Are fights getting stopped too quickly. ?

[saad muhammad]

There seems to be a rash of fights
getting stopped a bit lively, especially
with prospects... another case being last
night with Darren sutherland, ok he was
never in any danger of losing but was
building towards a ko, thus damaging his
marketability, while we don't want tragedies
in boxing ... this is the hurt business.
Imagine if say for instance nigel Benn
was building towards the knockout and hitting
a guy cleanly the ref dived in, he and the
public would have been denied the excitement
that puts bums on seats etc, can you see
where i'm coming from.

[n1ebf]

Yes I do, but safety first in my opinion. If the other fighter is on a hiding to nothing I don't see the point in waiting til they get sparko'd.
For a start the journeymen would start wanting a lot more money if they thought that's what was going to happen.

[jamesmcdonnell]

I think there is a very good argument for stopping a fight when not only is it one sided, but one person is simply not competing, and trying to survive.

Whilst some people may want to wait it out to see if the fighter on the defensive can be smashed to bits or not, I find it personally very unedifying watching some poor import being bashed from pillar to post, not to mentioned, extremely boring.

[Deadendgeneration]

With you on this, too many fights are getting stopped when nobody is hurt because it’s “not competitive”. Now don’t get me wrong with new fighters starting out in the pro game you have to start slow and work your way up that’s fine. But take for example The Olympians the majority of there fights so far have been ended with the opponent on his feet, in some cases still throwing back just with little effect. In these instances the not competitive argument has been used but these fights weren’t competitive when they were put together. You’re pitting some of the world’s top amateurs in with blokes with massive losing records who are just there to take a few punches. Not to mention they all seem to have faced much smaller opponents.

[split_decision]

With you on this, too many fights are getting stopped when nobody is hurt because it’s “not competitive”. Now don’t get me wrong with new fighters starting out in the pro game you have to start slow and work your way up that’s fine. But take for example The Olympians the majority of there fights so far have been ended with the opponent on his feet, in some cases still throwing back just with little effect. In these instances the not competitive argument has been used but these fights weren’t competitive when they were put together. You’re pitting some of the world’s top amateurs in with blokes with massive losing records who are just there to take a few punches. Not to mention they all seem to have faced much smaller opponents.

Exactly. Most undercard fights in british rings are just record padders anyway, if you waved off fights for being non competitive the ref might as well wave it off while giving his final instructions.

[saad muhammad]

Big mark, the post office is
still the same....TOILET, never mind
least iv'e got a job .

[saad muhammad]

No, the last one was the Brentwood show
feat ; Barker, i think the best route would be
the winner of Elcock / Macklin, and take it
from there, if he can't beat either of those
two with the greatest respect to both, i
can't se him going any further, hope so
seems like a nice kid.

[Old bones Ian]

Its a differcult one to call, for safety sakes its better to have a fight stopped too soon, but as a boxer says 'its not a tickling contest', boxing by its nature needs to have knockouts.
Or casual fans will not bother turning up, and now and again you do have the sudden turn around in a fight, where a boxer on the losing end suddenly finds a KO punch out of the blue.

[jamesmcdonnell]

This is another reason why olympic standouts should not be headlining shows. They should be on the undercard, because their initial fights are going to be largely boring affairs.

[ERIC GUY]

They are not headling the show, they are on the undercard...

[Scrap]

Never liked Funerals

[Old bones Ian]

Warren doesn't have a huge stable of big stars at the moment, and he may lose 2 of his bigger names in Khan and Macca next week, both of them are in fights that they could lose.

So if that happened would it be long before he has to start using the olympians as headliners.
Then will he have in-house conflict about who is the star to headline

[Datsue]

I think there is a very good argument for stopping a fight when not only is it one sided, but one person is simply not competing, and trying to survive.

Whilst some people may want to wait it out to see if the fighter on the defensive can be smashed to bits or not, I find it personally very unedifying watching some poor import being bashed from pillar to post, not to mentioned, extremely boring.

With you totally on this. Stop it early. If there's controversy, that's what rematches are for. Pride heals.

This is another reason why olympic standouts should not be headlining shows. They should be on the undercard, because their initial fights are going to be largely boring affairs.

& again, agree totally. I don't think early limelight against schmucks (no offence to the schmucks intended) is good for a guy. Not only does it build in shitty habits that'll come back to bite you in the arse but it's effing boring. Show me the first time he's likely to be tested, yes, or the first time he gets in with a yardstick, then I'm all ears (& eyes). Seventeen nicely choreographed flattenings of midgets of Eastern European extraction doth not an edifying spectacle make, to my mind.

[Mick the Mechanic]

No one,but no one has the right to see a man badly hurt,the ref is the man in there with nthem,its his call.....

[Tykemania]

This is an interesting subject because in a British ring we seem to have gone safety crazy which of course isnt always a bad thing. the problem with the approach our refs are taking is that they are now going slightly over the top with quick stoppages. Now i'm not talking about the Sutherland fight last night for example as that guy was taking so heavy blows and was never going to win but if you look at the stoppage of Manfredo against Calzaghe it seems silly. Yes Manfredo was going to lose but wasnt really hurt and was fighting the Championship of the world so deserved to go out fighting and on his sheild. Fighters of course always cry foul when they are stopped on their feet be it Small against Price or Manfredo against Calzaghe but they are always going to complain because they are warriors. The refs in the USA tend to go to the other extreme in most cases and fights going on to long but then if half of Gatti's or Ward's fights had been in a UK ring they would of been stopped before they had a chance to fight back. So to answer your question Saad yes it is taking some of the excitment away but at the same time the last thing boxing needs is bad press after a fighter has been hurt in the ring. So we may stop fights a little early in the UK but in general its normally a good call.

Its a case of what you like here - some would say that the entertainment is most important, though I would question whether anyone relaly finds prospect-vs-obvious journeyman fights really entertaining as opposed to interesting for the purposes of gauging development. Others would say that they have seen too many instances of people (Graham Earl springs to mind) being allowed to get up from thrashing, heavy knockdowns and fight on when clearly "confused" and accept that its better to be safe than to have another Gerald McClellan.

Me? I would say that it is important to differentiate between fights like the Sutherland one, which would only ever have one result and which exist only to further Sutherland's in-ring experience, and those like the Manfredo stoppage where it was undoubtedly the biggest night of his career, and where he therefore could be allowed that extra second to show something.