BoxRec

Speed997 wrote:THIS WAS NOT A JOURNEYMAN OPPONENT!

KELL DID WELL BUT IT WAS A NBAD STOPPAGE.

WAS FELIX TRINIDAD PULLED UT AGAINST WINKY WRIGHT? HE LOST EVERY DAMN ROUND!

Agreed absolute crap decision by the Ref.

RJ's plan was to soak up the pressure for the first 6 rounds and then start coming on strong the second half of the fight when Kell's workrate started to drop. RJ wasn't hurt at all or wanting to to quit so what right did the Ref have of stopping the fight and not giving him a chance to execute his plan later on in the fight.

If Kell ever gets in with a Top 10 Welterweight he'll get beaten, it's easy looking very good when you're facing a fringe contender like RJ who wasn't even a Top 30 welterweight so let's put that performance into perspective.

crusader wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Old bones Ian wrote: No, but Jackiewicz is a proven euro level fighter, so to stop him without the guy wobbling isn't correct.

If someone is shipping unanswered punches (yes he blocked some, but didn't return any) then the ref is right to stop it.

If someone is blocking most of those punches and is not hurt then a stoppage is not warranted.

I'm the odd one out, but I think it was completely one-sided and the other guy was being dominated. We're in the boxing business, not the brain damage business.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

crusader wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote: If someone is shipping unanswered punches (yes he blocked some, but didn't return any) then the ref is right to stop it.

If someone is blocking most of those punches and is not hurt then a stoppage is not warranted.

I'm the odd one out, but I think it was completely one-sided and the other guy was being dominated. We're in the boxing business, not the brain damage business.

RJ was being dominated because his work rate wasn't high enough and most of the punches he did throw were off target. He wasn't being battered around the ring, he wasn't taking flush shot after flush shot, and he was not hurt in any way. I don't think that fights should be stopped simply because one fighter is many rounds ahead.

crusader wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

crusader wrote: If someone is blocking most of those punches and is not hurt then a stoppage is not warranted.

I'm the odd one out, but I think it was completely one-sided and the other guy was being dominated. We're in the boxing business, not the brain damage business.

RJ was being dominated because his work rate wasn't high enough and most of the punches he did throw were off target. He wasn't being battered around the ring, he wasn't taking flush shot after flush shot, and he was not hurt in any way. I don't think that fights should be stopped simply because one fighter is many rounds ahead.

I hear what your saying, but I think if fights are so one-sided, then they should be.

Now thats a stoppage i like. Anderson looks to be back to a good shape, he did what Jeffries and Fielding couldn't do

Brook has looked good in his last couple of bouts but I'd love to see him in with somebody who hits back next time. A fight with Berto would be tasty.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

crusader wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote: I'm the odd one out, but I think it was completely one-sided and the other guy was being dominated. We're in the boxing business, not the brain damage business.

RJ was being dominated because his work rate wasn't high enough and most of the punches he did throw were off target. He wasn't being battered around the ring, he wasn't taking flush shot after flush shot, and he was not hurt in any way. I don't think that fights should be stopped simply because one fighter is many rounds ahead.

I hear what your saying, but I think if fights are so one-sided, then they should be.

Fair enough. I don't think a fight should be stopped unless it's clear that a fighter is in serious trouble.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

crusader wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote: I'm the odd one out, but I think it was completely one-sided and the other guy was being dominated. We're in the boxing business, not the brain damage business.

RJ was being dominated because his work rate wasn't high enough and most of the punches he did throw were off target. He wasn't being battered around the ring, he wasn't taking flush shot after flush shot, and he was not hurt in any way. I don't think that fights should be stopped simply because one fighter is many rounds ahead.

I hear what your saying, but I think if fights are so one-sided, then they should be.

BY THAT CRITERIA

RJJ SHOULD BE KO JAMES TONEY
WINKY WRIGHT KO TRINDIDAD
MAYWEATHER SHOULD HAVE EVEN MORE KOs
KHAN KO KOTELNIK.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

crusader wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote: If someone is shipping unanswered punches (yes he blocked some, but didn't return any) then the ref is right to stop it.

If someone is blocking most of those punches and is not hurt then a stoppage is not warranted.

I'm the odd one out, but I think it was completely one-sided and the other guy was being dominated. We're in the boxing business, not the brain damage business.

None of us want damage to a boxer, but we all celebrate a one punch spectacular KO, so lets not all get on our high horses over this. It was an early stoppage,

Old bones Ian wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

crusader wrote: If someone is blocking most of those punches and is not hurt then a stoppage is not warranted.

I'm the odd one out, but I think it was completely one-sided and the other guy was being dominated. We're in the boxing business, not the brain damage business.

None of us want damage to a boxer, but we all celebrate a one punch spectacular KO, so lets not all get on our high horses over this. It was an early stoppage,

A one punch KO can do a lot less damage than a sustained beating.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Old bones Ian wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote: I'm the odd one out, but I think it was completely one-sided and the other guy was being dominated. We're in the boxing business, not the brain damage business.

None of us want damage to a boxer, but we all celebrate a one punch spectacular KO, so lets not all get on our high horses over this. It was an early stoppage,

A one punch KO can do a lot less damage than a sustained beating.

maybe. but my point was its boxing, and the point is to stop your opponent being completly competitive, and Jackiewicz was still within his abilities , so early stoppage

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Old bones Ian wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote: I'm the odd one out, but I think it was completely one-sided and the other guy was being dominated. We're in the boxing business, not the brain damage business.

None of us want damage to a boxer, but we all celebrate a one punch spectacular KO, so lets not all get on our high horses over this. It was an early stoppage,

A one punch KO can do a lot less damage than a sustained beating.

Well I guess the term sustained beating is open to interpretation but i don't think that's was was occurring. RJ was having trouble with Brooks movement and getting beaten to the punch but a beating it was not. Nobody wants to see a fighter seriously hurt but taking punches is part of the sport.

Edit: Just to clarify I don't think RJ was competitive, just that he was getting outboxed rather than taking a beating.

He was taking a beating and lost heart after 3 rounds and at the level he has operated at he should have had more to give.Kell would have caused RJ serious damage if that fight had been allowed to continue.

Keith I agree he was taking a beating how much linger was beneficial for him to continue! Kell did very well!

SexySouthPaw wrote:He was taking a beating and lost heart after 3 rounds and at the level he has operated at he should have had more to give.Kell would have caused RJ serious damage if that fight had been allowed to continue.

With all those punches that were being blocked and not hurting RJ in the slightest? RJ was clearly being outboxed and outfought, but this was far from a 'beating'.

crusader wrote:

SexySouthPaw wrote:He was taking a beating and lost heart after 3 rounds and at the level he has operated at he should have had more to give.Kell would have caused RJ serious damage if that fight had been allowed to continue.

With all those punches that were being blocked and not hurting RJ in the slightest? RJ was clearly being outboxed and outfought, but this was far from a 'beating'.

He was taking a beating one sided punchbag all though a top 7 fighter according to the ring ! So maybe it went few more rounds only one winner though! Shame kell never got this push few years ago!

leforge wrote:

crusader wrote:

SexySouthPaw wrote:He was taking a beating and lost heart after 3 rounds and at the level he has operated at he should have had more to give.Kell would have caused RJ serious damage if that fight had been allowed to continue.

With all those punches that were being blocked and not hurting RJ in the slightest? RJ was clearly being outboxed and outfought, but this was far from a 'beating'.

He was taking a beating one sided punchbag all though a top 7 fighter according to the ring ! So maybe it went few more rounds only one winner though! Shame kell never got this push few years ago!

Brook was definitely in control throughout the duration of the contest, but RJ was effectively defending himself and clearly not hurt at any time, and bouts should not be stopped simply because one fighter is several rounds in front and showing no signs of slowing down. If RJ had been unable to defend himself or if he had evinced signs that he was in trouble, such as buckled legs or endless holding, then my interpretation of the bout would be congenial with your suggestion that a harmful beating was being inflicted .

exittored wrote:
RJ's plan was to soak up the pressure for the first 6 rounds and then start coming on strong the second half of the fight

Was it? Where has he said this? Or do you have some inside info?

I always worry when a boxer's plan is to do f*ck all other than getting hit until the other chap suddenly implodes.

Livingstone Cole wrote:it must have been embarrassing when they announced that Jackawiecz 'was in no condition to continue.'
Well if standing up clear headed, not hurt, defending yourself and adamant that you want to continue constitutes '... no condition to continue' we can get quite a few lads to continue moosive unbeaten KO streaks.

It's embarrassing. We're worse than the Italians ever were.

Dear me. For a start, they're supposed to announce 'in the opinion of referee x' which is exactly what it was. If all that is happening is that you're getting punched and not landing a glove in return, maybe it's wise not to go on.

The only thing I'd fault the ref for is if he didn't (not that he has to and he might have anyway) go up to the corner and tell them that if the Pole didn't put up more of a challenge, he was going to stop him.

He did f*ck all but plod and throw the odd hopeful combo to look like he was still competitive, journeyman style, and was shipping an increasing amount of punishment. It was only going one way and he was saved from taking another 50 flush punches - which he would have done happily and his corner would have let him.

But, I do understand the view that he should have been allowed to continue...it was only going to get worse for him though, IMO.

I thought Brook looked impressive tonight.

I would step him up after this, Mike Jones etc etc

The stoppage was a bad one to be honest.

We do stop fights too early over here

Agreed - I think you're right on the latter point.

If you had to choose one outcome, which would you prefer though?

A possibly career-ending, sustained Calzaghe type beating of Lacy? Or last night's scenario where a completely outclassed and overmatched, durable opponent is pulled out half way through?

(Ideally, both fights maybe should have been stopped in the ninth )

The sad thing is, I think the majority of people would choose the former every time.

Brook needs to move on to the world level now. Now is the time.

It was an early stoppage but it was in no way controversial, if that makes sense.

I'd much prefer a ref to be criticised for pulling a fighter out too early than too late, so erring on the cautious side in this case was reasonable. RJ wasn't taking a sustained beating, but he was shipping more and more shots and Brook was starting to tee off with heavy shots from multiple angles. Most were taken on the gloves, but a fair few were getting through and RJ was not responding with anything worthwhile.

If the only argument for the fight being allowed to continue is the stopped mans pride, then I'll side with the refs concern for the stopped mans health every time.

It's probably also worth mentioning that we were watching from ringside or on TV, Foster was up close and personal - he saw what damage was being done and what response RJ was providing - he was in a better position to judge than us bloodlust fiends at the sidelines baying for a man to be beaten to the point where he is unable to make a decision for himself. Or maybe I'm just a bleeding heart liberal who'd prefer to see all boxing banned and replaced by a nice game of Backgammon!

Kid Galahad looked good on the undercard, picked his shots nicely and had real variation in his work! Ancliff is as game as possible! But he was getting picked off when he went on the offensive but Galahad's movement and combinations were superb. Has really improved since I seen him on ITV

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.