J-C wrote:Just seems a bit hypocritical to me given all the fuss the Hearns made when they stopped McClosky vs Khan, for Eddie to say this stoppage was fine. Granted PM was more competitive than the Pole but he still lost every round and that cut was much worse than any damage suffered by RJ. It was an eliminator for a title shot and I find it very hard to believe that if it had been Brook that lost the first 6 rounds and was getting soundly outboxed that the ref would have stopped the fight so quickly. The ref is there to protect the fighters' health, pulling a fighter out because it doesn't look like they can win is really a decision for their corner IMO.
Ha yeah i thought exactly the same about Hearns comments and i'd argue PM was just as outclassed and didn't land any punch of value for 6 rds against Khan either.
Also RJ's gameplan was to soak up punishment for 6 rds against Brook and then start coming on strong in the second half of the fight as he's done in all his previous fights. Yes he was being outclassed but he's also a very slow starter in fights and once Kell's pace would have dropped then RJ would have started to be more effective.
It's just a good job that this Ref wasn't reffing the Rocky Balboa vs Clubber Lang rematch where Rocky used the same tactics to soak up Clubbers attack for the first few rounds till he got tired before coming on strong.
I watched a different fight than the people who think that a beating was inflicted upon RJ. Obviously Brook was a level above, but RJ was blocking most of the punches that were coming his way, and he was never in any sort of danger. I believe that a fighter should be allowed to continue if they are unhurt and able to defend themselves effectively, so the stoppage was unwarranted in my opinion. If Jackiewicz had not been able to defend himself or if he had started to show signs—buckled legs, constant holding, or wincing—that the punches landing on him were having a pernicious affect, then there would be reason to believe that an intervention was necessary for the sake of his health.
Do the people who support Foster's decision support stoppages in all bouts in which an opponent is clearly outclassed? Should Luis Pabon have stopped Khan-McCloskey at the end of the sixth, even if the latter had not sustained a cut? After all, McCloskey never showed anything to suggest that he could win a round, he took alot of punishment in the sixth, and he admitted post-fight that Khan was hurting him. What about Ward-Green or Wright-Trinidad?
crusader wrote:I watched a different fight than the people who think that a beating was inflicted upon RJ. Obviously Brook was a level above, but RJ was blocking most of the punches that were coming his way, and he was never in any sort of danger. I believe that a fighter should be allowed to continue if they are unhurt and able to defend themselves effectively, so the stoppage was unwarranted in my opinion. If Jackiewicz had not been able to defend himself or if he had started to show signs—buckled legs, constant holding, or wincing—that the punches landing on him were having a pernicious affect, then there would be reason to believe that an intervention was necessary for the sake of his health.
Yeah, a well expressed and very valid point of view.
I don't necessarily agree with it as I've seen some beatings dished out where the poor lad is just impervious to the punishment but needs stopping for his own sake - not saying Saturday was one of those, mind, but the lad just wasn't at the races at all, IMO.
