Bad Call, that decision is not mine!

[RetardedChimp]

Originally Posted by Boston Garden

I'm not really into the all-time list thing, but to answer your question....no. That's not what I was implying either, IMO Thornton is more entertaining-not including antics (completely subjective I know) and I thought he handled himself well against Brashear....That's all.

Clarify it please...you rank Shawn Thornton ahead of Donald Brashear all time?

[Boston Garden]

Originally Posted by RetardedChimp

Clarify it please...you rank Shawn Thornton ahead of Donald Brashear all time?

My mistake, I read what you wrote quickly, I'd have Brashear ahead of Thornton. I'd just like to note that I think Thornton is usually more entertaining, and has held his own against Brash...

[29th_Candidate]

Originally Posted by Killah_punk

Here's the slowmo of the fight. @1:11 Asham lands a bomb on Cote's jaw.

Cote - Asham (slowmo) 11/8/2007 - YouTube

Wow. Up until seeing the slowmo, I had considered this scrap a solid draw. That bomb to Cote's jaw absolutely crumpled him. Win - Asham.

[spiderarms]

Originally Posted by pingpang69

Spider, you're obviously not a trolling knucklehead like some of these other posters, I just disagree with you. You say Laraque knocked Brashear down three times, that isn't true. If you watched the fight in slo-mo, you'll see that Laraque only landed one real good shot. The rest of his punches weren't that big and it was momentum that sent Brashear to the ice on the other occasions. Brashear deserves a lot of credit for this fight. Nor only did he come back and win after getting owned for the first part of the fight, but he dropped Laraque like a sack of bricks. That's the way most people see it. If you don't believe me, just go to DYG.

Yes, I agree with you that we DISAGREE on the outcome of the fight.

When I stated that Brashear went down from punches three times earlier in the fight I didn't claim they were all "great punches", the second and certainly third, not as big as the first. Brashear was not owned for the first part of the fight, he was owned for MOST of the fight except the end.

But here's my one question for you, WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER A TKO?

This is an important question because many posters consider this fight a TKO for Brashear and IMO, it is CLEARLY NOT. This makes all the difference in how this fight is scored one way or the other.

A TKO is when a fighter is cut badly, dazed or stunned and can not continue to fight. Laraque is CLEARLY non of the above. He gets up immediately from the ice and can continue EXCEPT the referees are not allowing him to continue. Laraque was hit with a punch by Brashear at the end but it was a KNOCKDOWN only, NOT A TKO.

This is why IMO, the fight would go to the "scorecards" and Laraque has CLEARLY out pointed Brashear and should have been given the decision. You must admit that if you take out the last two punches of the fight by Brashear, Laraque has totally dominated this fight.

To go a bit further and to show that I have no bias in either direction, when Brashear fought Wade Belak in their last fight, many claimed that Wade Belak had KO'd Brashear. IMO, it was a TKO, NOT A KO. Brashear was stunned but he got up on his feet went to penalty box, clearly NOT A KO.

A KO is Joey Kocur over Jim Kyte, Colton Orr over Todd Fedoruk etc. In both of these cases both Kyte and Fedoruk COULD NOT get up on their own.

IMO, the problem with the way many posters score fights, is that they try to SENSATIONALIZE everything too much and don't score things correctly.

A hockey fight is much different than the boxing ring, in many cases because of the refereeing, their interference and because:

1) The fights are NOT usually stopped because of "BLEEDING" as they are too
short. That is why "BLEEDING" means very little to me in scoring a winner.

2) Real KO's are very rare and in some cases it can be hitting their head on the
ICE that causes the actual KO not the original punch.

3) In some cases fights are scored TKO's when they are actually KNOCKDOWNS
only. TKO's are when a fighter CAN NOT continue. But sometimes its
difficult to tell because the REFS get in there and don't allow them to
continue.

I could go over MANY badly scored fights in the NHL and there are plenty, but I think you get the point and this is why I started this thread.

[RetardedChimp]

Originally Posted by Boston Garden

I'd have Brashear ahead of Thornton.

That'll do pig, that'll do.

[brawl lover]

Originally Posted by Boston Garden

My mistake, I read what you wrote quickly, I'd have Brashear ahead of Thornton. I'd just like to note that I think Thornton is usually more entertaining, and has held his own against Brash...

Would you put Brashear over anyone who ever wore a Bruin Jersey? Cause I would.

[mikebflorida]

Guys-

TKO- when one fighter is hurt and the refs jump in to stop it out of concern for the hurt fighter.

In the Laraque/Brashear fight, Laraque got hit with a lucky punch from out of the blue and it knocked him down, he bounced right back up but the linesmen saw an opportunity to end the fight and that was obviously a mistake from fight fans point of view who wanted to see it continue. Laraque was not hurt in any way, only a biased voter would see it as a TKO, it clearly is not.

Another great example of a TKO is Steve Macintyre hitting Brashear in the ribs twice, buckling Brash with the 2nd one and the refs step in knowing Donald is hurt. Textbook TKO.

KO- When a fighter is hit with a punch that very obviously stuns him and he cannot continue to fight, and needs assistance getting to his feet and off the ice.

Belak hit Brashear with a thunderbolt that crumpled him to the ice and he required assistance getting to his feet, was wobbily and the linesman was holding him up as he goes off the ice. KO.

A player does NOT need to be unconcious for it to be a KO but those are much, much easier to score since the stricken player is usually laying there with his eyes shut and blood oozing out of his head. See Nick Kypreos. Poor bastard.

[cookie monster]

The criteria some of you "experts" use to determine fights is kind of ridiculous.

If fighter A lands 10 straight punches and did no damage, but fighter B lands one punch that puts fighter A on his but, the winner is fighter B. The guy standing at the end of the fight wins, end of story. Otherwise Jeff Odgers would be the all time champ.

Sometimes you can win RESPECT in a fight even when you take a beating ie a non fighter accepting a challenge from a tough guy (Yzerman vs McGuire) or fight someone who has 8" and 90#s on you (Dorsett vs Scott), but a loss is a loss.

[mikebflorida]

Originally Posted by cookie monster

The criteria some of you "experts" use to determine fights is kind of ridiculous.

If fighter A lands 10 straight punches and did no damage, but fighter B lands one punch that puts fighter A on his but, the winner is fighter B. The guy standing at the end of the fight wins, end of story. Otherwise Jeff Odgers would be the all time champ.

Sometimes you can win RESPECT in a fight even when you take a beating ie a non fighter accepting a challenge from a tough guy (Yzerman vs McGuire) or fight someone who has 8" and 90#s on you (Dorsett vs Scott), but a loss is a loss.

Rating fights is definitely subjective, it's easy to miss things or interpret things a certain way. Imagine being a judge in boxing, you can't take your eyes off the fight for a second!

Bias definitely comes into play with most voters. Fighters in Boston and Philly basically never lose.

In the case of the Laraque/Brashear fight, Brashear got incredibly lucky both with the punch that knocked BGL down and that the linesmen jumped in to stop it. Laraque got a really bad deal on that one, he dominated the fight and the linesmen basically gave Brash the win by stopping it, totally undeserved win for Brash but he's got quite a few of those on his resume. Old news. I can see through the BS though and even though many wouldn't agree with me, Brash has quite a few "wins" that I would score as draws at best.

[29th_Candidate]

Originally Posted by spiderarms

Yes, I agree with you that we DISAGREE on the outcome of the fight.

When I stated that Brashear went down from punches three times earlier in the fight I didn't claim they were all "great punches", the second and certainly third, not as big as the first. Brashear was not owned for the first part of the fight, he was owned for MOST of the fight except the end.

But here's my one question for you, WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER A TKO?

This is an important question because many posters consider this fight a TKO for Brashear and IMO, it is CLEARLY NOT. This makes all the difference in how this fight is scored one way or the other.

A TKO is when a fighter is cut badly, dazed or stunned and can not continue to fight. Laraque is CLEARLY non of the above. He gets up immediately from the ice and can continue EXCEPT the referees are not allowing him to continue. Laraque was hit with a punch by Brashear at the end but it was a KNOCKDOWN only, NOT A TKO.

This is why IMO, the fight would go to the "scorecards" and Laraque has CLEARLY out pointed Brashear and should have been given the decision. You must admit that if you take out the last two punches of the fight by Brashear, Laraque has totally dominated this fight.

To go a bit further and to show that I have no bias in either direction, when Brashear fought Wade Belak in their last fight, many claimed that Wade Belak had KO'd Brashear. IMO, it was a TKO, NOT A KO. Brashear was stunned but he got up on his feet went to penalty box, clearly NOT A KO.

A KO is Joey Kocur over Jim Kyte, Colton Orr over Todd Fedoruk etc. In both of these cases both Kyte and Fedoruk COULD NOT get up on their own.

IMO, the problem with the way many posters score fights, is that they try to SENSATIONALIZE everything too much and don't score things correctly.

A hockey fight is much different than the boxing ring, in many cases because of the refereeing, their interference and because:

1) The fights are NOT usually stopped because of "BLEEDING" as they are too
short. That is why "BLEEDING" means very little to me in scoring a winner.

2) Real KO's are very rare and in some cases it can be hitting their head on the
ICE that causes the actual KO not the original punch.

3) In some cases fights are scored TKO's when they are actually KNOCKDOWNS
only. TKO's are when a fighter CAN NOT continue. But sometimes its
difficult to tell because the REFS get in there and don't allow them to
continue.

I could go over MANY badly scored fights in the NHL and there are plenty, but I think you get the point and this is why I started this thread.

Damn it! We need Rugged to come in here and sort out this Laraque vs. Brashear argument.

[Habs # 1]

Tom Sullivan vs Ryan Vandenbussche ROYALS vs...

[RetardedChimp]

The definitions of KO/TKO/KD are different for each person so there is no 'right' or 'wrong' version of them...as long as people are consistent with it between fights it doesn't really matter. Some call every KD a KO and some don't.

For me it's the following...

KO - fighter is literally unconscious for more than a few seconds after getting hit with a punch (Orr-Fedoruk). Usually requires stretcher. These happen very rarely.

TKO - Fighter is hit by a punch and legs buckle to the point the fight is over, may be unconscious for a brief moment, usually completely lets go of the guy who hits him, is usually dazed for a short while afterwards but soon shakes it off (Fedoruk-Johnson, Engelland-Orr) - Or - the fighter is punched and clearly hurt and looking to end the fight either by take down, standing turtle or verbal (Peters-McGrattan, Cairns-Fedoruk) causing the refs come in to stop it.

KD - Fighter is hit by the punch and is knocked to the ice and the fight ends, but fighter could still continue fighting if allowed. (Brashear-Laraque, Carcillo-Thornton)

Originally Posted by mikebflorida

Belak hit Brashear with a thunderbolt that crumpled him to the ice and he required assistance getting to his feet, was wobbily and the linesman was holding him up as he goes off the ice. KO.

Disagree.

Fits my definition of a TKO. Brashear was dropped, but was not knocked out. Brashear tweaked his knee on the way down and that is why he wobbled when he first stood up. "Lower body" injury reports after that fight support that claim (you can look it up if you want).

You use a more liberal term of KO than I do.

Originally Posted by mikebflorida

A player does NOT need to be unconcious for it to be a KO but those are much, much easier to score since the stricken player is usually laying there with his eyes shut and blood oozing out of his head. See Nick Kypreos. Poor bastard.

I disagree. KO's are super rare and the person SHOULD be unconscious for a least a few seconds for it to be called a KO.

[mikebflorida]

Originally Posted by Habs # 1

Tom Sullivan vs Ryan Vandenbussche ROYALS vs SPITFIRES - YouTube

Wow, what a fight!

Would score that one a draw, they both landed a ton of punches and both were gassed and agreed to stop.

[GOON 21]

Boy has this thread taken another turn -- Whats with the Brashear being involved in all these threads, my goodness we have several threads on the guy already, enough


Il agree with the notion (was it Cookie Monster who said it?) that the guy delivering the big punch wins the fight, the other guy might hit you more but if you land a bomb and the guy does down to the ice and your standing after the fight, your winning the fight in my eyes


A perfect example of this was the Cairns Fedoruk fight of 2003, I wish we could revive that thread, that was a classic HF thread from back in the day, i cant believe how many people were so sure of Fedoruk winning the fight which to me was insanity of the highest order, Cairns crushed the side of his face and put him in the hospital for 6 weeks yet many Flyer fans and others said Fedoruk was the winner lol

[JAVALITE]

Originally Posted by mikebflorida

Marty wins the fight, Clark tagged him a couple of times with good punches, he certainly should have as he has the usual jump on his opponent but Marty in control and landing the whole fight gets the nod from me too.

Clark got his usual jump on his opponent did he. From my vantage point, you have two options.

1. Offer an apology

2. Don't offer an apology and lose respect.

I'll allow you to make the decision.