSE shape as far as taking
EVERYTHING into account. Steele did not simply HALT the fight just because Taylor was unresponsive, though that was a MAJOR influence; he also had been closely watching the FULL bout and he knew Mel had taken a steady and precise beating.

He did mention this on a HBO documentary. He said how Taylor was landing so many shots; but how he noticed that JCC was landing the heavier and more telling shots.

Your breakdown was dead accurate in my book as regards the scoring!

walshb
12-03-2008, 10:55 AM
Walsh, maybe you're right but the landing of the 'killer' blow is something of a doomsday scenario; far more likely that Steele says box on, JCC moves forward, maybe throws to the body because Taylor has his hands held high and the bell rings; Steele jumps in and its over.

This is one of those debates which for me is about whether the Steele stoppage was theoretically the 'right' call. In practical terms not stopping the fight probably doesnt lead to Taylor taking any further punishment - timekeeper forgetting to ring the bell apart! - because there wasnt time for Chavez to inflict it. Taylor wins and no-one ever suggests that Steele put Meldrick's life in danger by not stopping it.
Guys, it's something we WILL never know. I just think at the time, Steele did his job right.

Look, though I didn't know at THE TIME whether or NOT Steele should STOP the fight; all I and others could go on was the fact that Mel DID not answer when Steele asked if he was okay. What was Steele to do?

Go to the timekeeper and ask exactly what was left?

Go to the judges and ask for scores and decide to allow Mel to continue?

No, he asked TWICE if Mel was okay and he got NO response! That's the crux of
the issue as I see it. Steele HAD to call it OFF!

Oh, and Giampa should NEVER have been allowed to judge again after that!

Sharkey
12-03-2008, 11:24 AM
This is all conjecture of course, and good talk..

What I'd like to know is, how much of what someone thinks has happened to a fighter should color what is actually happening TO the fighter NOW?

Taylor was being hit of course all night. Beat up nice. Hard shots. However, if a ref is weighing what he thinks has been done to the fighter, who is winning to-boot, when that fighter gets in a hairy situation, I think we have to wonder if that is apt. Taylor was not for example, blasted in round 9, rallied to get up and wade through it to be dropped in round 10 and be almost out.

When Taylor rose, the call on how he was would seem to be similar to any other fighter, ever knocked down, in any round, at any time. Ideally right?

In the Crisanto Espana fight, should the fight have been stopped at the first sign of trouble because Taylor had previously been beat up by Chavez, and Norris?

It is a fine line and an intersting thing to talk about. No one I think would suggest what has occurred does not, nor should color an assessment of the fighter... but I don't think stating a fight was stopped because in the ref's humble opinion, a guy not knocked down during the bout and standing and trading and winning (or doing close to that), SEEMED to had in the course of the bout taken shots that now, with the KD, suggest a stoppage. As in, 'finally.. thank goodness you fell down so I can save you.'

How about, Taylor didn't respind.. Duva did his deal.. and this fight is this fight and no two fights are called the same and no two fighters down are in sthe exact same shape and some are stopped and some are not due to error.

hawk5ins
12-03-2008, 11:28 AM
Steele asked Tommy how he was, and and never got a response.

Tommy never looked at Steele, nor was he able to as his eyes were doing the slot machine dance.

Hearns had No idea where Barkley was, where Steele was, where HE was.

And Steele had no issue letting that continue.

I do not question Steele's intent, nor do I think he was crooked. I simply think he has always been woefully inconsistant.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one still.

Steele made the wrong call (IMO) and that call made me money.

At least no one can say it was "blood money".

Hawk

walshb
12-03-2008, 11:33 AM
Steele got it wrong with Hearns. I don't think anyone is disputing that.

Steele got it right with Taylor. Just my view!

Two different fights and two different situations. One he gets wrong and one
he gets right

hawk5ins
12-03-2008, 12:10 PM
ANd when Steele himself states that he is not interested in who is ahead in the scoring or what the time is left in the bout and that he is ONLY concerned with the fighter in front of him at that moment, then the two scenarios, are imo very similar.

IMO, Hearns rising from the knockdown from Barkley, was nearly unconscious and had no idea where he was.

If Steele is concerned with ONLY what is in front of him at that moment and is not looking at what went on before as he stated is the case when evaluating a fighters condition, then IMO he got that call wrong in both fights.

If he DOES indeed factor what went on prior to the knockdown, and I think he absolutely should, but not use that as the ONLY factor, then seeing Meldrick sweeping most of the first 9 rounds and then being on even ground in the war in the 10th, losing the 11th and winning clearly the 1st 2 mins of the 12th round (agian, please, I implore everyone to review the 12th round and break it down minute by minute, second by second, and ask yourselves, WHO was winning that round, clearly, prior to the knockdown.), all of this SHOULD be factored in when Steele makes his decision.

If he does, then he should have let Mel continue.

Just my opinion.

Hawk

walshb
12-03-2008, 12:34 PM
I think you are arguing something that we all agree on.

Steele got it WRONG with Tommy. We know this.

Maybe, he too knows this and that's why he IMO made amends in the Taylor bout.

I am confused here. You are disagreeing with me on something I agree with you on?

hawk5ins
12-03-2008, 12:56 PM
1-Who was hurt more, Hearns or Taylor. Or more accurately, who was more out of it. Imo it was Hearns.

I Keep bringing this up as I see there is a competency issue with Steele. Nothing malicious, but his level of inconsistant decisions IMO bring into question his judgement.

His Judgement is what I find fault with with Steele.

I've used the phrase "Consistantly Inconsistant" in the past. I think it fits the decision making process of Steele to a T.

Let Chacon bleed like a stuck pig against Boza, and then stopp Bobby's fight with Mancini on a very insignificant (comparitively speaking) cut.

It's this never knowing how Steele is going to react to a certain situation, becuase he never has any consistancy in dealing with similar situations, is what I have always had a problem with with Steele.

Likewise with his handling of Chacon differently in different bouts involving him, he did the same with Hearns. Look at his STOPPING of the Hagler Hearns bout when Tommy rose. Anything different with Tommy's condition in THAT bout than with Barkley?

You just never know with Steele.

You are veiwing this as simply: Steele should have stopped the Barkely Hearns fight and we both agree with that. Well to me, it more than just that. A-I feel Tommy was far more incoherent than was Mel and more importantly, B-It's the inconsistancy of how Steele handles LIKE situations.

2-While we both agree that a ref SHOULD consider what went on prior to a fighter being knocked down, we disagree with how Mel was doing prior to getting dropped.

You beleive that Steele should have taken into consideration "the punishment Taylor had been taking" and I see it as "Taylor having controlled the vast majority of the previous rounds and in the actual round, the 12th, where Taylor was dropped, Meldrick was winning the round prior to getting dumped on his ass."

So my interperatation of ."Steele needing to consider what happened prior to the knockdown" is very different from your interperatation of that statement.

Those are the principle points that I see disagreements on.

Hawk

walshb
12-03-2008, 01:54 PM
1-Who was hurt more, Hearns or Taylor. Or more accurately, who was more out of it. Imo it was Hearns.

I Keep bringing this up as I see there is a competency issue with Steele. Nothing malicious, but his level of inconsistant decisions IMO bring into question his judgement.

His Judgement is what I find fault with with Steele.

I've used the phrase "Consistantly Inconsistant" in the past. I think it fits the decision making process of Steele to a T.

Let Chacon bleed like a stuck pig against Boza, and then stopp Bobby's fight with Mancini on a very insignificant (comparitively speaking) cut.

It's this never knowing how Steele is going to react to a certain situation, becuase he never has any consistancy in dealing with similar situations, is what I have always had a problem with with Steele.

Likewise with his handling of Chacon differently in different bouts involving him, he did the same with Hearns. Look at his STOPPING of the Hagler Hearns bout when Tommy rose. Anything different with Tommy's condition in THAT bout than with Barkley?

You just never know with Steele.

You are veiwing this as simply: Steele should have stopped the Barkely Hearns fight and we both agree with that. Well to me, it more than just that. A-I feel Tommy was far more incoherent than was Mel and more importantly, B-It's the inconsistancy of how Steele handles LIKE situations.

2-While we both agree that a ref SHOULD consider what went on prior to a fighter being knocked down, we disagree with how Mel was doing prior to getting dropped.

You beleive that Steele should have taken into consideration "the punishment Taylor had been taking" and I see it as "Taylor having controlled the vast majority of the previous rounds and in the actual round, the 12th, where Taylor was dropped, Meldrick was winning the round prior to getting dumped on his ass."

So my interperatation of ."Steele needing to consider what happened prior to the knockdown" is very different from your interperatation of that statement.

Those are the principle points that I see disagreements on.

Hawk
As to who was more out of it, YES Tommy was, as he was basically
knocked out. Who was more injured physically and who took more a beating, well, OBVIOUSLY Taylor.

BTW, I would like to know of any future Steele bouts POST Taylor where he made bad calls. You give good examples PRE Taylor; but I could also say that Steele simply learned from his previous bad calls and in the Tayor fight, he said that this time he was going to try and get it right; which he did IMO!

BTW Hawk, I am not asking for you specifically to go provide me with future bouts where Steele got it wrong.

I just thought I'd throw it out to the general ZONE folks; or those more versed than myself:D

Finally, I do firmly believe that a REF should be studying the whole fight
and take into consideartion what punishment has been dished throughout before
making a call. This is what Steele said or at least I think he claims!

TDKO
12-03-2008, 02:19 PM
As far as the Taylor bout, all it MAY have taken is one more solid shot to
kill Taylor or damage him like McClellan, IMO, the ref's job is to protect the fighter, regardless of the time left, and Steele claims just that.
Duva claims he told Taylor to stay away and box the final round, but is proven a liar on the HBO segment, where he actually tells Taylor he needs the round to win the fight.
It is unfortunate that such a small amount of time was left till Taylor would have won on the scorecards, but he escaped with his life, though not the same fighter since, and obviously stayed in the game way to long,
potentially permanently damaged from this bout, too many gym wars, and his warrior mentality.
Why gamble with someone else's life?

hawk5ins
12-03-2008, 02:41 PM
I thought Steele was extremely cruel to let Seldon Hipp go on as long as he did.

Hipp's face was absolutely grotesque at the end of that fight when it was finally stopped.

I'd have to research this furhter.

Hawk

Sharkey
12-03-2008, 04:56 PM
When was Tyson-Ruddock I?

HE Grant
12-03-2008, 07:31 PM
I think it was a premature stopage ... Taylor was clearly distracted by Duva. While hurt he had dominated most of the fight .. I think the ref should know the time left in the round and it should factor into the relative it effects .. Taylor wins that fight he has a whole different career ... However, it does not excuse his fall into drugs, ect ... I always thought it was a bad stopage and still do ..

Michael Frank
12-03-2008, 07:32 PM
I'm not saying it was necessarily a "bad" call to stop the fight but I dont imagine anyone would now, several years down the line, be castigating Steele had he allowed the fight to continue. We'd be talking about what a great last round it was and probably how the brutality of the first fight sowed the seeds for JCC's victory in the subsequent rematch. No-one would be saying Steele should have stopped it.
I don't think this is a certainty at all.

Had Steele let it go on and had Chavez killed Taylor with a final punch--had he reached Meldrick before the bell--the tapes would have been reviewed, and Taylor's not answering Steele's question would have been seen plainly by all. I believe Steele might have been suspended, possibly permanentlly, for not stopping the fight when the fighter plainly didn't answer him, for all the world to see. And I think Steele would be castigated for it today.

Separately, I don't think Steele's "inconsistency" is problematical. Each decision to stop a fight needs to be judged on its own merits, and saying there's an "inconsistency" between, say, the Barkley-Hearns #1 and Taylor-Chavez #1 stoppages ignores the fact that one fighter took a beating for 12 rounds, whereas the other took no beating for 3 rounds, just two KO-level blows. I don't think refs need to be consistent, only correct-- in what is clearly a judgment call. Circumstances are so different in every fight that fight-to-fight "consistency" by the ref, which is not called for in the rules, is not an issue.

Larry Hazzard was "consistent" in his stopping fights very quickly; and his consistency doesn't make me happy, as I thought he did it too quickly for my taste.

Another poster's quoting one's own previous opinion as if that's now a primary source is a circular argument. It's not proof according to any rules that Steele should have let the Chavez-Taylor fight go on.

I like Sharkey's succinct "How about, Taylor didn't respond.. Duva did his deal.. and this fight is this fight and no two fights are called the same and no two fighters down are in the exact same shape and some are stopped and some are not due to error."

Also agree with walshb that Steele got it right with Chavez-Taylor and wrong with Hearns-Barkley. Though this doesn't make Steele woefully inconsistent, inferior, and deserving of only club fight assignments and boos from fans who don't even know who he is... or those that do. The guy got the plum assignments for years because he was considered a top flight referee. Which he was.

hawk5ins
12-03-2008, 07:56 PM
Tyson Rudduck I followed Chavez Taylor.

I didn't like the stoppage, but I don't think it was the worst I;ve ever seen.

Re my points about Steele being consistantly inconsistant, I'm not sure what else to write on this. I've pretty much detailed the hell out of my points here. Anything else is simply repeating myself.

Hawk

Michael Frank
12-03-2008, 07:58 PM
I think it was a premature stopage ... Taylor was clearly distracted by Duva. While hurt he had dominated most of the fight .. I think the ref should know the time left in the round and it should factor into the relative it effects .. Taylor wins that fight he has a whole different career ... However, it does not excuse his fall into drugs, ect ... I always thought it was a bad stopage and still do ..

Hello HE Grant,

I respectfully disagree as noted in all-CAPS (the CAPS used only to distinguish my reply):

"I think it was a premature stopage ... Taylor was clearly distracted by Duva. HOW IS THIS STEELE'S FAULT? SHOULDN'T DUVA BE BLAMED FOR DISTRACTING HIS FIGHTER, AND NOT STEELE? While hurt he had dominated most of the fight .. I think the ref should know the time left in the round and it should factor into the relative it effects BUT IS THIS IN THE RULES? .. Taylor wins that fight he has a whole different career - EVEN THIS, I'M NOT SO SURE I CAN AGREE WITH; HE WAS DAMAGED PHYSICALLY-- PERMANENTLY, IN THAT FIGHT... However, it does not excuse his fall into drugs, ect ... I always thought it was a bad stopage and still do ..[/

JeffR
12-03-2008, 08:05 PM
I do not question Steele's intent, nor do I think he was crooked. I simply think he has always been woefully inconsistant.

Or maybe he was being consistent in these two cases - consistently protecting or favoring the "house fighter", the most valuable property, which in these cases was obviously Chavez and Hearns. Steele said he didn't know how much time was left in the Chavez-Taylor fight. Wasn't there a light going off in the corner where Taylor was, a light that would've signaled ten seconds or less left in the round and fight? You'll also notice that Steele never once looked back over his shoulder to see if Chavez was staying in the neutral corner (which he wasn't). Now maybe he was so caught up in the moment that these little things slipped his mind, but I don't think it's unfair in the least to question his judgement in stopping that fight.

hawk5ins
12-03-2008, 08:07 PM
I pretty much agree down the line here.

Taylor's issues coming out of the Chavez fight were more mental than anything else.

His move up to 147, IMO was more laziness to get his ass into shape than anything else. He was a LIGHTWEIGHT and between bout bingeing, made getting into shape difficult for him as the years went on.

He couldn't punch at 140, what was he expecting at 147? Whitaker moved up for challenges. Taylor moved up because he didn't want to make sacrifices.

As I previously wrote, I think the fight that ruined him forever was the Norris bout. He had NO business fighting at 154. It was suicide.

His shortcomings at 147 were imo the result of fighting in a weight class he was not suited to fight in.

This all said, if he gets the win he should have gotten agianst Chavez, and opts to move up to 147, and doesn't dedicate and discipline himself in the manner he needed to, I see things going the same way for Taylor.

Focus, discipline and dedication were Taylor biggest problems.

Hawk

hawk5ins
12-03-2008, 08:10 PM
I personally don't beleive it to be the case. But at the same time, anyone who feels that there was a pattern with Steele and the "house" fighter.....well, I'm not going to say that they are "way off base" or "out of line".

Hawk

walshb
12-04-2008, 09:31 AM
I also think that Taylor's main problem was his eagerness to be a Philly style fighter. Taylor had all the skill, speed and movement to win whilst not taking all that much; but he was
insistent on being a fighter and a HARD man, to his detriment.

I have read how if Taylor didn't make the stoppage and the fight went on and JCC didn't land the KILLER blow, that nobody would have said anything. OK, maybe that is true; but is is fantasy and hypothetical; but possible!

BUT, what if HE had not stopped the fight and JCC did land another telling, posssibly KILLER blow? Also, fantasy and hypothethical; but possible!

Then Steele probably would have been lynched and his career ruined and folks wailing about how could he IGNORE Taylor's unresponsiveness

Both situations are as likely to happen as each other. Tom me it's a 50/50
flip here and a flip that's simply far too risky

MF did bring this UP and I agree 100 percent.

Taylor was UNRESPONSIVE twice when asked a crucial crucial question.
That to me is the nail in his coffin!

hawk5ins
12-04-2008, 10:09 AM
Chavez landed another punch and nothing happened?

What if Barkley Landed on Hearns after he got up and Tommy Died?

What if What if What if?

Mel looked like a physical mess due to the swelling and blood. But agian he was up at 5 and he was coherent.

I really would like an answer to a question I previously posed:

At the Time folks were watching this fight live, who here HONESTLY said that Steele needed to stop the fight, PRIOR to him stopping the fight? Who said "Steele HAS to Stop this!"

Honest.

I do think Mel, did give Steele a quick nod just prior to the questions being asked by Richard.

And as I stated before, Steele did a rapid fire delivery on the "Are you Ok"'s and in fact never even finished his second question before he was already waiving it off.

Mel didn't answer him a second time? He was never given the opportunity to.

Go look at the stoppage agian. During the second time Steele asked the question, he was already waiving it off between O and K.

Now Steele's reasoning for doing this was as we all know, becuase Mel was looking towards his corner and not looking at him.

As the referee, you are afforded the time to evaluate and ask more than two rapid fire questions to get a feel for how the fighter is doing.

What is wrong with when Mel turned his head to the corner, asking Mel to "Look At Me Mel! Are You OK?" THen Step back and then say: "Mel, Step towards me."

If then, Mel does not respond or can not follow Steele's instrux, call it off.

Instead of relying on two rapid fire questions, the second of which Richard never even finished, take your time to evaluate how Mel is. It IS a 10 count, Yet, he is NOT in a rush to HAVE to finish the count and make a snap decision.

As the Ref, he is afforded that time to make a clear and accurate determination of the fighters condition.

"Mel Are you OK? Mel are you OK? Mel Look at me? Are you Ok"

"Mel, Step towards me. Can you continue?"

Tell me we have not seen this exact scenario play out following a knockdown 100's and 100's of times before.

That's too many questions? The referee has the latitude to ask as many questions as he wants to to make an informed and accurate evaluation of the fighters condition.

Ron, can you weigh in on this?

Steele I feel rushed this, when there was no NEED to rush this evaluation of Mel's condition.

Again, I don't personally beleive he did it to Screw Mel or because he was corrupt. I just think he made the wrong call and his rushing this, contributed to the call I didn't agree with.

And of course as we all know, had he taken the time THAT HE IS ALLOWED to take, the bell would have rung.

To me, that is almost beside the point. I'd have rather him take the time to make an accurate evaluation. Hell, if he asks Mel to step forward and Mel, stumbles (assuming the bell has not rung yet), by all means, wave it off right there and then.

It was not as if Steele made his quick call so that he could Rush Mel to get medical attention. SO unless THAT was his focus, WHY rush this?

No need to.

Hawk

walshb
12-04-2008, 11:03 AM
Well, it looks like folks are seeing different versions of what happened.

I clearly saw Steels ask twice and I clearly DID not hear Taylor respond; nothing IMO
to do with how Steele's asked, the clarity of his question etc etc. Steele asked twice and got NO reply, no matter what excuse you use!

As for the other points about 'WHAT' if; it is exactly that; WHAT if, and it is
not really worth discussing because it cannot be proved

TDKO
12-04-2008, 11:21 AM
If you watch the fight again, Taylor clearly landed more punches , but Chavez's punches clearly had more impact! Just look at Taylor's face!!
Also Chavez would hit Taylor with straight punches to the head that would snap his head back.
Does anybody really think if the knockdown would have happened in the first six rounds he would have stopped it?
Steele, (who has been a bit inconsistent), but I think made the right call here, was in the BEST possible position to observe Taylor closeup, and see he was tiring and hurt, though fighting back (as I mentioned he was a warrior)
and my personal opinion is that after Steele saw the straight right hand, (after a quick left) that hits and visibly staggers him at 24 seconds left in round 12 right in front of Steele, it influenced his decision after the knockdown to stop the fight, Taylor had had enough.

hawk5ins
12-04-2008, 11:25 AM
Go look at the tape now. There is no question Steele doesn't finish his second question before waiving his hands to signal the end. He give Mel Zero opportunity to answer that question.

There is actually a counter clock from HBO on the screen in the bottom left hand corner when he begins his questions. It is on the 6 second mark going into the 5 second mark and he whips off two rapid fire questions in the span of 1 and a half to 2 seconds and never finishes the second question when he begins waiving off the fight as the counter clock goes from 5 to 4.

Based on the counter clock, he made his entire evaluation of Mel's condition in the span of 2 seconds, and never allowed Mel an opportunity to even answer the second question.

It is right there on film and I'm watching it right now.

Break it down. DOn't take my word for it. View it for yourself.

There is no reason if Steele didn't think Mel was looking at him, that he could not have asked him to "Look at Me Mel" And then ask him to take a step forward. He can't do that...Stop the fight.

Unless he is looking to get Mel Immediate medical attention, there was NO reason to rush this in the manner he did.

Hawk

walshb
12-04-2008, 11:40 AM
I will go take a peek again; but I still think it happened as I said, and even if NOT, I
still think Steele got it correct!

Sharkey
12-04-2008, 11:48 AM
Tyson Rudduck I followed Chavez Taylor.

I didn't like the stoppage, but I don't think it was the worst I;ve ever seen.

Re my points about Steele being consistantly inconsistant, I'm not sure what else to write on this. I've pretty much detailed the hell out of my points here. Anything else is simply repeating myself.

Hawk

INCONSISTANT. that is why I posted that.

As an aside, any time the ref doesn't look at the hurt fighter when stopping the bout... well... if the fighter happens to be hurt after all to the point we can live with the stoppage, I'd say he lucked out and was bailed out and to not point to him completely screwing up is missing out on the whole process I thought was involved IN stopping the bout.

At BEST it means he made his mind up afore the fact.

hawk5ins
12-04-2008, 11:52 AM
And it's the making up his mind "afore the fact", that gets some to thinking there was chicanery going on.

Agian, I don't, but I can see how it can be interperated as so.

Hawk

Sharkey
12-04-2008, 12:20 PM
no chicanery. Tough to see in his action a logical, incremental assesment however.

hawk5ins
12-04-2008, 12:52 PM
In the Mancini Chacon bout and his explanation of his actions in stopping that fight lend to this.

"Richard, Bobby's cut was not nearly as bad as the one's he sustained in the Boza fight and he was not taking unessecary punishment, what was your reason for stopping the fight due to the cut?"

"The cut was only going to get worse and Bobby was not going to win this fight."

Heck Richard, why even let them in the ring if you already decided the conclusion before they began exchanging punches?

Sheesh.

Hawk

walshb
12-04-2008, 04:44 PM
If the title of the thread was "Is Steele a good or bad ref," then maybe these examples would be perfect; but the question really is, "Did Steele make the right call in Taylor's case."

In the latter case, he made the right call! Discussion? Yes, but not much IMO!

In the former case, hey, that is up for discussion; and a lot of
discussion

hawk5ins
12-04-2008, 06:01 PM
a correct one or not, is Indeed up for interpertation and Opinions on both side of the call certainly can be entertained.

Because one simply says it's open and shut does not mean it necessarily is.

There have been many on this site who think Steele made the wrong call. I'm obviously one of them. But I am certainly not alone.

And I am not going to name drop others just to validate me having this position, but there are those on this site who are far more qualified than myself who also thought Steele made a bad call.

I'm not out in the dingy all by myself here.

So IMO, this topic of Steele making the correct call or not is INDEED open for discussion and opinions.

Hawk

Michael Frank
12-04-2008, 10:15 PM
From reading some of these posts, it sounds like Steele is a crap referee whose "inconsistency" makes him a real problem. And that the results in many of the fights he worked seem like they had the wrong conclusions, and the other guy should have won. That Steele is incompetent.

I disagree completely.

Steele was an excellent referee IMO, and I doubt anyone here, who wasn't a big fight referee, could do anywhere near as well. These decisions are made split-second.

Whether it's in the rules or not (since people here have been sharing their opinions of when a ref should stop a fight, irrespective of what the rules say)-- I think saving lives/preventing permanent injury is a key part of a referee's job. Erring on the side of saving a life is not so terrible.

And, it seems to me that Taylor was permanently damaged in the Chavez fight, meaning if Steele saved him from even one further punch when Taylor was in such bad condition (doesn't have to be a life-threatening punch), then the man did something for which Taylor and his relatives should be grateful. Even if Lou Duva and many "fans" are not.

I say this as someone who was very unhappy with the stoppage that night. But Steele knows far more about refereeing than I do.

Poor ref jobs? Mills Lane was used in the 2nd Tyson-Ruddock fight, ostensibly as an improvement over the Steele who "blew it" in the 1st Tyson-Ruddock. But, Lane has had his own problems, as have all refs. Lane gave Tyson another bite at the apple (or ear) AFTER clearly seeing that Tyson had bitten Holyfield's ear once already, removing a hunk of flesh. Talk about a 2nd chance being granted when it shouldn't have been. Bad call.

Ferdie Pacheco, a constant critic of Steele, was the one yelling every round for Chacon-Boza-Edwards to be stopped over Chacon's bleeding; only for the fight to continue and for Bobby to win.

Joey Curtis stopped Weaver-Dokes #1 way early, and Leonard-Ranzany way late, in the opinion of most boxing experts and I believe the public as well. A big fight ref.

Jersey Joe in Ali-Liston II? Forget it, pitiful.

Ernesto Magana in Duran-Moore? Duran was thumbing Moore, and lacing him, and yet Moore was the only one warned for anything.

"Legendary" (give me a break) Arthur Mercante Sr., who said of Gomez-LaPorte (I believe it was that fight, or another Gomez fight of that period) that he didn't deduct points from Gomez for repeated fouls because he didn't want to be attacked by the crowd. Great reason.

Old-time refs? Guys got beat to death before these fellows would stop a fight, a fine example being Benny Paret. Griffith landed untold numbers of unanswered blows, but where was the ref?

I believe our own Ron Lipton could knock down the capabilities of another load of well known refs if he cared to.

Me, I'd rank Steele with the best in the business. Which is why he got so many big fights.

I hope I'm not offending anyone, but it's tiresome to see people bitch about one of the most decent and competent guys in our sport, a sport known for incompetence and corruption at all levels.

Ron Lipton
12-04-2008, 11:29 PM
I feel obligated to make a comment on this because of what I know in my heart about this dreadful incident that helped to ruin the life of Meldrick Taylor.

I have been to many boxing conventions all over the USA and in Europe with all the major referees imaginable. I saw the fight live as you all did and I know the machinations behind the scenes on how some referees get fights assigned to them. I along with many of you know what came out in the aftermath of this debacle, and the questionable and at the very least objectionable conflicts of interest that surfaced.

It was the last round and all referees have a 3 minute clock in our heads especially the guys like Richard and I who were fighters a long time.

The stoppage as it occurred emanated a stench and screamed out with a questionable , and transparent ambivalent agenda which all subsequent bland assertions of official rectitude do not fix.

It was designed to salvage a Chavez win from the ashes with seconds remaining and came as a blessing to those screaming from ringside from WBC seats for Steele to save Chavez from a loss. The judge who voted Chavez ahead must have been watching another fight to be kind about it.

It is one of the main reasons I had been passed over for major fights with the alphabet groups, I would not in any way EVER agree to give one fighter an advantage over another and was one of the main reasons I was asked for outside of NJ because I would not do what Steele did in this fight when fate handed it to him on a silver platter to gain favor with the WBC for the next big assignment. 2 seconds left? Taylor winning all the way?

Puuuuuuhleeeeease!

Ron Lipton
12-04-2008, 11:45 PM
If I may be permitted to add this also.

I read every post by all the people I respect very much on the Cyberboxingzone on this issue. I understand more than you will ever know your concern for Taylor as decent boxing fans, and the posters who showed the benefit of the doubt to Richard Steele, was equally admirable to me and I think that everyone that posted is the salt of the earth as a concerned boxing fans that are trying to be fair on this.

I just know what I know and feel strongly that he knew there was only seconds remaining and did what he did for very, very questionable reasons.

Not a good call, trust me on this one.

walshb
12-05-2008, 05:20 AM
Very compromising post; and if I can be a little compromising now:

Had Taylor not stopped the fight, I agree, nobody would have said much, unless of course JCC got to him and damaged him, then I suppose all hell would have broke loose. I do believe that even though I did think the stoppage was justified, on looking at the bout again, it was razor thin and I can fully appreciate that maybe Steele could have let it go on. I have seen far worse examples of fighters being allowed continue.

Duva got it wrong on telling Taylor to go out and win; but remember, Duva had a decision to make and had to consider that it was DON and JCC
he was up against and maybe Taylor DID need to win rd 12. He simply was NOT takin' any chances.

Michael Frank
12-05-2008, 06:16 AM
Ron, you have been very diplomatic and respectful and I will of course be the latter, if not entirely the former.

You wrote, "2 seconds left? Taylor winning all the way?

Puuuuuuhleeeeease!"

It seems you are saying that Taylor's being ahead SHOULD be in the referee's mind when he is considering stopping the fight. And second, the ref SHOULD be cognizant of the time remaining when he examines a fighter and makes the decision to keep a bout going or to stop it. Third, that Steele in your view made a political call, heeding the cries of WBC types at ringside, for his own personal gain (future assignments).

I'd like to ask, if #3 had not occured in any way--no WBC people screaming for the fight to be stopped-- your view is that the fight should have continued because points 1 and 2 SHOULD be part of the ref's decision process?

If so, are these issues--time remaining, and who is ahead--part of the rules according to the WBC, the WBA, or any other recognized sanctioning body? This is not rhetorical, I am asking seriously.

By the way, as to the judge who had Chavez ahead, well, there were judges who had Tyson ahead of Douglas. Judges are the most obviously dirtiest boxing officials of all, or maybe the stupidest.

walshb
12-05-2008, 07:09 AM
Excellent point. IMO, safety of the fighter is the single most important element to be considered. So, YES, taylor was ahead and YES, Steele knew this; but first priority is SAFETY!

Paulie W
12-05-2008, 07:42 AM
We often see refs stopping fights because they decide that the fighter in trouble cannot win so why let him carry on taking punishment. This may be compassionate and may be the right decision but it is not ultimately an objective view of the ability of that fighter to continue fighting and defend himself. It is very much coloured by the ref's view of who is winning and how long there is to go in the round and the fight.

On the flip side refs sometimes seem to allow fights to go on too long for reasons that go beyond what is happening immediately in front of them: it's a championship fight; a champion deserves to go out on his shield; he's come back from adversity before; he's got a puncher's chance. Arturo Gatti, for example, was allowed, IMO, to take an enormous amount of punishment in a number of fights because the ref was cogniscant that he had survived such beatings in the past and come fighting back.

IF Steele knew there were but seconds left then his decision to stop the fight would seem to reveal an incredibly objective, dispassionate (but simultaneously compassionate) piece of decision making - I know he's ahead, I know time is nearly up but he simply is not in a fit state to continue and it is my job to protect him from any possible further punishment - that I'm not sure I can easily ascribe to him.

hawk5ins
12-05-2008, 08:14 AM
Every single benefit of the doubt here, the bottom line is he at the very least rushed his decision.

Unless he was seeking to get Mel Medical attention IMMEDIATELY, why base the evaluation of how Taylor is on two rapid fire questions, delivered in 2 seconds, the second question, which you never even allowed Mel to answer?

I said it previously, there is no need to rush this call as a ref. Steele brought the count to 9, he then asked him two questions that did not need to be deleivered in the machine gun like manner they were delivered. If Mel was looking away, Ask Mel to look at you. Then Ask Mel to step towards you.

If he Can not, then make the call that he can't continue. Call off the fight.

We see refs practicing what I just described all the time. There was No reason it could not have been employed here.

Ron's back ground knowledge on this is something I am obviously not privy to, so I will not pretend to know what he knows about what happned.

From what I saw, Steele rushed his call when he KNOWS he doesn;t need to. I have cited his previous inconsistancies becuase Steele IMO has always been inconsistant as a ref. His rush with this call, is but another example of this.

I see the rush call as simply Steele again being his inconsitant self. Ron sees the rush as something else. We both seem to agree however that Steele did rush this.

Ron, in what I described above about Making sure you get the fighter's attention with questions that are clear and not delivered 1000 miles an hour and then asking him to take a step towards you so YOU as the ref can see he has his legs under him, isn't this or some sort of derivation of this, what should have happened?

Again, No prob with a ref making a snap decision if he feels he needs to get the fighter immediate medical attention, but this was certainly not where Steele was going with the uber-quick call here.

Hawk

walshb
12-05-2008, 08:42 AM
Quick questions aside, Steele looked HARD into Mel's eyes and he
saw what nobody else could see at that time. He saw a beaten
and badly HURT man; his opinion BTW, and IMO, his view is from
the best possible position. Now, how could Steele know exactly the time left and how could Steele know what MIGHT happen if he lets Mel continue.

He was forced to make a 'split second' type decision based on ALL
that went on. He made it; and what IMO saves him and says he did make the right call was Mel's lack of coherency, actually, his lack of response to two questions, even arguing that they were QUICK, doesn't cut it.


BTW, help me out here fellas, anyone having trouble POSTING NEW THREADS?

I cannot seem to post a thread: Here it is below, can someone please copy and paste and
try to post it on my behalf in the OLD TIMERS section

Thanks


Title of thread: Best legs in Boxing


Not to the eye, I mean who of all the greats had the best legs overall, taking into
account balance, footwork and strength.

My vote goes to Pea Whitaker; who moved effortlessly, was so well balanced and sturdy and had very strong legs and used and relied on them so much. He was always on the back foot and looked so comfortable.

Ali and Pep are two other good examples, as is SRR, SRL, Tunney, Camacho, Jersey Joe Walcott, Duran etc.

I think Pea was the best example and IMO had the best legs!

Discuss

hawk5ins
12-05-2008, 08:53 AM
He did NOT need to make a split second decision. There was no need to rush this and base it on 2 seconds of two rapid fire questions, one of which, that he did not allow Mel to answer.

Unless He was seeking to get Mel Immediate Medical attention, Steele was NOT obigated make a snap decision like that.

The ref is obligated to give a mandatory 8 count. Mel was up at 5, Steele counted to 9. At that point, Ask Mel a question. Mel's not looking at you, Ask him to look at you. Larry Holmes made it a practice when he got knocked down to deliberately NOT make eye contact. Not saying this was what Mel was doing, but if the fighter is not looking at you, tell him to do so.

And to determine if his pins are under him, ask him to step towards you.

The ref has the latitude to do all of what I just described once he reaches the count of 8 and we all have seen ref's do this countless times.

He did NOT need to rush his questions or his call. That is exactly what Steele did.

Again, Ron, when you get a second, can you please let me know if I have this correct?

Thanks.

Hawk

walshb
12-05-2008, 08:59 AM
I thought my use of italics while quoting the words split second would have alerted you. Anyway, how long is long enough to make this call?
How about a ten minute conference? No, a 3 minute conference, duration of 1rd? He didn't get answer, NOT because the questions were too quick, but because Mel was out of it, incoherent, hurt, dazed and all the REST!

All in all, good points about what the ref normally does to ascertain if a fighter
is fit to continue. Steele maybe did RUSH, but I still think the decision was ultimately GOOD!
Steele rushed, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Mel was out of it and unresponsive

hawk5ins
12-05-2008, 09:26 AM
I asked if the above scenario I described has not been seen 100's of times by refs when they tend to a fallen fighter.

I have broken down exactly how this could/should have played out.

Reach the count of 9 and then:

"Mel are you ok?

Mel Are you ok?

Mel, look at me.

Do you want to continue?

Step towards me."

Then Steele either waves the fighters together or waves the fight off.

Does this sound like it takes 10 minutes? Does this scenario seem out of the ordinary or excessive?

Tell me, you have never seen this done before. How about a ref asking a fighter to put his gloves up? Or the Ref Wiping the gloves off?

Is it being suggested that these are not common practices?

It seems you want to justify a split second call that Steele made. Or exscuse him for not even allowing Mel to answer the second question, whihc he was already calling the fight before he finished the question. Stating Steele HAD to make a call in an split second, would back that horse. Problem is, Steele did not have a gun to his head in whihc he HAD to make a split second call. He is given the lattitude to do what I just described above. And that certainly does not take any more than a hand full of seconds to do just that.

Safety is a Ref's chief concern. SO is getting the call correct. Rushing your decision in the manner that Steele did, when he did not have to, never gave him time to make an accurate call OR assessment of Mel's condition.

Ron, agian, when you get a sec.

Hawk

Ron Lipton
12-05-2008, 01:20 PM
If you read every single post on this thread there are logical things said to butress each point made for the stoppage with powerful safety first, referee conscious behavior patterns, and questions about the fighter's safety.
Things that cannot be argued with unless one is to appear callous or indifferent to a fighter's safety.

It would be akin to going on Jay Leno and asking the audience, "Isn't this the greatest country in the world,?" Everyone gives a resounding applause and there are no public dissenters.

In this fight Meldrick Taylor was winning hands down, it was for the title and they were in the "Last and Final Richard Steele redundency theater round."
The incontestable fact that the WBC homebase loves Chavez and gives out of Nevada assignments to its favorite referees regardless of them being Bozos, incompetents, and being able to be bent to their will is known by anyone in boxing.

Richard is not exactly a former colleague of Albert Einstein, nor does he have a doctorite in Celestial Mechanics working for N.A.S.A. on the side. Remember he is telling them "Its the last and final round." He doesn't need a stop watch in his head, he knows the 10 or five second warning sounds and sights of flashing lights, a hammer on the ring apron, and everyone around the ring yelling the time too.

He also knows Julio got served and was losing and how unhappy the WBC boys would be PERSONALLY.

Chavez rallied and it was suck it up, bite down and crunch time.

The absolute RUSH JOB count minus asking Mel to take a step forward, whether Lou Duva ran up on the ring apron in a cosmic diaper, or the round card girls all pulled their G strings off and mooned the ref, or red laser dots from the Predator or the WBC appeared on Mel's head or WHATEVER, Steele
knew it was the absolute last seconds of the entire fight, where Mel busted his ass in a once in a lifetime performance in upsetting a great fighter.

Any fair referee would never take away a victory like that in not just the "Last and Final round" but the last and final seconds, without making him take a step forward, yell to him to look at me knowing Duva ran up like a fool, and not use some flimsy bullshit excuse to take away a welll earned victory in such a great fight just to please the WBC.

If he was so concerned about Mel, and did not want to give an unfair advantage to Chavez, make him take a step forward, he did not because while Mel took the step forward, or Steele said after such a gut wrenching performance by Mel, "NEVER MIND LOU DUVA, LOOK AT ME AND ANSWER ME SON," the bell would have rung and Taylor would have gotten the victory he deserved.

He robbed him and ended the fight so quickly and suspiciously that everyone who saw it never forgot it. Any referee that will tell you the truth that is, who was in there for 12 rounds in that fight would never rob this kid with a speed of light decision to take his dreams away with two seconds left.

Steele did not know there were two seconds left? Ok. What did he think, there were 5 seconds left after the warning lights?

It remains a terrible, suspicious and biased call to save Julio's victory at all costs, nothing more and nothing less.

If the safety is the most important thing then make him take a step forward and ask him again, don't rob a brave fighter of something he earned which he as the referee watched for 12 rounds.

Surely Mel deserved more than a decision given at the speed of light.

walshb
12-05-2008, 02:24 PM
Step towards me."[/B]


Tell me, you have never seen this done before. How about a ref asking a fighter to put his gloves up? Or the Ref Wiping the gloves off?

Is it being suggested that these are not common practices?

It seems you want to justify a split second call that Steele made. Or exscuse him for not even allowing Mel to answer the second question, whihc he was already calling the fight before he finished the question. Stating Steele HAD to make a call in an split second, would back that horse. Problem is, Steele did not have a gun to his head in whihc he HAD to make a split second call. He is given the lattitude to do what I just described above. And that certainly does not take any more than a hand full of seconds to do just that.

Safety is a Ref's chief concern. SO is getting the call correct. Rushing your decision in the manner that Steele did, when he did not have to, never gave him time to make an accurate call OR assessment of Mel's condition.

Ron, agian, when you get a sec.

Hawk

Do you honestly read what the poster you are responding to writes?
I did say that your points about how refs do ask 'set' questions was correct.
Please, slow down, read and then respond. I agree that Steele's methods in the bout were a bit off; but IMO, the end result was correct.


Here is an analogy:

Maths problem that is solved in a set way, or a popular set way. Now, I may go the LONG way, the SLOW way, the SILLY way; but if I ultimately come up with the correct answer; isn't that the main thing?

BTW, can someone please try and POST that thread for me in the old timers section

hawk5ins
12-05-2008, 03:33 PM
Did I read your edited post when I responded to your last post? The answer would be no. I was responding to what you originally wrote.

I realize that you did make your edits while I was writing my post, but no, I did not go back and then change what I had already written.

Ron,

Thanks for your response.

Much appreciated.

Hawk

JeffR
12-05-2008, 08:09 PM
Steele's stoppage of this fight has left him open to scrutiny and a cloud has hung over him for a generation. Some people may feel that he deserved the Humanitarian of the Century Award while others question his integrity. His actions, in my opinion (you may agree or disagree), indicate that he made up his mind to stop that fight the second Taylor fell to the canvas. What it all boils down to is who he was trying to protect that night - Taylor or Chavez.

PD99
12-05-2008, 09:34 PM
I think this has been an excellent thread. Virtually every point made has been valid in it's own right and intelligently backed and I'm sure I'm repeating points that have been already stated at some point or another.

Imo, regulated time is everything in boxing and it was Steele's job to know that only a scant 2 secs remained in the final rd. To make a properly informed decision, Steele should have definitely factored the time remaining in his decision as to whether Taylor was technically fit enough to continue and see out the bout.

With only 2 secs left, Taylor only had to be fit enough to remain upright without the possibility of Chavez reaching him to land another blow. With only 2 secs and Steele properly aware of same, Steele should've then been readied to step between the two fighters upon the final gong preventing a post bell punch being landed.

Technically, Steele somehow halted a fight that was virtually over anyway.

Btw, how many times have you seen a ref approach a corner and tell a fighter at the short end of a fight that he'll give him only more rd (of a fight with more than several rds left) to show some viability otherwise the fight gets stopped. Time remaining is all important.

Sometimes, ultra fine, over done analysis results in a skewed "Can't see the forest for the trees" conclusion. Steele's call did appear rushed and in deference to a time frame of which Steele claimed he was not aware. Otherwise, as Hawk suggested, why rush his call - a few more secs of scrutiny wouldn't have hurt.

As to Taylor's condition, well there is an assumed risk in boxing and relative to a reasonable interpretation of that assumed risk, allowing Taylor, as he was, to continue was not outlandish at all. I think of lot of ppl's are moving from reasonable interpretation of that assumed risk to a set of principles (to rationalise Steele's decision as fair and correct) that could also be employed to rationalise the outlawing of boxing altogether.

Now I'm interested in ANY other Championship Bout that was stopped in the FINAL RD (= less 3 mins remaining let alone only 2 secs remaining) upon a single KD of a fighter who ultimately rose from said KD and stood independantly within several secs of a potential 10 count. I won't even throw in that said fighter happened to also be leading at the time.

Michael Frank
12-05-2008, 10:09 PM
PD99-- fine, articulate post.

Answer to your question at the end: an example is Leonard-Benitez. You made your requirements so specific and structured that this fight doesn't entail that "said fighter was leading at the time," but it otherwise qualifies. Oh, and Ray was back on him, punching.

I would add that no one seemed to complain at that stoppage, not even Benitez; but I didn't see a reason to stop that fight after 14 1/2 rounds.

Michael Frank
12-05-2008, 11:12 PM
It seems to me this business of a ref asking a fighter to step forward--this is not a requirement, is it? I have seen hundreds of fights stopped without a fighter being asked by the ref to come forward.

The notion that Richard Steele was basically on the take, or at minimum, was biased SO THAT HE WOULD FIND A WAY TO MAKE CHAVEZ WIN, IN VIEW OF THE ENTIRE WORLD-- this is hard for me to believe. It's as if he needed to find a way all night (so as to please the WBC), and here, with the 'out of nowhere' knockdown in the last 15 seconds of the last round, this "dumb" guy (according to Ron), who wouldn't know how to react in a split second, he actually KNOWS exactly how to act when his "moment" came--unexpectedly, with the knockdown. In that few seconds, when even he had already figured Taylor was ahead on the cards, he now decided Taylor was going to be the loser, as THIS is his (Richard's) chance.

PD99 and Ron, sorry; you may be right in this concept, but I don't believe it.

At worst, I think Steele may have made an error in a moment of great drama and excitement, though again, in my case, I buy his explanation. And I'm not naive. What I can't overcome, and therefore why I support Steele, is this: after hearing Steele's explanation, I saw on the replay what he said, and though not seeing the question asked twice, I felt Taylor couldn't go on. Now, I wanted Taylor to win, but I wouldn't have let it go on myself, seeing him NOT RESPOND TO STEELE IN ANY WAY. TAYLOR WAS OBLIVIOUS.

But, as to conspiracy theories, such as has been said about Steele--and I WILL believe them if there's evidence: As Deep Throat said in "All the President's Men," ... "Forget what you've heard about the White House. The truth is, these aren't the brightest bunch of guys." Which is why I have trouble believing JFK was killed by a "perfect" conspiracy--where are all the bright guys?--hell, the US military can't even catch the one tall guy (Bin Laden) in all of Afghanistan.

Likewise, that Steele was in the tank for Chavez AND the opportunity came up so unexpectedly, AND he was prepared to do this all along if the moment presented itself, AND he knew IN THAT MOMENT that he could get away with this particular form of wrongdoing . . . here again, with Steele and the rest of them, I don't believe this is all the brightest bunch of guys who could pull this off.

What I DO believe, in modern boxing, is that judges are told, "If it's close, then give it to Chavez" (or whoever) -- hence calls like Chavez-Randall II.

PD99
12-05-2008, 11:31 PM
Hey Michael,

I tried to avoid being impractically exclusive in laying out the criteria for my request for a stoppage comparable to Taylor's. I was thinking of asking that comparative victim be named Meldrick also but Wilfred is close enough.:o

Thing is, the bout wasn't stopped after Wildred rose from the deck. He was allowed the chance to continue. Now Wilfred did provide an affirmative nod but check the time between the KD and the time when Wildred gave the nod. Quick glance tells me Wildred hit the deck with about 31 secs to go. He rises and then turns his back to the ref, facing and smiling at the spectators but still hurt. By the time Wildred turns back 10 secs had ve passed since Wildred hit the deck. Further, ref Padilla (I orig. typed Palomino, sheesh) ultimately waves the bout back on with 13 secs remaining.

From KD to resumption, Wilfred got about 18 secs.

Michael Frank
12-06-2008, 01:01 AM
Hello PD,

Yes, I agree. Different endings to be sure, and Wilfred got plenty o' time in his. I was trying to recall one with your criteria and none immediately came to mind. Though I have no doubt examples exist.

Another such bout with the loser named Meldrick?--that one might be impossible to locate. Who knows? :)

PeteLeo
12-06-2008, 03:34 AM
Now I'm interested in ANY other Championship Bout that was stopped in the FINAL RD (= less 3 mins remaining let alone only 2 secs remaining) upon a single KD of a fighter who ultimately rose from said KD and stood independantly within several secs of a potential 10 count. I won't even throw in that said fighter happened to also be leading at the time.

I'm reminded of Jake LaMotta against Laurent Dauthuille. I think Dauthuille got up from the fight's only knockdown before the ref counted ten, and it's quite clear that he was way ahead on all three scorecards. Perhaps the bout was stopped as soon as he fell, I don't remember -- and, no, I did not see it in person --, but there were only thirteen seconds left when it was waved over. This is commonly regarded as an example of Jake's innate cunning (pretending to be hurt to lure Dauthuille into a slugging match), but I always felt it to be more of a sad footnote to the career of a regular guy who did everything he needed to to win a world title . . . except last the final thirteen seconds. PeteLeo.

hawk5ins
12-06-2008, 08:37 AM
Didn't I see a photo of you in the crowd for Cane vs. Able?

Just rereading Bert Sugar's the Great Fights, he states that Lou Handler counted out Laurent with 13 secs remaining, but I would agree that that is not conclusive as Bert doesn't clarify if Dauthille was on his feet or not.

I have always beleived he was on the canvas when the 10 count was reached, but I am by no means certain.

Hawk

PD99
12-06-2008, 09:58 AM
Cain v Able? No question, they should've stopped that one.

My understanding is that Dauthuille was actually counted out whilst draped over the bottom rope but I could be wrong.

Of course Chuck Wepner was stopped in the 15th rd of his fight with Ali. After absorbing a protracted and merciless beating, Wepner suffered his first and only KD of the fight in the final rd with about 20 secs remaining. While Wepner wasn't going to beat the count I think the ref actually waved it off before reaching "10" but I'm not 100% sure on that one either.

Michael Frank
12-06-2008, 10:09 AM
Of course Chuck Wepner was stopped in the 15th rd of his fight with Ali. After absorbing a protracted and merciless beating, Wepner suffered his first and only KD of the fight in the final rd with about 20 secs remaining. While Wepner wasn't going to beat the count I think the ref actually waved it off before reaching "10" but I'm not 100% sure on that one either.
I didn't think you were asking for ANY last-round stoppages, as Wepner was clearly losing his fight with Ali.

There were many final round KOs; and one where the clear winner-to-be was flattened, was Weaver-Tate. But of course Big John was flat on his face for the entire count, no ref needed to protect a standing fighter here.

walshb
12-06-2008, 10:57 AM
Did I read your edited post when I responded to your last post? The answer would be no. I was responding to what you originally wrote.

I realize that you did make your edits while I was writing my post, but no, I did not go back and then change what I had already written.

Ron,

Thanks for your response.

Much appreciated.

HawkI don't believe the EDIT was for me to include anything but
my request for a thread to be posted on my behalf. The whole post was written
and then edited to ONLY INCLUDE the 'thread request' at the end; ah well, no harm done

No bother, that explains it. Again, those points about the STEPS a ref normally should perform are SPOT on. However, what if Taylor simply knew right there and the when he looked HARD into Mel's eyes that Mel was in real distress. Does he HAVE to go thru those steps. I don't think he does, nor do
I think he is obliged to.

PD99 'here here' on your points. It is an excellent thread with basically two sides arguing their corner.
Even though I am on the 'Steele made the correct call side,' I do believe that this was razor
thin and very subjective. Man, I could even be swayed to the DARK side if more of this
thread continues:D

JLP 6
12-06-2008, 11:24 AM
Is this the JFK bout of boxing? It sure seems like it.

Steele made a choice. I am struck by how clear his reasoning was after the fight during the interview with Merchant of all people. Steele, was not upset, or the "victim", he was presenting himself as only the ref who believed he stopped the fight for the health of Taylor.

I think if Steele had known that Taylor only had two seconds to get through the fight he would have let it go. I my oppinion Steele did not think that Taylor WAS winning the fight. He though by looking at the shots he was taking and his condition that Taylor was in fact losing.

Steele was the closest to the action. I think Steele stopped the fight because A. he did not know how close the end of the match was, and B. he did not think Taylor was winning and any more punishment was unnessary.

I watch fights when I "see" clearly that if the ref does not stop it soon, a unchangable beating will occur. A sure enough did does. Gatti-Mayweather could have been stopped maybe a round before it was. The path had been laid and there was no changing the course. If Taylor had a minute left in the bout he may have been killed. I believe this, and I think this it what was on Steele's mind.

Could you in Steele's shoes be responsible for the death of a fighter? Could you let it go, if in your heart a fighter has had enough?

PD99
12-06-2008, 12:11 PM
Walsh - you mean you aren't batting for the DARK side already?:). Swayed, you will be.

Michael - Unless I misunderstand you, last rd STOPPAGES, were exactly what I was asking for as PART of the criteria, WINNING or LOSING was not.

Of course, front running Big John Tate was flat out and frighteningly KO'd, not stopped.

I wasn't trying to pretend that the Wepner example perfectly fit the bill. It certainly doesn't.

It simply came to mind because, technically, it kina sorta semi fit the bill.

There was a single KD in the final rd and as Wepner attempted to rise (of course attempting to rise does not = the criteria of having risen so there's a strike against the analogy right there) the ref waved it off before completing the count - though it was subsequently proven that Wepner couldn't have beaten the count anyway.

Besides Wepner's unviable condition, the ref might well have projected for Wepner's inability to rise before "10" and simply fast tracked the end by stopping it. The result has often been recorded as a TKO though some records (CBZ being one) record the result as a KO. Imo, for all intents and purposes, Wepner was KO'd but officially, it seems, he was stopped.

walshb
12-06-2008, 12:16 PM
Respectfully JLP, if Steele didn't believe that Taylor
was winning, then he should never have been the ref
in the bout. It was CLEAR to any half capable person, apart
from the rogue Chuck Giampa, that Taylor was winning, and clearly.

Now, Steele did believe that Taylor had taken the HARDER shots and
probably also believed that Taylor was the 'worse for wear fighter,' but that
doesn't translate into 'Steele thought Mel was LOSING.'

Steele's job ultimately is to referee and NOT allow a man to take
dangerous levels of punishment. It wasn't his job to time keep, score, do the corner, promote etc etc. He was there tO REF and ensure the fighters were
protected from unnecessary harm and danger. That is what Steele was paid to do, and in my view, he did it in this one instance.

I eally think folks ae betting bogged dwon on what Steele did or didn't or was
or wasn't meant to do.

Simply, he was there to REF and protect when needed, nothing more and nothing less!

JLP 6
12-06-2008, 12:46 PM
Respectfully JLP, if Steele didn't believe that Taylor
was winning, then he should never have been the ref
in the bout. It was CLEAR to any half capable person, apart
from the rogue Chuck Giampa, that Taylor was winning, and clearly.

Now, Steele did believe that Taylor had taken the HARDER shots and
probably also believed that Taylor was the 'worse for wear fighter,' but that
doesn't translate into 'Steele thought Mel was LOSING.'

Steele's job ultimately is to referee and NOT allow a man to take
dangerous levels of punishment. It wasn't his job to time keep, score, do the corner, promote etc etc. He was there tO REF and ensure the fighters were
protected from unnecessary harm and danger. That is what Steele was paid to do, and in my view, he did it in this one instance.

I eally think folks ae betting bogged dwon on what Steele did or didn't or was
or wasn't meant to do.

Simply, he was there to REF and protect when needed, nothing more and nothing less!

I think we agree Walsh.

It is common knowledge that most if not all think that Mel was winning on points, but he is the one that fell. He fell because he had taken more punishment than he could handle.

Chavez was not going to stop delivering it. If Steele did not know the time, which to me matters greatly, and he thought that Chavez was winning which at that moment in time was clear, added with Taylor non-typical response of a fighter that is ready to go, Steele did what he though was right.

I am speaking on the motivation for stopping it. With what he was presented with, he stopped it based on that and how he felt the fight was going and finally where he thought it might go if he let it continue.

Respectfully.

PeteLeo
12-06-2008, 02:32 PM
For anyone interested, here's the end of LaMotta-Dauthuille:

www.dailymotion.com/video/xpus1_jake-lamotta-vs-laurent-dauthuille_sport

The footage is of mediocre quality, but you can see Dauthuille counted out (after a very quick count) just as he springs to his feet. I believe most of today's refs would have given him the benefit of the doubt, since he pops up like Carpentier vs. Dempsey (first knockdown) or Seldon vs. Bowe (ditto). The Frenchman certainly was more fully erect (get out of the gutter, you guys) than Tunney was when Barry should have called ten over his crouching, rope-holding ass against Dempsey.

Had I been Dauthuille or one of his people, I certainly would have pitched a hissy fit over that ending. PeteLeo.

JLP 6
12-06-2008, 03:20 PM
Yeah that was a quick count!

I love how Lamotta "falls" against the ropes like he is at the end of a long day.

I laugh our loud when Dauthuille falls against the ropes. The guy who did this in the movie did a serious job of acting. It looked exactly the same.