Page 1 of 1
The problem of premature stoppages - poll
Posted: 13 Nov 2011, 13:26
by dewipowell
After seeing a few premature stoppages again this weekend I couldn't stop wondering how bad the problem is...
Re: The problem of premature stoppages - poll
Posted: 13 Nov 2011, 13:38
by funso banjo baby
its a tricky one. Pajkic was flapping about against Fury and couldnt seem to stand up properly under the attacks....but it was maybe a tad too early. the only solution would be to let him flap around until he gets knocked out cold....but it would be very scrappy to watch
id like a rematch...it was a very exciting fight
Re: The problem of premature stoppages - poll
Posted: 13 Nov 2011, 14:36
by loaded_gloves
Livingstone Cole wrote:The problem isn't too early Vs too late, the problem is that the early ones always seem to be in favour of the home fighter.
Exactly.
And the commentators always pull out the 'better safe than sorry' cliche but were a ref to stop it prematurely in favour of the away fighter then it's an outrage.
I despise British referees with a passion, our country is every bit as corrupt as Germany, Italy et al for favouring the locals in boxing.
Re: The problem of premature stoppages - poll
Posted: 13 Nov 2011, 16:26
by Finn
bellew v mckenzie I stoppage was a really bad call imo.
Withe the fury fight last night i think tyson was spot on at the end of the fight - he would have liked it to have carried on a bit longer, but in reality the next punch would have likely dropped the guy anyway and the ref is there to protect the fighter. He hadnt recovered from the first KD and was all over the shop.
Re: The problem of premature stoppages - poll
Posted: 13 Nov 2011, 19:22
by roy
MachoMan09 wrote:The Eubank Jr. one was actually far worse than Fury one. Eubank's opponent was blocking pretty much everything and would've sailed through the six rounds and been able to fight again next week or the week after. He was never going to win but he was never going to get knocked out either. He'll now be out of action for a month, which is effectively taking bread out of his mouth. The Bosnian who fought Fury was not going to be fighting again in the next month regardless of the outcome, plus he was genuinely knocked down (twice) and shook up.
Disagree. Asyou say, Eubank's opponent had no chance of winning- Fury's opponent had a small chance based on what had gone before. No sane person wants to see any boxer seriously injured but premature stoppages spoil the entertainment. Disenchanted fans equals less interest and less chance for boxers to earn.
Re: The problem of premature stoppages - poll
Posted: 13 Nov 2011, 20:46
by gobbles
MachoMan09 wrote:The Eubank Jr. one was actually far worse than Fury one. Eubank's opponent was blocking pretty much everything and would've sailed through the six rounds and been able to fight again next week or the week after. He was never going to win but he was never going to get knocked out either. He'll now be out of action for a month, which is effectively taking bread out of his mouth. The Bosnian who fought Fury was not going to be fighting again in the next month regardless of the outcome, plus he was genuinely knocked down (twice) and shook up.
Disagree. The Eubank fight was not competitive. I was always told a fight should be stopped if one boxer has lost any reasonable chance of winning.
Re: The problem of premature stoppages - poll
Posted: 13 Nov 2011, 22:22
by dewipowell
gobbles wrote:MachoMan09 wrote:The Eubank Jr. one was actually far worse than Fury one. Eubank's opponent was blocking pretty much everything and would've sailed through the six rounds and been able to fight again next week or the week after. He was never going to win but he was never going to get knocked out either. He'll now be out of action for a month, which is effectively taking bread out of his mouth. The Bosnian who fought Fury was not going to be fighting again in the next month regardless of the outcome, plus he was genuinely knocked down (twice) and shook up.
Disagree. The Eubank fight was not competitive. I was always told a fight should be stopped if one boxer has lost any reasonable chance of winning.
A lot of fights should be stopped before they're started then..
Ironically, I think Eubank Jr would have benefited by the ref not stopping the fight when he did. If he would have gone the last 2 rounds (albeit at a very un-tense pace) and it would have been a yard stick to evaluate his engine.
Re: The problem of premature stoppages - poll
Posted: 14 Nov 2011, 01:27
by Khaosai-Galaxy
dewipowell wrote:After seeing a few premature stoppages again this weekend I couldn't stop wondering how bad the problem is...
Yeah, boxing needs more traumatic brain injuries, that will get the punters back in!
Re: The problem of premature stoppages - poll
Posted: 14 Nov 2011, 09:07
by dewipowell
Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:dewipowell wrote:After seeing a few premature stoppages again this weekend I couldn't stop wondering how bad the problem is...
Yeah, boxing needs more traumatic brain injuries, that will get the punters back in!
You really think that's my point? The vote is pretty 50/50 right now so it's obviously an issue that people feel needs addressing.