BoxRec

So was it good time to end the match or not?

it was obviously a bad stoppage

It was actually one of the worst stoppages I've ever seen.

Yeah terrible.

Ref looked like he’d decided to end it when he could fifteen seconds earlier when Joshua buzzed Takam.

Terrible stoppage. Takam was defending himself well, and had just won Round 9 in my view. He was still in the fight in spite of the lopsided scorecards, and considering he would've been the first to have gone the distance with Joshua if he in fact had been allowed to, it's pretty f*cked up.

gilgamesh wrote:Terrible stoppage. Takam was defending himself well, and had just won Round 9 in my view. He was still in the fight in spite of the lopsided scorecards, and considering he would've been the first to have gone the distance with Joshua if he in fact had been allowed to, it's pretty f*cked up.

That’s a stretch, he was stopped in the tenth. We have no idea he’d have made twelve.

Way too early for title fight

Covfefe wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:Terrible stoppage. Takam was defending himself well, and had just won Round 9 in my view. He was still in the fight in spite of the lopsided scorecards, and considering he would've been the first to have gone the distance with Joshua if he in fact had been allowed to, it's pretty f*cked up.

That’s a stretch, he was stopped in the tenth. We have no idea he’d have made twelve.

It was no guarantee, but I mean he was defending himself well, and clearly Joshua had slowed a little bit. I don't think it's all that difficulty to believe that Takam would've been able to at least stay on his feet for 2 more rounds. I don't think he would've won, but I think he could've remained standing the rest of the way.

Poor. Takam deserved better. Just puts people off coming to UK to fight if UK ref

gilgamesh wrote:

Covfefe wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:Terrible stoppage. Takam was defending himself well, and had just won Round 9 in my view. He was still in the fight in spite of the lopsided scorecards, and considering he would've been the first to have gone the distance with Joshua if he in fact had been allowed to, it's pretty f*cked up.

That’s a stretch, he was stopped in the tenth. We have no idea he’d have made twelve.

It was no guarantee, but I mean he was defending himself well, and clearly Joshua had slowed a little bit. I don't think it's all that difficulty to believe that Takam would've been able to at least stay on his feet for 2 more rounds. I don't think he would've won, but I think he could've remained standing the rest of the way.

Perhaps, obviously we’ll never know. Sadly.

He was moving in for the stoppage there at the end, I can’t understnad why he jumped in. What a shit show.

There was no reason to stop.

Funny that morons who voted for the good stoppage did that anonimously. There is no way one could validate that stoppage.

poll is funny because if u just read the thread title ur gonna probably vote yes it was early, but then with way actual poll is worded yes means you think it was fine stoppage

jamamb wrote:poll is funny because if u just read the thread title ur gonna probably vote yes it was early, but then with way actual poll is worded that mesns you think it was fine stoppage

Ha! Fair point.

I voted yes to the thread title, as I suspect many will too. Can’t imagine anyone would argue that stoooage was okay, which shows how bad it was.

jamamb wrote:poll is funny because if u just read the thread title ur gonna probably vote yes it was early, but then with way actual poll is worded yes means you think it was fine stoppage

I had to double check my vote because of this

The stoppage was premature.

Takam wasn't seriously hurt. He was being defensively responsible and successfully evading most of AJ's shots, returning fire and his head appeared clear.

I also can't agree with Sky Sports' narrative where they felt the stoppage win was inevitable anyway and the ref prevented harm to Takam.

I don't feel that Takam was "robbed" though, because he had little to no chance of winning, but AJ's 100% KO record should have been broken tonight.

Enlightened-One wrote:The stoppage was premature.

Takam wasn't seriously hurt. He was being defensively responsible and successfully evading most of AJ's shots, returning fire and his head appeared clear.

I also can't agree with Sky Sports' narrative where they felt the stoppage win was inevitable anyway and the ref prevented harm to Takam.

I don't feel that Takam was "robbed" though, because he had little to no chance of inning, but AJ's 100% KO record should have been broken tonight.

That wasn’t what the sky sports commentators said at all. They complained it was an early stoppage.

Covfefe wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:The stoppage was premature.

Takam wasn't seriously hurt. He was being defensively responsible and successfully evading most of AJ's shots, returning fire and his head appeared clear.

I also can't agree with Sky Sports' narrative where they felt the stoppage win was inevitable anyway and the ref prevented harm to Takam.

I don't feel that Takam was "robbed" though, because he had little to no chance of inning, but AJ's 100% KO record should have been broken tonight.

That wasn’t what the sky sports commentators said at all. They complained it was an early stoppage.

Johnny Nelson said the stoppage was premature, but then downplayed it by saying that the outcome was inevitable and that AJ was deprived a decisive KO.

Tony Bellew and Matthew Macklin both laboured over the latter far more than the former.

The Sky Sports commentary team put a positive spin on things.

Enlightened-One wrote:

Covfefe wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:The stoppage was premature.

Takam wasn't seriously hurt. He was being defensively responsible and successfully evading most of AJ's shots, returning fire and his head appeared clear.

I also can't agree with Sky Sports' narrative where they felt the stoppage win was inevitable anyway and the ref prevented harm to Takam.

I don't feel that Takam was "robbed" though, because he had little to no chance of inning, but AJ's 100% KO record should have been broken tonight.

That wasn’t what the sky sports commentators said at all. They complained it was an early stoppage.

Johnny Nelson said the stoppage was premature, but then downplayed it by saying that the outcome was inevitable and that AJ was deprived a decisive KO.

Joshua was deprived of the chance of a decisive KO. That’s a fair comment. The result is never inevitable but he was likely to win. Nelson, was also one of six commentators on the fight.

Covfefe wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:

Covfefe wrote:
That wasn’t what the sky sports commentators said at all. They complained it was an early stoppage.

Johnny Nelson said the stoppage was premature, but then downplayed it by saying that the outcome was inevitable and that AJ was deprived a decisive KO.

Joshua was deprived of the chance of a decisive KO. That’s a fair comment. The result is never inevitable but he was likely to win. Nelson, was also one of six commentators on the fight.

We disagree and that's fine.

Sky Sports focused on a narrative that trivialised the premature stoppage by focussing on Takam's bravery and Joshua's "solid" performance.

Sky Sports was selling the idea to their viewers that Takam would have been stopped anyway, whilst conveniently refraining from dwelling on the referees actions.

Enlightened-One wrote:

Covfefe wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote: Johnny Nelson said the stoppage was premature, but then downplayed it by saying that the outcome was inevitable and that AJ was deprived a decisive KO.

Joshua was deprived of the chance of a decisive KO. That’s a fair comment. The result is never inevitable but he was likely to win. Nelson, was also one of six commentators on the fight.

We disagree and that's fine.

Sky Sports focused on a narrative that trivialised the premature stoppage by focussing on Takam's bravery and Joshua's "solid" performance.

Sky Sports was selling the idea to their viewers that Takam would have been stopped anyway, whilst conveniently refraining from dwelling on the referees actions.

No they didn’t. You’re telling lies.

Covfefe wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:

Covfefe wrote:
Joshua was deprived of the chance of a decisive KO. That’s a fair comment. The result is never inevitable but he was likely to win. Nelson, was also one of six commentators on the fight.

We disagree and that's fine.

Sky Sports focused on a narrative that trivialised the premature stoppage by focussing on Takam's bravery and Joshua's "solid" performance.

Sky Sports was selling the idea to their viewers that Takam would have been stopped anyway, whilst conveniently refraining from dwelling on the referees actions.

No they didn’t. You’re telling lies.

I'm not lying. They weren't outraged about the premature stoppage like the forum is.

Enlightened-One wrote:

Covfefe wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote: We disagree and that's fine.

Sky Sports focused on a narrative that trivialised the premature stoppage by focussing on Takam's bravery and Joshua's "solid" performance.

Sky Sports was selling the idea to their viewers that Takam would have been stopped anyway, whilst conveniently refraining from dwelling on the referees actions.

No they didn’t. You’re telling lies.

I'm not lying. They weren't outraged about the premature stoppage like the forum is.

Four of them all said it was premature. Outraged, no, but they said it. And didn’t offer the opinion Joshua was going to ko him anyway. They were sure he’d go on to win.

Covfefe wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:

Covfefe wrote:
No they didn’t. You’re telling lies.

I'm not lying. They weren't outraged about the premature stoppage like the forum is.

Four of them all said it was premature. Outraged, no, but they said it. And didn’t offer the opinion Joshua was going to ko him anyway. They were sure he’d go on to win.

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.

Enlightened-One wrote:

Covfefe wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote: I'm not lying. They weren't outraged about the premature stoppage like the forum is.

Four of them all said it was premature. Outraged, no, but they said it. And didn’t offer the opinion Joshua was going to ko him anyway. They were sure he’d go on to win.

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.

Covfefe wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:

Covfefe wrote:
Four of them all said it was premature. Outraged, no, but they said it. And didn’t offer the opinion Joshua was going to ko him anyway. They were sure he’d go on to win.

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, which is precisely what I've constantly said.