BoxRec

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Asterix wrote:I initially thought it was premature, but when I saw it from the referee's angle (face on) it looked like a good stoppage. Thaxton was seriously rocked from one of those punches and in no position to defend himself properly. The referee was looking out for Thaxton's welfare, and it was an unbiased stoppage, imo. In that, I'm happy.

If he was in no position to defend himself, then, pray tell, how did he manage to do just that, by evading the next three shots that came his way by dodging and weaving underneath them?

Honestly, I despair sometimes.

Maybe I should have chosen my words more carefully, to save you from despair. I guess I should rewatch it, but, basically, if the referee hadn't intervened Thaxton would have taken flush shots and been badly knocked out, imo.

I hope you're all right, James. I don't like to cause you to despair. :(

Wrists wrote:
Another thing - this whole notion of 'Thaxton has had a long career' therefore the stoppage was right, is a very dangerous road to go down.

Christ Carl Thompson would have not had a career if his fights were stopped when he 'took some few hard shots'..

but the alternative is even more dangerous. thaxton was already in steep decline going into the fight, something howard foster is sure to have taken account of.

he had been beaten by an average euro level boxer, then beaten by an average british fighter and was taking big shots from murray - a man probably in a much higher class than mezache and glover.

what had he done to get the fight with murray? it was almost a reward by the board for a long, hard and entertaining career. when things started to go wrong for him early in the fight then it was right for it to be stopped.

thaxton would have wanted to carry on even if hehad been knocked down cleanly a couple of times but fighters have to be protected from themselves.

maybe someone should have asked howard clarke for his opinion on the stoppage?

Too early

jope gallagher told me something that is worth pointing out:

that murray hadn't even started sitting down on his shots yet.

there was clearly worse in store for jono.

re carl thompson. thompson's reflexes had declined far worse than thaxton's. but thompson has had numerous fights where he'd had the shiit belted out of him, before he rallied back to win (rothmann, dunstan, tafer, eubank 1). thaxton is also one of british boxing's fine warriors. however, not seen him rescue too many lost causes. he's made comebacks, dramatic comebacks and got it right. but he does better when he's grabbed the initiative from the first round. i know the stewart fight was back and forth, showing thaxton's fighting spirit. but if you look at a fight where he's starting to lag behind, in a title fight, it usually gets worse for him.

Would the fight of been stopped if Murray had been wobbled and was against the ropes?
I doubt it.

Its always a hard one to call for the refs, I also thought that Amin Asikainen was stopped to soon, yes he had of been floored heavily, but on rising from 2nd knockdown he was told to get his hands up and walk forward, both of which he did. The the ref stopped him, would he of done the same if the hometown boxer Macklin had just been floored, again i doubt it.

Also why are heavyweights allowed to batter each other to hell, and very rarely do you get early stoppages in heavyweight fights?

Old bones Ian wrote:Would the fight of been stopped if Murray had been wobbled and was against the ropes?
I doubt it.

Its always a hard one to call for the refs, I also thought that Amin Asikainen was stopped to soon, yes he had of been floored heavily, but on rising from 2nd knockdown he was told to get his hands up and walk forward, both of which he did. The the ref stopped him, would he of done the same if the hometown boxer Macklin had just been floored, again i doubt it.

but that wasn't the case, as it was murray who was wobbling thaxton