BoxRec

If he were in a fight when the opponent did to him what he did to RJ last night?

Remember. WBA 'eliminator'.

Kells at home.
Kells Promoter.
Kells never hurt.

Would the fight have been stopped?


Yes or no is enough.

Good poll.

Not in a million years.

The one vote for YES must be Howard Foster.

Speed997 wrote:The one vote for YES must be Howard Foster.

Howard Foster wrote:

Speed997 wrote:The one vote for YES must be Howard Foster.

I knew it!

Emphatically not.

Ditto

Calzaghe-Mitchell
Calzaghe-Manfredo
Fury-Firtha
DeGale-Dilks
Audley-Bonin
Khan-Barrera (that took the bleeding biscuit)

And that's off the top of my head. It's futile to claim a British ring is anything other than crooked in this regard.

Speed997 wrote:

Howard Foster wrote:

Speed997 wrote:The one vote for YES must be Howard Foster.

I knew it!

Can't comment on the early rounds as I missed them, but no. Of course not. The same as an away fighter wont win a close decision in England any time soon.

It was a poor stoppage. The other guy was not taking a heavy beating at any stage. he was clearly losing, but he is a fighter and whilst he was still in there and not getting badly hurt, why stop it?

There is far too much of it in British rings these days. Khan - Prescott isa good example of how it is one rule for some and a different rule for others.

The point is that Howard Foster was the man in the ring, the one who had to take responsibility for the decision and he came to the honest conclusion that RJ had taken enough. There is no point insinuating that this was a home-town stoppage to manufacture a win for the home fighter - Kell was inevitably going to win. If the fight had continued i can honestly say that i believe Kell would have done him severe damage. This way, RJ lives to fight another day and can continue to make a good living.

And not eat food through a straw.

danfoster wrote:The point is that Howard Foster was the man in the ring, the one who had to take responsibility for the decision and he came to the honest conclusion that RJ had taken enough. There is no point insinuating that this was a home-town stoppage to manufacture a win for the home fighter - Kell was inevitably going to win. If the fight had continued i can honestly say that i believe Kell would have done him severe damage. This way, RJ lives to fight another day and can continue to make a good living.

And not eat food through a straw.

No one said that, they were asking if the home fighter would be stopped in the same situation. Can you think of any examples?

Scottrf wrote: , they were asking if the home fighter would be stopped in the same situation. Can you think of any examples?

he will have a hard job

Scottrf wrote:

danfoster wrote:The point is that Howard Foster was the man in the ring, the one who had to take responsibility for the decision and he came to the honest conclusion that RJ had taken enough. There is no point insinuating that this was a home-town stoppage to manufacture a win for the home fighter - Kell was inevitably going to win. If the fight had continued i can honestly say that i believe Kell would have done him severe damage. This way, RJ lives to fight another day and can continue to make a good living.

And not eat food through a straw.

No one said that, they were asking if the home fighter would be stopped in the same situation. Can you think of any examples?

No, I cant. But i just think it's a bit 'so-what' in this case. It wasn't a dodgy stoppage where the ref did the home fighter a favour. It was a compassionate stoppage. So i don't really know what the issue is.

It seems to me that the argument against the stoppage is 'I would have liked to have seen Kell Brook separate the RJ from his senses and do him real damage. Howard Foster deprived me of that pleasure. This is not fair.'

danfoster wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

danfoster wrote:The point is that Howard Foster was the man in the ring, the one who had to take responsibility for the decision and he came to the honest conclusion that RJ had taken enough. There is no point insinuating that this was a home-town stoppage to manufacture a win for the home fighter - Kell was inevitably going to win. If the fight had continued i can honestly say that i believe Kell would have done him severe damage. This way, RJ lives to fight another day and can continue to make a good living.

And not eat food through a straw.

No one said that, they were asking if the home fighter would be stopped in the same situation. Can you think of any examples?

No, I cant. But i just think it's a bit 'so-what' in this case. It wasn't a dodgy stoppage where the ref did the home fighter a favour. It was a compassionate stoppage. So i don't really know what the issue is.

It seems to me that the argument against the stoppage is 'I would have liked to have seen Kell Brook separate the RJ from his senses and do him real damage. Howard Foster deprived me of that pleasure. This is not fair.'

You're almost at the point then of stopping a fight when a boxer goes behind on the cards. Have you never seen a fight turn around - who is to say this couldn’t have?

Nothing to do with being bloodthirsty, referees should be consistent.

This type of poor referring should stop ...lets be fair the that stoppage in the brook fight was BS ...first two punches Kell caught him with the ref jumped in and stopped it,i mean it wasn't like the guys was even being hurt ...it was like ref couldn't wait to stop it ..its this type of home grown BS that hurting boxing!
As Steve Bunce has said on occasion Paying fans dont wanna see that type of stoppage where its clear the other guy ent hurt or been hurt and is ready and willing to fight on..why stop it ?? give the man half a chance !
Whether in boxing or the UFC if this sort of BS refereeing was happening stateside as much as it happens here then no one would be watching .

o

o