BoxRec

i think that rounds 11 and 12 could be the best rounds of this fight, with Takam throwing all he had and going to war

Enlightened-One wrote:

Covfefe wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote: We disagree on our interpretation of Sky Sports' narrative.

What they conceded very briefly and what they dwelled on are two entirely different things.

I believe my recollection of events to be true.

Carlos Takam was stopped prematurely. Sky Sports downplayed this fact to protect the image and value of their asset.

They all said he was stopped prematurely.

...and they downplayed it.

But they said it was premature. I don’t think they did downplay it, I’d have to watch back to be sure. But how do you downplay your opinion that it was too Early?

They did all agree that Joshua would have gone on to win, but that isn’t downplaying it for me, I thought he would too.

Covfefe wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:

Covfefe wrote:
They all said he was stopped prematurely.

...and they downplayed it.

But they said it was premature. I don’t think they did downplay it, I’d have to watch back to be sure. But how do you downplay your opinion that it was too Early?

They did all agree that Joshua would have gone on to win, but that isn’t downplaying it for me, I thought he would too.

An extreme example, but moderately close to reality...

The media spends five seconds conceding an issue, but then consumes thirty minutes telling their audience about something being marvellous.

In that situation, is the audience more likely to recall the flaw or all the positive aspects?

That was kind of how I felt the Sky Sports team trivilised the premature stoppage, to the point it was almost conveyed as a non-issue.

When Joshua faces his next opponent, his highlight reel will inevitably include snippets of Takam's glove touching the canvas and the referee stopping the bout, but nothing more will be mentioned about the premature stoppage.

Showtime do it, HBO do it and Sky Sports do it also... its all about putting a positive spin on their fighters to retain their audience figures for future fights.

Enlightened-One wrote:

Covfefe wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote: ...and they downplayed it.

But they said it was premature. I don’t think they did downplay it, I’d have to watch back to be sure. But how do you downplay your opinion that it was too Early?

They did all agree that Joshua would have gone on to win, but that isn’t downplaying it for me, I thought he would too.

An extreme example, but moderately close to reality...

The media spends five seconds conceding an issue, but then consumes thirty minutes telling their audience about something being marvellous.

In that situation, is the audience more likely to recall the flaw or all the positive aspects?

That was kind of how I felt the Sky Sports team trivilised the premature stoppage, to the point it was almost conveyed as a non-issue.

When Joshua faces his next opponent, his highlight reel will inevitably include snippets of Takam's glove touching the canvas and the referee stopping the bout, but nothing more will be mentioned about the premature stoppage.

Showtime do it, HBO do it and Sky Sports do it also... its all about putting a positive spin on their fighters to retain their audience figures for future fights.

Putting a positive spin on a win? Whatever next.

It wasn't stopped prematurely. It was stopped without any valid reasons whatsoever.

Carlos Takam was stopped prematurely, without a valid reason, it's as simple as that.

Covfefe wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:

Covfefe wrote:
But they said it was premature. I don’t think they did downplay it, I’d have to watch back to be sure. But how do you downplay your opinion that it was too Early?

They did all agree that Joshua would have gone on to win, but that isn’t downplaying it for me, I thought he would too.

An extreme example, but moderately close to reality...

The media spends five seconds conceding an issue, but then consumes thirty minutes telling their audience about something being marvellous.

In that situation, is the audience more likely to recall the flaw or all the positive aspects?

That was kind of how I felt the Sky Sports team trivilised the premature stoppage, to the point it was almost conveyed as a non-issue.

When Joshua faces his next opponent, his highlight reel will inevitably include snippets of Takam's glove touching the canvas and the referee stopping the bout, but nothing more will be mentioned about the premature stoppage.

Showtime do it, HBO do it and Sky Sports do it also... its all about putting a positive spin on their fighters to retain their audience figures for future fights.

Putting a positive spin on a win? Whatever next.

Do you feel "enlightened" yet?

I put that guy on block for just this reason. Sadly I can still see his posts when quoted

I thought the stoppage was OK.
Takem was pawing at his eyes for at least 5 rounds, his vision was affected. The cuts were pouring blood. AJ had his second wind and I don't like reading about fighters lapsing into comas the next day.

KiwiRider wrote:I thought the stoppage was OK.
Takem was pawing at his eyes for at least 5 rounds, his vision was affected. The cuts were pouring blood. AJ had his second wind and I don't like reading about fighters lapsing into comas the next day.

omg the 'better than a coma' argument is so fornicating stupid. like that was the only outcome without stopping the fight takam had just had one of his best rounds too and aj noticably slowed

why even let ppl fight then....i mean cus at least ifthey dont fight they wont get brain damage

but takam pawed at a cut so a tragic injury mustve been coming. btw are you the guy whose been acting like everyones avoided whyte

you heard it folks, good stoppage because takam had pawed at the cut and mightve been put into coma

jamamb wrote:

KiwiRider wrote:I thought the stoppage was OK.
Takem was pawing at his eyes for at least 5 rounds, his vision was affected. The cuts were pouring blood. AJ had his second wind and I don't like reading about fighters lapsing into comas the next day.

omg the 'better than a coma' argument is so effing stupid. like that was the only outcome without stopping the fight takam had just had one of his best rounds too and aj noticably slowed

why even let ppl fight then....i mean cus at least ifthey dont fight they wont get brain damage

but takam pawed at a cut so a tragic injury mustve been coming. btw are you the guy whose been acting like everyones avoided whyte

Takem had no chance of a win that late.
The cut on the right side was above the eye and pouring into it. It was still pouring blood when they interviewed him. It was affecting his vision. That alone should have been enough, and after the big right he took, it would have been as it opened up even more. What is the point of more beat down?
As for Whyte being avoided, I read that Eddie had offered 1/2 dozen of the top HW's who were not booked big money for a fight with Whyte. After tonight's performance I'm sure he will get some takers

takam was doing fine and just had a ggod round. he wasnt that hurt and was still effectively defending. aj was missing in folliw up. hed already had the cut for rounds and gotten through worse. he was still in there and had a good chance of being first to take aj the distance. it wouldve been big for him.

bringing up comas is total melodramatic sensationlist nonsense and your framing it like it was either stopping the fight or tragedy. just dont let ppl fight at all then. aj took much worse against wlad btw. were you worried that hed lapse into a coma?

horrible, hyperbolic argument mate

Yeah, it was. He was doing his best work, albeit hurt at that moment. he deserved the chance to carry on.

KiwiRider wrote:I thought the stoppage was OK.
Takem was pawing at his eyes for at least 5 rounds, his vision was affected. The cuts were pouring blood. AJ had his second wind and I don't like reading about fighters lapsing into comas the next day.

I thought it was premature but I also thought that Takam was taking quite a hiding in there. He had his moments, and AJ had noticeably slowed, but it was still pretty one sided. Takam fights another day. I'd have liked to see it go on but there's no way Takam was going to win. He got beaten up. I think he would have done the full 12, getting beaten up more. I think he lost every round, although you could give him a sympathy round.

He'll get more paydays in Britain based on that showing. Brits love a plucky loser.

would takam not have fought another day if he continued? are we hinting at tragic injury again?

I'm all for a fighter's safety, but that was a bad time to stop the fight. I agree with a couple others on here saying Takam was taking a baeting. But he was ciomng on andonly really just got the worst of one exchange there. I thought he had won the previous round.

It's a tough call I guess. I wouldn't want to be a ref.

BTW, the way the title of the thread is titled had me vote wrong. I wanted to vote yes for an early stoppage. Instead I voted yes to thinking it was a good one. I'm assuming there are others that did this as well?

Impractical Poster wrote:I'm all for a fighter's safety, but that was a bad time to stop the fight. I agree with a couple others on here saying Takam was taking a baeting. But he was ciomng on andonly really just got the worst of one exchange there. I thought he had won the previous round.

It's a tough call I guess. I wouldn't want to be a ref.

BTW, the way the title of the thread is titled had me vote wrong. I wanted to vote yes for an early stoppage. Instead I voted yes to thinking it was a good one. I'm assuming there are others that did this as well?

ya i mentioned that too....mismatch btwn thread title and poll question is going to cause ppl to select wrong option

Covfefe wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:

Covfefe wrote:
But they said it was premature. I don’t think they did downplay it, I’d have to watch back to be sure. But how do you downplay your opinion that it was too Early?

They did all agree that Joshua would have gone on to win, but that isn’t downplaying it for me, I thought he would too.

An extreme example, but moderately close to reality...

The media spends five seconds conceding an issue, but then consumes thirty minutes telling their audience about something being marvellous.

In that situation, is the audience more likely to recall the flaw or all the positive aspects?

That was kind of how I felt the Sky Sports team trivilised the premature stoppage, to the point it was almost conveyed as a non-issue.

When Joshua faces his next opponent, his highlight reel will inevitably include snippets of Takam's glove touching the canvas and the referee stopping the bout, but nothing more will be mentioned about the premature stoppage.

Showtime do it, HBO do it and Sky Sports do it also... its all about putting a positive spin on their fighters to retain their audience figures for future fights.

Putting a positive spin on a win? Whatever next.

Showtime concede that the stoppage was"odd" and premature. They also discussed the matter in greater length than Sky Sports did.

I'm not the only person that watched this bout and possesses the same opinion.

No wonder Wilder wants no part of fighting in the UK the ref was looking for an excuse the stop the fight from the time Takam got cut Joshua got axposed toningt he aint No A side to any negotiation with Wilder

ClivePatrickLyons wrote:No wonder Wilder wants no part of fighting in the UK the ref was looking for an excuse the stop the fight from the time Takam got cut Joshua got axposed toningt he aint No A side to any negotiation with Wilder

Go to bed, Clive. No one got "axposed toningt" and AJ is still the A side against any HW in the world.

Crooked boxing. I told you Pulev would have beat him.

pulev wouldve been as easier fight

jamamb wrote:pulev wouldve been as easier fight

No doubt, I think takam might beat pulev.

Bullshit stoppage. Got to protect Joshua's KO streak.

If I was Wilder I'd cite this fight as the perfect example to have it in America or a neutral venue. Britain is too corrupt and it's refs are too incompetent.

In fact any world champ should refuse to defend in the UK because odds are they're going to get screwed over.

I was watching it with a friend, a casual who only saw the Klitschko fight before and the first thing he said was this is bullshit, from now on I'll never support Joshua any more. This is a showfight, this is staged.

I genuinly didn't know what to say, the whole crowd was clearly booing, it was a joke. I expected AJ to win on points anyway, but you have to give Takam credits, especially when you want to proof yourself at Povetkin level.