All three should be commended
See, that’s not how it works. Previous warnings for low blows (I call them borderline) do not permit the ref to take a point for a shot that was not low.
It’s very simple really, there is no debate the shot that caused the point deduction was not low. Just because Marquez had been warned earlier in the fight does not give the ref the right to take a point on a LEGAL blow.
If Marquez had indeed went low again, then you could make the argument that he had been warned plenty of times and it was the correct time for a point to be taken. However, your logic does not work on a LEGAL punch to the body.
See, that’s not how it works. Previous warnings for low blows (I call them borderline) do not permit the ref to take a point for a shot that was not low.
It’s very simple really, there is no debate the shot that caused the point deduction was not low. Just because Marquez had been warned earlier in the fight does not give the ref the right to take a point on a LEGAL blow.
If Marquez had indeed went low again, then you could make the argument that he had been warned plenty of times and it was the correct time for a point to be taken. However, your logic does not work on a LEGAL punch to the body.
See, that’s not how it works. Previous warnings for low blows (I call them borderline) do not permit the ref to take a point for a shot that was not low.
It’s very simple really, there is no debate the shot that caused the point deduction was not low. Just because Marquez had been warned earlier in the fight does not give the ref the right to take a point on a LEGAL blow.
If Marquez had indeed went low again, then you could make the argument that he had been warned plenty of times and it was the correct time for a point to be taken. However, your logic does not work on a LEGAL punch to the body.
I agree Boxeo on one point, that the shot where the point was taken away wasn't really low. The warnings are what got this point taken away, he messed up the call, but he could have easily taken the point away on the warning before.
Even if the point is not taken away, what are we looking at? A draw in the record books where Izzy keeps his title. You could almost make the point that neither guy really lost anyway, both guys cemented their legacy in a historic fight.
See, that’s not how it works. Previous warnings for low blows (I call them borderline) do not permit the ref to take a point for a shot that was not low.
It’s very simple really, there is no debate the shot that caused the point deduction was not low. Just because Marquez had been warned earlier in the fight does not give the ref the right to take a point on a LEGAL blow.
If Marquez had indeed went low again, then you could make the argument that he had been warned plenty of times and it was the correct time for a point to be taken. However, your logic does not work on a LEGAL punch to the body.
I agree Boxeo on one point, that the shot where the point was taken away wasn't really low. The warnings are what got this point taken away, he messed up the call, but he could have easily taken the point away on the warning before.
Even if the point is not taken away, what are we looking at? A draw in the record books where Izzy keeps his title. You could almost make the point that neither guy really lost anyway, both guys cemented their legacy in a historic fight.
Hot Forum Topics
- Claiming Prizes 57,789
- Tuesday 10/20/2026 864
- 🏈🏈🏈 Fubah2's risky CFB bets 279,242
- I'm embarrassed for Trump supporters 61,592
- PART DEUX 154
- Congrats to ltdsks - 20 wins in a row! 5,078
- Public Indicator Calculations 2026 23,287
- Lies, Inaccuracies & Stupidity 33,163
- NFL THREAD * 151 * 26,092
- NCAA WEEK 8. (( 151 )) 2,512
Warning - External Link
Report User
This post is spam
Delete Post
Remove Thread
Scan Results
Login/Register
Accounts are free and easy to create.
Search
