Page 2 of 2
Re: brutal knockouts and should have been stopped fights
Posted: 19 Mar 2009, 09:28
by Twinkle Toes
Ingle Vs Botile.
This was similar to Harrison/McCullough, only with the tragic finish - I don't know, it just seems that boxers need saving from themselves sometimes and it didnt happen in either of those two fights.
Re: brutal knockouts and should have been stopped fights
Posted: 19 Mar 2009, 09:28
by pm
willie bilan got very heavily dropped vs alex spitko nearly ko'd all over the place when he got up, ref stupidly let them "fight" on queue big windy-upper from spitko and bilan getting completely twatted. shockin ref decision.
Re: brutal knockouts and should have been stopped fights
Posted: 19 Mar 2009, 12:55
by Neri
Lenny wrote:Neri wrote:A really sad one, Leavander Johnson-Jesus Chavez, Johnson was not exactly stumbling all over the ring but he was taking a sustained beating. I remember thinking they should stop the fight a few rounds before the 11th.
A really sad one. Johnson was getting beaten up but he kept firing back and landing shots. Chavez was always going to be the only winner and Johnson was going to only take more damage
but how can a ref stop the fight when Johnson is still fighting
I agree with the first part but the referee isn't the only person responsible for protecting a fighter getting beaten up, the cornermen have the same responsibility. I think it was Leavander's dad in the corner, and it's not nice to say now but Johnson should have been pulled out a few rounds earlier.
Re: brutal knockouts and should have been stopped fights
Posted: 19 Mar 2009, 13:01
by Lenny
Neri wrote:Lenny wrote:Neri wrote:A really sad one, Leavander Johnson-Jesus Chavez, Johnson was not exactly stumbling all over the ring but he was taking a sustained beating. I remember thinking they should stop the fight a few rounds before the 11th.
A really sad one. Johnson was getting beaten up but he kept firing back and landing shots. Chavez was always going to be the only winner and Johnson was going to only take more damage
but how can a ref stop the fight when Johnson is still fighting
I agree with the first part but the referee isn't the only person responsible for protecting a fighter getting beaten up, the cornermen have the same responsibility. I think it was Leavander's dad in the corner, and it's not nice to say but he should have been pulled out a few rounds earlier.
Totally agree, very few cornerman seem comfortable pulling their fighters out and this was definitely a case where the corner could have taken earlier action. It's surprising how often the cornermen who keep sending their fighters out to receive more unnecessary damage turn out to be the fighters father
Re: brutal knockouts and should have been stopped fights
Posted: 19 Mar 2009, 13:22
by ArtOfWar
junior pepa seed wrote:ArtOfWar wrote:I think fights in this country get stopped to early, but I'm of the opinion that a fighter should be given every chance to win, even when it looks like he won't/can't. At the end of the day boxing is a blood sport. People who try yo romanticise it as the sweet science are just full of s**t in my opinion. There is nothing sweet about what goes on in a boxing ring. It's about two men going in there and punching each other and that's JUST MY short sighted or ignorant view .
.
Spoken like a true ben sherman wearing reebok classic stella artois type of guy. This is why boxing gets a bad name because people like you get interviewed by the media and it all seems stuck in the dark ages.
Maybe we could put spikes on gloves to make it better for you.?
I have read your posts before and agreed with some of them but not this one but eff it that's your opinion.....so maybe I m wrong....or maybe you are.
Yeah boxing is a blood sport BUT there is skill and dedication in it if you wanna be the best and not some fly by night, there's a skill in learning your craft switching your styles and knowning when to bob and throw a left hook when a guys teeing up a left jab. When to fight at distance because the guy your fighting will maul the shit out of you on the inside..
Yeah fighters should be given a chance off course but why let a guy be a punch bag and ruin his life when he could be saved to fight another day?
Don't wear Ben Sherman, classics or drink very much. What I said was absolutely true. I didn't say anything about letting a guy be a punchbag. I stated that I feel that fights are stopped to early in Britain by referees who I feel panic as soon as they see fighters get hurt. Not always of course. I myself can enjoy a pure boxing match as much as a toe tot toe affair. I just don't lose sight of what goes on between the ropes and what it's all about.
You may enjoy reading ancient boxing journalists talk about this fight or that in some kind of romantic way. But at the end of the day whether it's a boxer like Ray Leonard or a brawler like Roberto Duran delivering punches, it's all still pure brutality. That's part of the reason I love the sport. Combat fighters put there arses on the line like no other sportsmen.
Re: brutal knockouts and should have been stopped fights
Posted: 19 Mar 2009, 15:48
by hitman_hatton1
arty's mr no nonsense.
john smiths is his drink of choice.
Re: brutal knockouts and should have been stopped fights
Posted: 19 Mar 2009, 17:33
by Russ L
"The fact that there's some violence=more violence being fine" works as a point of view but doesn't work as an argument.
It's all, necessarily, relative. If someone tried to make a serious campaign for adding barbed wire onto the outside of boxing gloves and tried to use the argument that "we all know boxing is about violence and inflicting damage, anyone who says otherwise is deluding themselves" they'd be widely pilloried on here. There's no inate argument to say that the fact that boxers are allowed to hurt each other at all means that they should be allowed to hurt each other beyond a certain level.
I'm not (before you all start) saying that this is what anyone here is saying (although some seem to be leaning close), but it's something that so often comes up in this type of discussion and thus worth bearing in mind every time.
Re: brutal knockouts and should have been stopped fights
Posted: 20 Mar 2009, 00:33
by jeej
There's definitely some science to boxing. It's not just two guys throwing fists at each other with uncontrollable rage! But, it is indeed brutal, I just don't agree with the simplistic view that is *just* brutal and there is nothing else involved.
Re: brutal knockouts and should have been stopped fights
Posted: 20 Mar 2009, 03:18
by Exoddus
Sorry if anyone posted this. I'm off to work and don't have time to read it.
The one with the Rocky 5 dude. Who got KO'd onto the ropes and the ref let the other guy land another 8-10 really big shots after it was clear he was gone.
Then there's that guy who kept calling his opponent gay leading up to the fight. This fight was from the 40's I think. Again he knocked him on the ropes and landed huge punch after huge punch when the guy was KO'd in the ropes. He later died.
Sorry about being brief but I don't have time to research them up.
It seems the most brutal ones. Are when the guy is KO'd but the ropes are keeping him up. I've seen quite a few of these. The refs need to realize that the ropes are there!
Re: brutal knockouts and should have been stopped fights
Posted: 22 Mar 2009, 18:47
by tommo100
herol graham vs julian jackson
i honestly thought graham was dead,i think it took him 7-8 minutes to come round, never seen anyone with a such a brutal right hand as the hawk(julian jackson),remember it because it was my first week at work and i lost half my wages betting on poor herol
Re: brutal knockouts and should have been stopped fights
Posted: 23 Mar 2009, 04:07
by TerribleTerry
Ruddock v Dokes.
Evet shot after the first left hand 'smash' was unnecessary.
A brutal end to a fight.
Re: brutal knockouts and should have been stopped fights
Posted: 23 Mar 2009, 06:39
by DavidPayne
ArtOfWar wrote:junior pepa seed wrote:ArtOfWar wrote:I think fights in this country get stopped to early, but I'm of the opinion that a fighter should be given every chance to win, even when it looks like he won't/can't. At the end of the day boxing is a blood sport. People who try yo romanticise it as the sweet science are just full of s**t in my opinion. There is nothing sweet about what goes on in a boxing ring. It's about two men going in there and punching each other and that's JUST MY short sighted or ignorant view .
.
Spoken like a true ben sherman wearing reebok classic stella artois type of guy. This is why boxing gets a bad name because people like you get interviewed by the media and it all seems stuck in the dark ages.
Maybe we could put spikes on gloves to make it better for you.?
I have read your posts before and agreed with some of them but not this one but eff it that's your opinion.....so maybe I m wrong....or maybe you are.
Yeah boxing is a blood sport BUT there is skill and dedication in it if you wanna be the best and not some fly by night, there's a skill in learning your craft switching your styles and knowning when to bob and throw a left hook when a guys teeing up a left jab. When to fight at distance because the guy your fighting will maul the shit out of you on the inside..
Yeah fighters should be given a chance off course but why let a guy be a punch bag and ruin his life when he could be saved to fight another day?
Don't wear Ben Sherman, classics or drink very much. What I said was absolutely true. I didn't say anything about letting a guy be a punchbag. I stated that I feel that fights are stopped to early in Britain by referees who I feel panic as soon as they see fighters get hurt. Not always of course. I myself can enjoy a pure boxing match as much as a toe tot toe affair. I just don't lose sight of what goes on between the ropes and what it's all about.
You may enjoy reading ancient boxing journalists talk about this fight or that in some kind of romantic way. But at the end of the day whether it's a boxer like Ray Leonard or a brawler like Roberto Duran delivering punches, it's all still pure brutality. That's part of the reason I love the sport. Combat fighters put there arses on the line like no other sportsmen.
Calzaghe v Manfredo is one, Lockett v Moneghan II is another.
If a guys is taking shots on the gloves and arms, as he's trained to do for 10-20 years. Why is Terry O'Conner jumping in like a Bull Seal in a waitors uniform after three landed.
I dont believe fighters should be allowed to take too many shots just in case they find a Thompson v Ropthman shotm but also true is, it is a tough sport, periods of being on the receiving end are inevitable in a balanced fight.
Perhaps the refs are too influence by card after card of no-risk match-making too, so the minute a fight breaks out they shit a brick.
Re: brutal knockouts and should have been stopped fights
Posted: 23 Mar 2009, 06:54
by metchampion
Curry V McCrory
Re: brutal knockouts and should have been stopped fights
Posted: 23 Mar 2009, 10:48
by bigjack
Larry Holmes vs Tex Cobb
Re: brutal knockouts and should have been stopped fights
Posted: 23 Mar 2009, 11:00
by Rocky Balboa
Although it was only the first round, I do think Holmes-Frazier should have been stopped a little sooner. Larry was even signalling to the ref to step in before he actually did!
Holmes had said before the fight that he didn't want to punish Marvis as they knew each other well but if he had to he would! Holmes showed compassion in there towards Marvis, who was way out of his league!
Re: brutal knockouts and should have been stopped fights
Posted: 23 Mar 2009, 12:59
by Matt W
One of the most brutal beatings I've ever seen was Golota-Bowe 2. Bowe took a helluva beating and should have been saved from his own bravery IMO, although the irony of course is that he won it.
Re: brutal knockouts and should have been stopped fights
Posted: 23 Mar 2009, 13:21
by Matt W
And Naseem Hamed should definitely not have been allowed to land the final devastating KO punch on Sergio Liendo, especially coming as it did the week after Benn-McLellan.
Re: brutal knockouts and should have been stopped fights
Posted: 23 Mar 2009, 14:29
by alexpaterson
Lacy against Calzaghe should of been stopped the last round Lacy was all over the place
Re: brutal knockouts and should have been stopped fights
Posted: 23 Mar 2009, 14:41
by junior pepa seed
alexpaterson wrote:Lacy against Calzaghe should of been stopped the last round Lacy was all over the place
Good call lacy has never go over that.
The pacman david diaz fight was hard for me too watch after the 5th round......diaz was outclassed and took some big shots. Was only ever gonna be one winner.
Re: brutal knockouts and should have been stopped fights
Posted: 23 Mar 2009, 16:55
by stujones
In a similar one to the Khan vs Prescott - McCory vs Curry
Re: brutal knockouts and should have been stopped fights
Posted: 23 Mar 2009, 17:08
by Dioufy
Khan/Prescott was a shocker. I would've give Khan a chance after that first KD, even when he was on Enzo Macc legs, but when O'Conner started to count after the second KD, I cringed. Awful refereeing, and Khan was lucky he didn't get hurt.
Re: brutal knockouts and should have been stopped fights
Posted: 23 Mar 2009, 17:59
by WildWaylon
Dioufy wrote:Khan/Prescott was a shocker. I would've give Khan a chance after that first KD, even when he was on Enzo Macc legs, but when O'Conner started to count after the second KD, I cringed. Awful refereeing, and Khan was lucky he didn't get hurt.
Khan is given a chance to come back, other fighters dont get that chance. The Khan/Barrera fight should have been stopped after the cut and declared a N/C but they let it continue so Khan would get the win. The refs seem afraid of the wrath of Fwank.
Re: brutal knockouts and should have been stopped fights
Posted: 24 Mar 2009, 02:44
by oliverfennell
Dioufy wrote:Khan/Prescott was a shocker. I would've give Khan a chance after that first KD, even when he was on Enzo Macc legs, but when O'Conner started to count after the second KD, I cringed. Awful refereeing, and Khan was lucky he didn't get hurt.
Is that the official new term?
Re: brutal knockouts and should have been stopped fights
Posted: 24 Mar 2009, 08:11
by Dioufy
oliverfennell wrote:Dioufy wrote:Khan/Prescott was a shocker. I would've give Khan a chance after that first KD, even when he was on Enzo Macc legs, but when O'Conner started to count after the second KD, I cringed. Awful refereeing, and Khan was lucky he didn't get hurt.
Is that the official new term?
It is for me, our kid. I just hate Enzo Macc, nice guy, but what a baby. Although, credit where it's due. He has improved his losing speech when he got spanked by Afolabi, but still, give Haye some freaking credit you mug.
And everytime Macca gets clips, his legs just go.
D